Tell me why supernatural explanations of phenomena should be considered.

That's why peer review is the last step of the scientific method. Indeed, your entire results could simply be your hallucination. But generally, hallucinations aren't shared between independant observers. In fact, that's one of the greatest evidences that the supernatural doesn't actually exist - no one can seem to agree on what actually is supernatural, or what supernatural things exist. Everybody's experience of the supernatural is unique; that's proof that, in all likelyhood, they're experiencing hallucinations or the like instead of something real. "Evidence" for the "potential", but not "proof". Sounds like you have nothing at all, then. Sure. Your example individuals are simply much less intelligent and discerning than you give them credit for.

Why on Earth would that be the case? You're telling me that, just because anyone can be wrong sometimes, everyone always is? That doesn't make any sense. This is nonsense.

Have you read back to where this sub-plot started? Crashs assertion that peoples minds can deceive them so that what they know(as opposed to feel) is not in fact true?Sciences objective observations are simply the sum of a large number of subjective observations. The thinking seems to be that if a large number of subjective observations agree then something objective is being observed. Now, if Crash is right, why should adding the observations of many deceived minds together result in arrival at an objective? Which undeceived mind decided this (afterall we can hardly be expected to trust the ramblings of deceived minds if it was indeed deceived minds who decided on this)I don't agree with Crash but that is where his logic seems to lead. I think there is such a thing as objective but all objective shows is that a very large number of people are individually able to know something which is objectively true.So what do we do with the large number of people who agree that there is a supernatural realm. Does their agreement make it an objective (as opposed to scientific) reality?

You can talk to extremely large numbers of Christian for example, who can describe in great detail what it is to experience God in their lives. Their individual reports are purely subjective - just like the individual observations which go to make up objective science. Their testimonies will be strikingly similar if not all identical (a bit like the scatter you get in 'scientific' observation). You no doubt hold that some form of mass deceit is causing this. Mass deceit is now possible.What tool does science employ to prevent against mass deceit? What steps would one take to be cautious of deceit if comparison against a mass of observations was excluded - on the basis that mass deceit is possible?

You are wrong to say that the objective observatiosn prefered by science are simply the sum of subjective observations. N-Rays relied on observations that were subjective - but the objective fact of removing the prism, without the knowledge of the other experimenters showed that the observations were only subjective and derived form expectation.THe N-Ray story shows that intelligent, well educated observers can be very badly mistaken. And that science can overcome this problem.i

I read the story and we have a subjective situation. They remove the prism and according to their subjective view all the scientists could still see the N-rays. The scientists observing were looking to see what the wanted to see - but the folk removing the prism (having had some motivation to do so) somehow weren't subject to this self same tendency. How do you figure this?Your deciding that the subjective testimonies of a couple of people can form an objective truth. Yet when 500,000,000 Christians tell you that they know the living God and give remarkably similar testimonies, Crash (and possibly you) shout "proof!"So you set up and experiment yourself and find that removing the prism still results in N-rays. You now have another subjective observation to add to theirs.This example shows us, you say, how people can be subjective. Fair enough. I can't argue with that. Could you point to an example of an objective piece of science that isn't the result of this. I suspect that every example you use will be built from two componants: individual subjective observation and the sum of a large number of subjectives (forming foundational "objectives" on which the individual subjective elements are laid)This message has been edited by iano, 21-Jan-2006 12:01 AM

You completely misubderstand the issue. What the people who were skeptical of N-Rays saw is not important. THe point is that the objective fact of the prism's removal SHOULD have changed the perceptions of the people who beleived in N-Rays - if N-Rays were real. That it did not, when they beleived the prism to be there shows that they were wrong and that what they were "seeing" was purely subjective.So you are wrong when ou say that I treat subjective testimonies as objective facts.But even if you were right I would be inconsistent if I gave any special credence to Christian testimonies. If I really took the view you wrongly ascribe to me I would have to accept the testimonies of all religions. SO really you don't want that you want me to give special credence to views you like.As for your assertion that science doesn't use objective observations I have to laugh. Unless you are prepared to accept that the presence or absence of the prism in the N-Ray experiment can be objectively known there is really no point in arguing with you.

Yet, a lot of their 'experiances' are going to be shapped by their cultural expectations. That is why people in other cultures, who experiance similar experiances, describe the experiances in relationship to their religion/culture.

I have. None of them agree on what the experience was like.When I open a beetle colony at work, and count the adults inside, everybody who's counting along with me can agree that, yes, these are beetles, and there's about 40 of them in the box. Repeatability. That's what science has, and what your experiences of the supernatural never seems to have. In fact, the exact opposite is the case - as evidenced by the thousands of Christian splinter sects. There's as many different kinds of Christian as there are Christians. Nobody can seem to agree on what it means to "experience God" or to be a part of the faith, and so naturally, the churches fragment. No, just "magic thinking." A well-noted tendancy in our society to reject rational inquiry into the natural world in favor of feelings and intuition. Not everybody bothers to be intelligent and rational, or to hold conclusions based on the evidence. In fact a fair number of people hold conclusions simply because there is no evidence, or the evidence indicates the opposite - it's the "things are not what they seem" kind of thinking. The obviousness of a position is evidence against that position, under that mode of thinking. Repeatability, as I've explained.

quote:

---

considering your interest in theology and in fact your rather jaundiced view of the human condition, which is where I also started before becoming a believer.

---

That's very interesting.One becomes jaundiced and disappointed in the human condition, and then turns to religion to feel better about it.It does seem to me though, Faith, that you haven't lost any of your jaundiced feelings for the human condition.

quote:

---

To me, the event was much more intense.

---

Why does the memory of the intensity of your perceptions matter to it's reality?