|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
25th February 2017, 08:01 AM | #1 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 506
|
If science proved a supernatural phenomenon to exist, would that make it "natural"?
The article Testing the Supernatural deals with the question of whether "supernatural" is just a label for a phenomenon that we haven't been able to explain using our scientific understanding of the world:
Quote:
So if God exists and prayer worked with God using a divine willpower to enact His will, would that be "supernatural"? Maybe, tot he extent that the Lord would be a "supernatural" being. What if the human was given a divine ability like prophecy? Would that be "supernatural", or would the explanation for the phenomenon make it "natural"? |
25th February 2017, 08:17 AM | #2 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
How do you define supernatural? If it's acausal actions that just magically happen, then no, it's not natural.
If it has its own rules of causality that can be traced and understood, then it's natural, even if potentially a completely different kind of physics, so to speak. |
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
25th February 2017, 08:24 AM | #3 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 69,914
|
I have no problem with the idea that ghosts might turn out to be natural after all.
But no amount of pretended semantic confusion or imagined semantic loopholes will rehabilitate the current unphysical narrative for ghosts. |
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division. |
|
25th February 2017, 08:30 AM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
You need to explain yourself. If what you call "supernatural" can have any effect on the real world, then it can be detected, measured and tested. OTOH, if it has no effect on the real world it is of absolutely no consequence.
ETA: How many amputees have regrown limbs by means of prayer? |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
25th February 2017, 08:38 AM | #5 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
Ghost don't exit, as proven by the LHC:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...-a7598026.html But yes, anything currently considered supernatural would, if found to be scientifically explainable, by definition become natural. This has happened many times in the past: see thunderbolts or earthquakes. Or, as a famous philosopher said: "I mean what’s the use of us sitting up all night saying there may or may not be a god, if this machine comes along the next morning and gives you his telephone number? " |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
25th February 2017, 10:06 AM | #6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Trying to say praying for miracles is no different than the quantum wave function? That's a stretch.
|
25th February 2017, 10:17 AM | #7 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
Supernatural is like regular natural, except it's faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and can leap over logic in a single bound.
|
25th February 2017, 02:02 PM | #8 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
|
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
25th February 2017, 02:12 PM | #9 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
|
|
25th February 2017, 02:31 PM | #10 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
|
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
25th February 2017, 04:32 PM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
The Babbage quote springs to mind.
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
26th February 2017, 12:57 AM | #12 |
Self Employed
Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 46,649
|
"Supernatural" is a 100% meaningless term. It's just weaponized special pleading.
It's like saying 2+2=5 in "Supermathatics" or that Denmark is south of Egypt in "Supergeography" or you owe me 10 dollars in "Supereconomics." |
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong. |
|
26th February 2017, 02:32 AM | #13 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
Yes.
However, a large number of claims of supernatural phenomena directly contradict things that we know about the universe to a very high degree of certainty. The chance of those things actually being demonstrated and explained is extremely low, so the term "supernatural" is often used to refer to those claims. |
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
26th February 2017, 03:11 AM | #14 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
26th February 2017, 03:24 AM | #15 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
|
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
26th February 2017, 03:50 AM | #16 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 96,875
|
|
26th February 2017, 06:15 AM | #17 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
|
28th February 2017, 04:00 AM | #18 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
|
sceptics can never accept 'the paranormal'. The moment they accept it, the phenomenon will not be classified as 'paranormal' but as 'part of nature'. So, don't ever think that a sceptic will accept a paranormal event as paranormal.
|
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht) |
|
28th February 2017, 04:03 AM | #19 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
|
It totally depends on what you define as 'natural'.
The phenomena in quantum mechanics can be classified as paranormal (when there is the will to do it). When you define 'nature' as 'govern by laws', the probability nature of the phenomenon of quantum mechanics can be seen as 'supernatural'. It's all depending on our definitions of the concepts. |
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht) |
|
28th February 2017, 04:05 AM | #20 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
28th February 2017, 04:08 AM | #21 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
|
And...
The sceptics do not even have a clear concept of 'paranormal vs natural'. That's of course fundamental before you can even begin a reasonable discussion. |
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht) |
|
28th February 2017, 04:09 AM | #22 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 113,982
|
|
__________________
“If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago |
|
28th February 2017, 04:13 AM | #23 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,146
|
What 'and'? It's not very smart to be sceptic against the 'paranormal', when you do not have a clear concept or definition of 'the paranormal'.
|
__________________
'Where' is the image in the mind? What 'space' is the image in your mind in? Where is the dream? Where is your inner voice? It's not the same spacetime then where the electrical and chemical pulses are in the brain, causing this image or the dream. The image you see in your mind's eye is in a completely different dimension than where the chemistry in the brain is. (Maarten Vergucht) |
|
28th February 2017, 06:12 AM | #24 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
|
I can't find a definition of 'paranormal' in any dictionary that fits the one you use here.
For example, from the Oxford dictionary:
Quote:
Quote:
So, yes, you're absolutely right, it does all depend on our definitions of the concepts. If you write your own, that have no relation to the actual (i.e. commonly-accepted), then you can basically prove anything. Doesn't make you right though. |
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
28th February 2017, 09:39 AM | #25 |
Guest
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,627
|
It's the word 'paranormal' that lacks meaning, not 'natural'. Quantum mechanics is the best candidate for explaining observation and therefore arguably fits the description of 'natural' better than, or as well as, anything else. 'Paranormal', on the other hand, is a word applied to phenomena that either do not exist or are as yet unexplained, where such phenomena would be better described as 'not existing' or 'unexplained' respectively.
I see why someone might believe that, say, teleportation on a quantum scale equates to teleportation on a macro scale and since the latter has always been classed as 'paranormal', then so must the former be, but that's not correct. Such terms describing quantum events are just approximations. Quantum processes can only be described by mathematics. Particles do not teleport in the conventional sense, neither do they travel, neither do they even exist as we intuitively understand objects to exist. Linguistic descriptions are simply the best way for people, like me, who aren't quantum physicists to talk about quantum physics. |
28th February 2017, 01:00 PM | #26 |
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 14,588
|
|
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma. |
|
28th February 2017, 03:57 PM | #27 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
Whenever science gets a handle on a phenomenon that has been elusive that phenomenon gets classified, and named, and cataloged under the relative sub-discipline.
Thunder and lightning are no longer angry gods, and fall under meteorology. Vampires do not cause Tuberculosis, S.I.D.S, or other ailments. Those are now handled by doctors, and not vampire hunters. That kind of thing. |
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
28th February 2017, 04:26 PM | #28 |
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
|
In order to begin understanding the nature of a supernatural phenomenon one has to see it first.
|
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right? |
|
28th February 2017, 06:54 PM | #29 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,838
|
Alternative
|
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov |
|
28th February 2017, 10:05 PM | #30 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Apparently I live in two parallel universes because I recall this very subject already having a thread.
Deja vu |
1st March 2017, 12:19 AM | #31 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
|
__________________
So take that quantum equation and recalculate the wave by a factor of hoopty doo! The answer is not my problem, it's yours. Three Word Story Wisdom |
|
1st March 2017, 05:11 AM | #32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,963
|
If science can explain something, it is pretty much natural by definition.
Another axiom though is that a sufficiently advanced technology would appear to be magic (supernatural) to a person from the past. Maybe someday we will invent a technology that allows us to appear to cast spells like Harry Potter. Or simulate powers like ESP. In that case, these would still be natural rather than supernatural phenomena. |
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
2nd March 2017, 08:08 PM | #33 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 506
|
Yes, there is "evidence" for paranormal events.
A lady seeing her dead brother alive is "evidence", it's just not conclusive for skeptics. It looks like what happens is that phenomena gets classed as paranormal until there is enough evidence to prove it very strongly, and then the skeptics change to saying it existed all along and there was evidence for it. Example:
Quote:
So skeptics will hardly be caught saying "This is paranormal and real". They can only be caught saying that something is "paranormal and fake" and then later admitting that the same thing is "real", but then adding that it's natural. Same thing with cryptozoology. Hardcore skeptics will say big komodo dragons, small flying dragon-looking reptiles, and giant squid are fake nonsense hoax "cryptos" and that cryptos don't exist.... until they end up catching the cryptos. Then they say the dragons and giant squid are real, but keep on saying that cryptos are nonsense hoaxes. |
2nd March 2017, 08:10 PM | #34 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 506
|
|
3rd March 2017, 01:30 AM | #35 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
|
The two examples you give here are not the same.
Squid exist, so it is no stretch to assume that giant squid exist. Lizards exist, so the same follows. We have a mechanism, a foundation in reality, a means for these things to be possible, even plausible. The same is not true for ghosts. There is no plausible means or mechanism for this to be true. There is nothing, nothing at all, within commonly-accepted reality that gives any kind of credence to the possibility of ghosts. Indeed, science has now ruled that out completely. I think you are also misrepresenting the position of skeptics, at least this one. I have never claimed that ball lightning is a paranormal phenomenon. Neither have I claimed that giant squid are cryptozoological nonsense. The basic position of scientific skepticism is to ask for evidence. If the evidence is good, then the proposition is provisionally accepted. This can change, because scientific knowledge is always progressing, and pushing back the frontiers of ignorance. Your portrayal of skeptics as closed-minded scoffers, who never admit their mistakes, is, frankly, a strawman.I cannot bring to mind a single poster, on the skeptical side of the fence, on this forum who thinks like this. Believers in the paranormal, on the other hand, are a different kettle of fish. They refuse absolutely to accept any non-paranormal explanation for what they think they know or have encountered. They either refuse to present evidence, rely on anecdotes rather than facts (studies, experiments, heck even a video would do) or argue that the particular brand of paranormal they believe in is immune to testing ( because god/ Satan/ the spirits won't let themselves be tested, for example, or because negative results show the testees are lying). There are multiple examples of this behaviour on this forum. To return to your first example. A woman saying she has seen the ghost of her dead brother is evidence that she believes this to be so. It is not, in itself, evidence of the existence of ghosts, because we've only got her word that that is really what she saw. Human perception is fallible. We need something more than the subjective, unsupported say-so of one person. This is why skeptics will not accept that this shows ghosts are real. Not because the idea of survival of some kind after death scares us. Not because we are sour-faced, closed-minded, emotionless robots. No, because we want to know the truth, because we want to understand the universe we live in, in all its beauty and majesty, and the best way we have found so far of doing this is scientific skepticsm. |
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer |
|
3rd March 2017, 05:22 AM | #36 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 506
|
The point stands, even if the examples are not the same. Hardcore skeptics are not going to buy into extreme crypto-animals, plausible or not. They don't believe megalodon is still alive or that a giant Yeti is hiding in Tibet or a warm blooded plesiosaur visits Loch Ness, or that the Jersey Devil is real, or that a dinosaur lives in the Congo, etc, even if you were to agree there is "a means for these things to be possible" or "a foundation in reality".
Hardcore skeptics will say these things don't have a way for them to be plausible, because more people would be photographing them, or there isn't enough fish for megalodon to eat, an ape can't survive in winter, a plesiosaur can't take summer vacations unnoticed in Loch Ness or remain unseen. If we hadn't had physical examples of platupuses, I'm sure hardcore skeptics wouldn't believe in those things either, saying poison tipped feet and bill-mouths are not "plausible" for mammals, and that they have no "foundation in reality" Whether or not there is actually a plausible way for any of the crypto-animals to exist doesn't mean that the hardcore skeptics are going to believe in cryptozoology or agree that any of the cryptos have a plausible way of existing or have "a foundation in reality". Go back to 1800 and hardcore skeptics are going to say that sailor tales, like kraken taking down ships are not "a foundation in reality" and there is no plausible mechanism for a komodo dragon to survive the ice age when the large land reptiles died out, and that large reptiles don't toxic saliva to hunt large mammals. |
3rd March 2017, 05:33 AM | #37 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,070
|
I think you are confusing 'possible', 'plausible', and 'has no foundation in reality'.
They are not the same thing. |
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda |
|
3rd March 2017, 05:42 AM | #38 |
Muse
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 506
|
Ball lightning is also "unexplained" in its mechanisms.
Your logic is that if there is "no plausible means for it to be true", then any such phenomenon absolutely definitely cannot exist.
Quote:
Main representation I am making in this thread is that it seems to me that:
Quote:
The only possibility is that you will later admit that some things labeled "paranormal" turned out to be real, turned out to have foundation in reality, and that their mechanisms came to be explained or came to be seen by you as plausible. You are not admitting that paranormal ghosts or inter-dimensional spirit beings are real. The only possibility conceivable within the skeptics' framework is that somehow ghosts could turn out to be real, have foundation in reality, etc., whereupon you "admit your mistake" as you call it, that there was no foundation in reality.
Quote:
In the polls, the skeptics are voting that
Quote:
Electromagnetism, precise time measurement by the mind, precognition/premonitions, extreme animal navigation, and the placebo effect. |
3rd March 2017, 06:11 AM | #39 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
I think we need to draw a distinction between "black swan" type phenomena which are not clearly impossible but haven't been convincingly shown to exist and "magical" phenomena which, in the way they are described, appear to contradict bits of reality we are already pretty confident about.
|
3rd March 2017, 06:16 AM | #40 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
Nothing is both paranormal and real. That's just a matter of definitions.
Yes, if something labeled 'paranormal' turns out to be real then the initial label was an error. When considering "the only possibility", don't omit the possibility that nothing currently labelled 'paranormal' will turn out to be real. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|