Summations Only

Well, because the thing you are studying is supernatural, regardless of whether you know that or not.Just like if you dig up a dinosaur bone and start noting its length and shape, even before you know what it is you're studying, you're still studying a dinosaur bone.

But those are two different things.You can study a small man wearing green that has a pot of gold.But you made a claim that you put a supernatural leprechaun on a scale and measured its weight.I am asking you how you know you put a supernatural leprechaun on the scale?

Dictionary.com for one.supernatural  
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal. Of course, but that thing wouldn't actually exist.For example, it's possible that my pet invisible dragon who farts unicorn is supernatural.He just isn't _real_. You are contradicting yourself.If a being exactly matching Thor "actually exists" then he is not supernatural by definition because... he _actually exists_.

Wow. You're not getting past the set-up of the example and the example itself. The person in the example has no idea what the thing is (or maybe s/he thnks it might be a leprechaun because of its small statute, green clothing, Irish accent, and ability to make gold appear, it really matters not), but regardless of what the experimenter knows or thinks or claims or concludes, the thing is, in fact, a leprechaun.When the researcher studies it, the researcher is studying a leprechaun. The leprechaun is supernatural. Therefore, regardless of what the researcher thinks, knows, claims or concludes, s/he is studying something supernatural.I'm not sure why you keep coming back to the claim. There is no claim. There is a subject, there is studying of the subject. In this example, the subject happens to be a supernatural leprechaun. It doesn't matter what I know. The thing is what it is, regardless of what I know, think, claim or conclude.

But you made the claim.Now with your artifact example you can bring in folk to examine it and they can determine that from what is seen it is or was a bone.But you are claiming that you put a supernatural leprechaun on the scale and I am asking, "How do you know that?"

A definition I wholeheartedly agree with. Where are you getting your connection between that which is beyond nature or unexplainable by natural law and that which cannot be real by definition?An omnipotent omniscient God qualifies as "beyond what is natural" or "unexplainable by natural law" doesn't it? Thus it is supernatural by definition.But as unlikely as the actual existence of such a thing may be I don't see how you can justifiably just define it out of existence by insisting it cannot be real because it qualifies as supernatural. You are conflating the definitions of "natural" and "real".Do you think "natural" is a synonym for "real"...? If not what do you think the difference is between the two terms?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I did not. I set up the example, and in doing so, I informed the reader of aspects that anyone actually in the example would be unaware of. Or in other words, I know it was a leprechaun because I'm the one making the example and I wanted a leprechaun to be in the example. Yes. People can come in, examine it independently. You may have them come to a consensus that the bone is from a Diplodicus. You may have some people say Diplodicus and others say Triceratops. But all of that has no bearing on the fact that it is actually the bone of a Brachiosaurus.You can study something without knowing what it is. Indeed, that is often the reason to study it in the first place. Ok. Subject A was put on a scale and the weight was taken.Do you need me to explain how I know it was a Subject A? Or can you accept that it was a Subject A because I told you it was in setting up the example. Do you need me to tell you how I know there was a scale available for the researcher to use, or can you accept that because I told you there was a scale in setting up the example?The object put on the scale is a leprechaun, regrtadless fo what I think, know, claim or conclude.IF leprechauns exist, and
IF someone happens to catch something that, unbeknownst to that person, is a leprechaun.
THEN someone can study the leprechaun, regardless of whether or not they know what it is.Does that make sense to you?

You continue making claims as in "The object put on the scale is a leprechaun, regardless of what I think, know, claim or conclude."How do you know it is a leprechaun?As long as what you put on the scale is "subject A" and you don't then make a claim that it is a leprechaun all is fine. You have shown no basis yet though for the assertion that it is a leprechaun.

It's like banging my head into a wall or talking to a rock. Do you understand the concept of setting up a hypothetical situation where things exist merely because you say they do iun order to see what comes from that premise?It's a thought experiment.I don't know there are leprechauns. Indeed, I'm fairly certain there aren't.Hypothetically, however, I can conceive of a scenario where leprechauns exist, one gets caught by someone who thinks, "Oh, I've never seen this type of creature before. I wonder what it weighs."They then weigh it and take down a measurement. They have just studied something. Now, if you refer back to the premise of this hypothetical situation. The thing is a leprechaun. No one knows that.So, the person studied something that, unbeknownst to anyone, was a leprechaun. So, unbeknownst to them, they have studied a leprechaun. So, unbeknownst to them, they have studied something supernatural.I'm having a hard time understanding why this is so hard for you to get, and I'm not sure I can make it any clearer. But we can accept that Subject A, is, indeed, something, right? Subject A is not what it actually is, that's just a placeholder because we don't know what it actually is.Now, let's just say that it is a leprechaun. I'm making no claim, I'm stating a hypothetical. Does the fact that we don't know what it is, stop it from being a leprechaun? Does the fact that we don't know what it is somehow convey upon it some ability to be studied that it would not have were we to posit or even know that it was a leprechaun?

If an entity is both empirically detectable and inherently supernatural (whether this is known or not) what is it that precludes us from putting it in a lab and investigating it and it's abilities scientifically?Can you actually answer this rather than just assert that it is so? OK. Why can't such a thing be scientifically investigated if able to be empirically detected? No doubt if we were all to make the same assumptions and apply the same definitions as you are this would be true. But are your assumptions and definitions justified or even the same as most other people's?

Subject A can be tested for those things which are natural.How do you test those things which are supernatural?

How do you test anything that is not natural?

As others have stated, science doesn't deal with the supernatural. it would conclude that the cause remains unknown or either debunk the said the phenomenon.For example, a Ghost could be considered supernatural/paranormal phenomenon. If a scientist wanted to investigate a haunting and capture and ethereal entity for studying, the only thing available to to detect such a being would be the equipment designed to be used in the natural world not a supernatural world. The scientist may be able to pick up anomalies in the magnetic field, temperature fluctuations on a thermal imaging device, strange voices on a tape recording, photos with objects that resemble apparitions, etc. However, there is not any ghost-buster type of device yet invented that could capture the subject, if it existed. The scientist would have to either find natural causes for the phenomenon and debunk the existence of ghosts, or say the existence of ghosts remains inconclusive until devices can be invented to capture an entity or at least observe it long enough to produce findings. But I agree with jar after catching up on the posts when he or she said: Even though another poster provided a legitimate definition of the word 'supernatural' from a dictionary, maybe its use in a scientific context is not very appropriate. I agree it is no longer a supernatural phenomenon if it can be explained. Perhaps it would require a new branch of study (like quantum mechanics required) if something supernatural exists but does not obey any of the known laws of physics. Still, given that IF it really exists, and it could explained by science in the future, they would not likely call it 'supernatural mechanics' but would coin a new title. You presented a ridiculous schema but if I were living in an era and a place that thought Thor or Zeus was gods and were responsible for causing lightening strikes, I probably wouldn't investigate who was causing it, but how it was done. Perhaps I would be inventive enough, or find another who is, to create a Tesla device and try to recreate lightening? Maybe I would construct a kite and tie a key to it like Ben Franklin? Maybe I would take an arduous trek to see an oracle to ask how to make lightening and how to it would be possible reproduce it. If I figured it out would probably believe that I unraveled some of the mysteries of the gods. I am a creo, not an agnostic, so I probably wouldn't spend my time worrying about disproving the existence of Thor or Zeus but try to understand the lightening instead.

Well, if Subject A has an attribute that is supernatural, Subject A, itself, is supernatural, even if all you can study are the natural aspects.Knowing that Subject A is wearing green, is still a valid observation during a study of Subject A. If Subject A also has the ability to summon gold, that has no bearing on whether we studied Subject A. But, if Subject A has the ability to summon gold, Subject A is supernatural, regardless of whether we ever see Subject A summon gold. As I said in a previous post, you can measure the effects of the supernatural ability or event. If a supernatural ability or event makes something detectable happen, you now know something about that supernatural event or ability: it can cause that detectable thing to happen.And even if you want to get pedantic and say that we detect something, but can never say that this supernatural ability or event caused it, we have still measured something that was caused by the supernatural event or ability regardless of whether we can ever conclude that we have done so.To use an example from you:Suppose God inspires a man to paint a picture.
The man, while being inspired by God, was wearing a neural sensor.
The sensor measures an electrochemical signal that is indistinguishable from the normal workings of the human brain.
No one makes any sort of connection between that signal and divine inspiration.
The study is determined to be a failure and the data is destroyed.
The man goes home and paints the picture (or not, I mean, he doesn't have to do what he's inspired to do, does he?)Now, the inspiration was divine (i.e. supernatural), the signal the inspiration caused was detected. No one noticed it. That doesn't mean the supernatural signal was not detected, studied, and ultimately discarded as normal (erroneously).

Sorry but how do you determine "Subject A has an attribute that is supernatural"?AbE:And no, in the example nothing recorded is supernatural.Edited by jar, : see AbE: