One may say a supernatural explanation is irrelevant, but to say it has failed is preposterous.
You don't think Thor banging his hammer around has failed as an explanation for thunder? Are you perhaps conflating failure with disproof? Nobody is claiming to have disproved anything. But failed - Yes.
jon writes:
One may say a supernatural explanation is irrelevant, but to say it has failed is preposterous.
If it has been discarded in favour of a naturalistic alternative, refuted to all practical intents and purposes (i.e. rendered "irrelevant"), in what sense has it not failed as an explanation?
Jon writes:
How does something with no relation or connection to the material and natural world effect actions in that world?
Yes how did Yahweh induce the immaculate conception of Jesus? How does a non-empirical deity create the material physical universe? How do empirically imperceptible entities reveal themselves to people?
If the supernatural concept under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable, how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?
I completely agree with you.
But I suggest you ask your question of supernaturalists who make such claims rather than I who does not.
Jon writes:
Hypotheses, by definition, are materially testable claims.
A hypothesis is "a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon."
Jon writes:
As noted above, supernatural explanations are not materially testable.
A scientific hypothesis is necessarily materially testable. I would agree with you that hypotheses advocating materially undetectable causal agents are not scientific if that is what you mean.
This however does not mean that such explanations cannot be effectively refuted by evidenced naturalistic alternatives. As per Thor and his hammer Vs static electricity as the underlying cause of thunder.
Jon writes:
The notion that one can have a 'supernatural hypothesis' is oxymoronic.
And yet supernaturalists continually cite supernatural causes for physically observable phenomenon.
Jon writes:
To suppose a supernatural explanation can exist for natural phenomena is equally as ridiculous.
And yet supernaturalists continually cite supernatural causes for physically observable phenomenon. Observable phenomenon such as the human proclivity to believe in the existence of the supernatural.
I suggest you take up your objections with them rather than me.
Jon writes:
So now that we're clear again on your use of 'supernatural', can you explain how you reconcile your contradictory applications of the term?
My contradictory application?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You must have me confused with someone making supernatural claims.
If it has been discarded in favour of a naturalistic alternative, refuted to all practical intents and purposes (i.e. rendered "irrelevant"), in what sense has it not failed as an explanation?
Worse - supernatural "explanations" fail automatically because they don't actuially explain anything.
To continue your Thor example:
quote:Question: what is the mechanism that causes lightning and thunder?
Hypothesis: Thor, God of Thunder, swings around his hammer.
That hypothesis doesn't explain anything. You can't make a single useful prediction. You don;t understand anything more than you understood before positing the hypothesis.
Supernatural "explanations" are not actually explanations; they are curiosity-stoppers. They're passwords that emotionally satisfy our curiosity without actually increasing our understanding at all.
quote:Question: how did life on Earth arise?
Hypothesis: God breathed life into all living things
Again, this hypothesis doesn't answer the question. How can you "breathe life" into something? What the hell is this "God" thing, and how did it come to be? You can't make any useful predictions, you can;t test it, and you still don't have a clue how life began.
quote:Question: How did the magician pull a rabbit out of his hat?
Hypothesis 1: Magic.
Hypothesis 2: The magician actually pulled the rabbit out of a rabbit cage hidden inside of the table in front of him, through an openeable flap in the top of the hat and a concealed hole in the table.
Hypothesis 1 might stop our curiosity...but only hypothesis 2 actually increases our understanding. It's longer, it's more complicated, but you can make actual predictions about reality. For instance, I could predict that the magician would be unable to do the rabbit trick if I removed his table and asked him to do it in mid-air. I could predict that, were I to examine the table closely, I would find the trap door through which the magician grabs the rabbit. With hypothesis 1...I can't predict anything.
All supernatural "explanations" are this way. Every single one. They don't explain anything at all, and thus fail right from the start.
Confidence in something is completely unrelated to the amount of knowledge held on that something.
Don't be silly. The amount of confidence we can rationally have in a conclusion is directly related to how much we know in the form of how much evidence we have.
Making conclusions in the absence of any knowledge is called "guessing". Making conclusions on the basis of evidence and an epystemology that is known to be able to demonstrate itself as reliable is NOT the same as guessing. Is it?
Jon writes:
Case in point: Biblical Literalists - they know nothing about what the Bible says yet are 100% confident that what it says is true. As human beings surviving in complex societies we must often put high degrees of confidence into things about which we know very little.
Ah I see you are conflating emotional and irrational confidence with the sort of confidence that can be derived from demonstrably reliable methods of knowing.
More fool you.
Jon writes:
If you claim to KNOW gravity will continue existing, you are a liar. If you claim no CONFIDENCE that it will, you are stupid.
I have stated that I think the rational, logical, evidentially and philosophically valid conclusion is that it is deeply deeply improbable that gravity will be supernaturally suspended next week.
Which part of that do you actually disagree with?
Jon writes:
An honest, intelligent person will admit they cannot know the status of future events, but will also be confident that the fundamental workings of the natural world will continue to operate as they have for billions of years.
I have stated that I think the rational, logical, evidentially and philosophically valid conclusion is that it is deeply deeply improbable that gravity will be supernaturally suspended next week.
Which part of that do you actually disagree with?
Jon writes:
Why do you think knowledge and confidence are necessarily related?
I know what my sons name is. I would bet everything I own on this name being on his birth certificate.
What name do you think my son has? And how much will you bet (i.e. how confident are you) that your conclusion matches his birth certificate?
Come now Jon - If knowledge and confidence are unrelated you should be just as confident as I am in your ability to conclude what name is on that birth certificate. So guess away.
Are you perhaps conflating failure with disproof? Nobody is claiming to have disproved anything. But failed - Yes.
Indeed 'fail' is a pivotal term in this thread; how insightful of you to point this out! If you would be so kind as to elaborate on the ways in which you define and differentiate 'disproof' and 'failure' (especially, perhaps, in how they relate to the scientific method and empirical inquiry), I will get right on the task of formulating a reply to your post.
Thanks, Jon
"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
Forgive me if you've already posted this somewhere, but would you mind laying out your personal definition (how you use the term) for 'supernatural'? From asking folk throughout this thread, it's become clear to me that there are rather different notions of what constitutes 'supernatural', and I think getting your understanding of the term would be a good place to start a discussion between you and me.
I'll be glad to address the remainder of your post then.
Thanks, Jon
Edited by Jon, : The Great Pumpkin...
"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer
Forgive me if you've already posted this somewhere, but would you mind laying out your personal definition (how you use the term) for 'supernatural'? From asking folk throughout this thread, it's become clear to me that there are rather different notions of what constitutes 'supernatural', and I think getting your understanding of the term would be a good place to start a discussion between you and me.
Shouldn't the folks that believe in Thor and his lightning bolts and those other things attributed to the supernatural be the ones defining that term?
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Supernatural abilities aren't spells and don't trigger attacks of opportunity, but they are suppressed by anti-magic fields. They aren't subject to spell resistance and never require Concentration checks. The saving throw DC for a supernatural ability is equal to 10 plus one-half the caster's hit dice, plus their key ability score modifier.
Forgive me if you've already posted this somewhere, but would you mind laying out your personal definition (how you use the term) for 'supernatural'? From asking folk throughout this thread, it's become clear to me that there are rather different notions of what constitutes 'supernatural', and I think getting your understanding of the term would be a good place to start a discussion between you and me.
Message 24 is my post on the definitional problem. However, for the purposes of advancing the debate I was making the following assumption:
quote:Whatever the general definition of supernatural is, immaterial causal agents (beings with intentionality) should be covered by it.
lol i watch it too though i havto download it the new seasone isnt airing on any of my 200 programs, so far it looks like sammy is leaning twords the dark side aggain.
All sorts of hypotheses "fail" when they are superceded by mutually exclusive evidenced alternatives.
I have never claimed that anything in science has either been proven or disproven. In fact I would strongly argue that "proof" in the absolute sense is beyond the realms of evidence based enquiry full stop.
But refutation to all practical intents and purposes, to a point beyond which any tentativity is essentially philosophical - Yes.
As per my conversation with CS. Where he insists that we must be genuinely agnostic to all supernatural claims. Whilst I point out to him that by being all but certain that gravity will NOT be supernaturally suspended next week he is violating all of his own stipulations regarding the unknowability of supernature.
Jon writes:
I will get right on the task of formulating a reply to your post.
So you keep claiming.
BTW - You do realise that I personally have never stipulated that a supernatural concept is by definition imperceptible - Yes?
You took great pains to ask what I meant by "supernatural" and then seem to have largely ignored my answer.
™ Version 4.2
