Supernaturalism: Does It Work?

quote:

---

Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that's simply what the word "supernatural" means.

---

Does that mean, by definition, that if you had a measurable,
repeatable effect it would no longer be supernatural?I.e. science cannot find the supernatural because as soon as
it finds something it is no longer supernatural.

What I was meaning was:If you had an effect that was considered supernatural,
and discovered an underlying mechanism that was measurable
etc. but did not fit with any current theory of the way
things work -- would it automatically become 'natural'
(i.e. drop the 'super')?I agree, that from a creationist PoV it's just a not so subtle
way of side-stepping problems with the YEC myth (or ID myth
for that matter).Of your choices I'd say that (2) would only indicate bias if
there were poeple actively avoiding investigating supposed
supernatural 'observations'. That's not the case otherwise
you wouldn't have the term 'paranormal investigator'.
There are undoubtedly some nuts about, but there are reasonable
people who look at supposedly supernatural/paranormal things
critically ... if there's something behind it it will eventually
be found.(1) would mean it cannot be found, so it's meaningless in any
context apart from that of religous faith.

quote:

---

I have often argued precisely that. Science is about finding out how the world works. If 'how it works' were to include occasional violations of (what seem otherwise to be inviolable) laws of nature -- ie 'supernatural' events -- then science would have to take that into account. Our view of, and explanation for, the world would be incomplete if we didn't.

---

It might just mean that we've got it wrong/incomplete though.