Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

Edit (this is the best I could remember of my reply):

​

You keep asking me what I mean by supernatural and then completely ignoring what I say.

​

That was something of a rhetorical question, which I answered only one statement later.

​

A concept is supernatural if it is neither derived from nor subject to natural law and is itself thus deemed to be materially inexplicable.

​

Okay, excellent starting point. And since this argument keeps going in circles, I think it would be beneficial if we'd begin afresh with this definition as center. My next question, based on this definition:

​

Is it possible to scientifically test things that are 'neither derived from nor subject to natural law' and are 'thus deemed to be materially inexplicable'? If so, how can it be done? If not, why is it not possible?

​

Thanks,
Jon

​

Edited by Jon, : I lost my original reply and had to come up with a new one... Hopefully this one makes sense, though it was kind of rushed and done from a shoddy memory.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Thank you for laying out a good experiment along with all its possible results and the conclusions that would be from them derivable. Let's discuss them: I find it interesting that you say this. Actually, it had been my opinion for several posts that you did not believe it possible to prove Mubu's crop influence given a 'better post-sacrifice yield':

quote:

---

Mod in Message 505:
How one might provide supporting evidence for such a supernatural entity is not important to the point.

---

quote:

---

Mod in Message 489:

​

So if we were to see a positive influence on crop yields, would we be able to declare the 'supernatural hypothesis' in this case vindicated?

​

No - the supernatural hypothesis as stated is not necessarily verifiable but the test proposed was for falsification.

---

It was, actually, my original suspicion that your test was faulty, not in its methodology, but in the conclusions you attempted to form it draw. And now, with your views more clearly laid out, I think, I am in a position to demonstrate how and why I feel this way. Earlier I had stated:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 509:
In the case of Mubu, either the conclusion you are drawing is not wholly supported by the results of the test, or an opposite set of results (showing positive crop response) should yield the opposite conclusion (that sacrifices to Mubu makes crops bigger).

---

I believe you to be making the first error: the conclusion you are drawing is not wholly supported by the results of the test. You say that replacing Mubu and friends with other things does not impact the validity of the reasoning behind your test: So, let's do it!Example:The ancient spirit god: Turdung.
The age-old belief: Sacrificing cow feces to Turdung in the field before planting increases yield.
The test: Two fields, one in which no sacrifice is made, one in which a sacrifice is made.
The possible results; conclusions:
(1) Crops are grown more poorly in the field with a sacrifice; NOT sacrificing cow feces to Turdung in the field before planting increases yield.
(2) Crops are grown equally well in both fields; sacrificing cow feces to Turdung in the field before planting has no effect on yield.
(3) Crops are grown better in the field with a sacrifice; sacrificing cow feces to Turdung in the field before planting increases yield. All hail Turdung!If your reasoning is such that an increase in yield allows us to set to rest our supernatural claim as confirmed: ... then in all cases of (3), the reality of Turdung's influence on crop yields given the proper sacrifice of cow feces is upheld.Facts: We know that spreading cow shit on a field increases crop growth; we also know Turdung to have, almost literally, been plucked from my ass only minutes ago. Spreading shit on the field has a positive effect, but we know Turdung to be in no way involved. Given the right inputs, though, your test allows this erroneous conclusion, so certainly the test is in error. Where is it in error? Simple, your test does not allow you to draw conclusions regarding the 'supernatural' but only the natural. Our results say nothing about Turdung and they say nothing about Mubu; they just tell us stuff about cow shit and goat killingsuch things being, unarguably, entirely natural.Now, you've been wanting me to reply to your old post (Message 465), and so here it is:You need to come up with a different method for testing for the supernatural. It is clear that your test is flawed, and so cannot be trusted to yield accurate results; as such, we cannot be sure, based on your test, that any 'supernatural hypotheses' have, indeed, failed.Jon
For the record:

I am not sure your @#$ adequately describes all the possible results and the possible conclusions to be drawn from them.

​

I think it is adequate, if you want to include other possible results and the conclusions you might draw from them, let me know what they are.

​

I meant to fill in @#$; that is just a placeholder I use. I was not intending to curse your post.

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

Who cares why they make the claim? A claim on the age of the Earth is not 'supernatural'. It doesn't matter who makes the claim; it doesn't matter what prompted them to make the claim; it doesn't matter how they classify the claim. A natural claim is a natural claim. It is time you put forth some respectable and reasonable criteria for 'supernatural' that doesn't rely on the opinions of others. Are you saying that any claim made against the evidence of the natural world is 'supernatural', and that a 'supernatural' claim is one made against the evidence of the natural world? And by 'against', do you mean, in opposition to/contrary to?If, however, you are saying that claims 'based on scripture, divine revelation, etc.' are 'supernatural' and 'supernatural' claims are those 'based on scripture, divine revelation, etc.', then I'll reiterate the point in my first paragraph: it does not matter one lick what the prompting behind the claim is; we judge its classification based on its own attributes, not the attributes of its foundation. You come across a claim in the woods; it is cute, just sitting there, but it is only a claim, nothing else. The claim is: "Leaves are from trees". Is this claim 'supernatural'? How do you know? What are your criteria?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

My apologies if I've used these words inaccurately. I did not mean to imply at all that our hypotheses may be absolutely provable or unprovable. The word 'support' is probably an accurate way to read my use of the word 'prove'/'proof'.That said... No; we are talking about your test, and your test is crap. For example: Your test allows one to tack any supernatural blip one wants to prove support on to the end of a statement about the natural world. Your test allows folk to misuse the scientific method to draw any sort of conclusion they want, so long as they know how to set up their statement correctly enough to take advantage of the methodological loopholes it contains. Another example:If Jesus is the Son of God, the Sun rises.Sun rises, has risen many times, will rise many times. Ergo, Jesus is the Son of God.Oh wait... also, if Turdung is Mubu's sister, the Sun rises.Sun rises, has risen many times, will rise many times. Ergo, Turdung is Mubu's sister.There's more... or, actually, there's not, but the point is made. How does this falsify Turdung? None of these things exclude one another, so why can they not all be true? And what if they could exclude on another? Would this matter?Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

It would appear that we have different understandings of what constitute 'supernatural', and so I believe we cannot come to an agreement while those differences persist. Whether an empirical test for the deistic Mubu-Turdung siblinghood exists or notand I am still not sure there is a reliable, meaningful one, but willing to admit for now it is possible that there is, as I certainly do not know all there is to know, I disagree with the notion of labeling a scientifically-failed Mubu as 'supernatural'. I draw this from the notion that if your test does test for them, then they are not supernatural; if your test cannot test for them, then they are supernatural. In either situation, we end up with an untestable 'supernatural'. This seems silly, and it might be, but it results from the definition of 'supernatural' I use; which creates this minor silliness, but avoids (what I feel) is a bigger quandary (mentioned below).As I hinted from the onset, I simply define 'supernatural' in a way that implies it to be something that is unfalsifiable through natural means, investigations of the natural world (Message 293). I figured this definition suitable, since I could see no way to clearly differentiate the supernatural from the natural under any other definition that would allow us to dismiss the former without question or scientific investigation, which was what the OP had suggested we do to the supernatural: "have we now reached the point where the supernatural hypothesis can be legitimately dismissed as futile...?" (Message 1).I agree that we should dismiss the supernatural when doing science, but I could not conceive of a definition other than what I put forth that allows us to do so reliably and honestly. This definition, while allowing us to toss the supernatural into the pile of dismissibles, also made the supernatural, as far as I could tell, inherently untouchable by the arm of science, and so I found it reasonable to say the supernatural should be dismissed, but unreasonable to say it has failed by any scientific standard. I chose to define 'supernatural' as to allow me to dismiss it, but this disallows me failing it scientifically; I could choose a definition that does not allow me to dismiss it that would allow me to fail it scientifically. I guess here is where the personal choice comes to play. And my issue is not with which choice one makes; I take issue with those asserting that these positions can simultaneously both be non-contradictorily held. I am not sure there is a definition that allows us to honestly adhere to both.If there is, I'd like to see it. JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : -both +these

---

Check out the Purple Quill!

No; I just realize that we're going at this with two different understandings of 'supernatural'; I realize that if your test does test for Mubu, then this has no bearing on the 'supernatural' as I define it. If we define 'supernatural' in a way that makes it testable, then we are not allowed to dismiss it outright. Except he has failed to consistently do so. And in most cases, he has conceded that the immaterial things he considers the 'supernatural' to be do not interact with the material world (though he has backpedaled on this a few times). I use it as I use it for the sake of being able to dismiss the supernatural outright without having to test it. I have also chosen this definition by simply combining the base forms, super + natural, to get a meaning somewhere along the lines of 'out of reach of the natural; beyond (not necessarily in the sense of being better than) the natural in every way, including its ability to interact with the natural'. In more common parlance, I'd be more likely to use the definition you have used, but then I would not regard our Mubu 2x Fertilizer entity outright dismissible on grounds of being 'supernatural' by this definition. Of course; it leads to great confusion. I see no honest way to fail something that has not been tested. I do not believe this is a feature of the scientific method, but rather of the prejudice against unfalsifiable claims of those who carry out the scientific method. From my take, this thread had two things to address (Message 1):1) Can we dismiss the 'supernatural'? ('have we now reached the point where the supernatural hypothesis can be legitimately dismissed...?')
2) Has the 'supernatural' failed? ('Has the supernatural hypothesis failed?')As I said above, and as you failed to address, I do not believe we can use one meaningful definition of supernatural that allows us to do both things. We must pick; and in picking, we inevitably prevent ourselves from (honestly) doing one or the other of those things. The only out is to define 'failure' in a way that 'not signing up for the class makes you fail the exam', i.e., so broadly that merely opting out does not leave you neutral, but creates a failure of you. If this is how you wish to define failure, then I suppose you can have your cake and eat it too, but I do not see this definition as meaningful for the same reason you see my definition of 'supernatural' as pointless: there are already words with this definition, such that defining it in this way doesn't make it meaningful as its own word. It also does not say much for the truth of our hypothesis if calling it a 'failure' can convey anything from falsity to inability to be tested; that is, I'm not sure that defining 'failure' in this way really makes calling something a failure all too meaningful.Jon

---

Check out the Purple Quill!