Studying the supernatural

Hi 1.61803 (and fellow readers), So if god/s exist then they are natural rather than supernatural?Isn't that kind of reverse god-of-the-gaps?Perhaps we should recognize\define\use "natural" to include all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science (which should be rather tautological, but done to make a point),And recognize\define\use "un-natural" to include all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science but that run counter to existing\current scientific knowledge⁽¹⁾ -- which would also include sasquatch, aliens, and faster than light neutrinos, as well as some supernatural aspects.And then recognize\define\use "everything else" to be both non-natural & non-unatural ... or "a-natural" - things\elements\aspects\etc that canNOT be studied by science for various reasons.Thus aspects of ghosts that can be detected\studied by science would be "un-natural" phenomena, while aspects of god/s that cannot be detected\studied by science would be "a-natural" phenomena.Supernatural⁽²⁾ aspects, such as the ability to fly by "magic" would be detectable "un-natural" phenomena, while something like {where god/s live} could be outside the capability of science to detect\observe\test\etc and would then be "a-natural"Note that these "examples" are only for illustration of the differences, and I offer these terms as a means to provide clarity between (Message 1):

quote:

---

II. Yes, of course
...The thing is, science investigates what can detected. ...

---

and

quote:

---

I. Intrinsically, no
Science studies the natural and so by definition can not investigate the supernatural. ...

---

Because, personally, I do not see these categories as being necessarily one or the other exclusive -- ie both could be valid aspects of the debate/s, and I do see some confusion between {testable supernatural aspects} and {untestable supernatural aspects}.Enjoy.

---

⁽¹⁾ - the necessarily tentative kind of knowledge usage in science, of course ⁽²⁾ - Supernatural Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

quote:

---

su•per•nat•u•ral
adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

---

Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

Hi nwr, Partly correct: science explains how natural systems operate, thus science shows how lightening and thunder occur, but science does not explain whether or not Thor (etc)⁽¹⁾ used those processes to cause thunder and lightening. Whether "Thor" exists and uses these processes to cause thunder and lightening is "a-natural" and/but unnecessary to the scientific explanation of how thunder and lightening occur.The (an)other side of this issue - particularly as it impacts this thread - is the "believer" claim that "Thor" causes thunder and lightening, thunder and lightening exist, therefore this is evidence for the existence of "Thor" (the affirming the consequent logical fallacy of course). This can be regarded as "inductive logic⁽²⁾", a conjecture, a guess or an hypothesis, but it is (currently) not a testable concept as I see it.Enjoy

---

⁽¹⁾ - there are lots of god/s that are purported to cause thunder and lightening, and for the purposes of debate we can consider them all to be the same god under different names, and use "Thor" as the useful designational name.⁽²⁾ inductive logic is guilty of the same affirming the consequent logical fallacy in the formation of scientific (or other) hypothesis, but the intention is to produce a testable concept, rather than one considered to be true (or true until falsified), and where (scientific) testing of the concept can turn it into a (scientific) theory (or even a law).

Hi Rahvin, thanks. A more generic term may be spirits, which are found in (almost?) all religions (afaik), from the simple ancestor spirits of chinese belief to the various spirits of native american beliefs.

1. Can spirits exist and (theoretically) be detectable?
   (but just have not been detected in a objectively controlled system)
2. Can spirits exist and not be (theoretically) detectable?
   (and can you tell the difference between this and non-existence?)
3. Can some actions of non-detectable spirits (theoretically) be detectable?
   (the movement of objects by "poltergeists" for example)
4. Can the existence of spirits be inferred from the (theoretically) detectable actions?
   (or will natural causes be invoked in some manner? or will they just be labeled "unexplained" phenomena?)

It seems to me a more nuanced approach may be more appropriate than just {exist/not-exist}. As an example, the attribute of ghosts/spirits to move through walls\etc. would be "un-natural" (unexplained?)^(a) behavior, however there is another conceivable possibility here (imho):Another common thread in beliefs about spirits is in the ability of "possession" of individuals by spirits, and that they can then cause the people to do or see (un-natural) things that they would not normally (naturally) do or see.In this regard, a vision of a ghost as a 4-D (space/time) hologram injected into a persons visual nerves would have the appearance of an object moving independently and unaffected by the physical world seen through the normal vision paths: one image superimposed on the other, a double exposure experience^(b).Is this testable? Is possession in general testable?Would you agree that the "natural" explanation would be that it is an hallucination, produced by abnormal (non-normal ... un-normal?) behavior inside the brain, rather than an actual event? Any testing by cat-scans etc could be shown to be entirely consistent with the "natural" hallucination hypothesis\explanation, ... and yet we are left with the "thor question" -- is this just how the spirit causes the phenomena to occur, or is it just a natural mechanism? Interesting assertions. I would only add that there may be some aspects that cannot be explained and understood via science, perhaps because the experiences\observations may be chaotic in nature, with results that are not repeatable.Enjoy.

---

Notes:
^(a) - edited phrase to correct: was {would be "non-natural" behavior}
^(b) - added ending for clarityEdited by Zen Deist, : corrected, added phrasingEdited by Zen Deist, : a & b vs 1 & 2

Hi Dr Adequate, Nothing: you can have your opinion\belief\guess based on the things you know (tentatively), the things you think you know (but are not validated) and your personal world view/s.Just as what you have conceded cannot delay me from being open minded but skeptical.Enjoy.

Hi Dr Adequate, And everyone considers themselves to be logical and rational. Simple, imho. They start to differ where our world views, opinions and beliefs differ, areas not necessarily subject to science or logic but just the accumulation of life experiences and the associated beliefs and opinions that you have gained in your life-tiime.What makes a conservative different from a liberal? Who goes around condemning certain specific people (many of which happen to be atheists, but not all) for exhibiting the behaviors typical of pseudoskeptics.⁽¹⁾ Is perfectly fine: it is a belief. There is no need to substantiate a belief (or an opinion or a guess about the future) -- you aren't claiming that it is true.If I say that I don't believe in unicorns either⁽²⁾, then that too is my belief. If someone happens to show that unicorns do in fact exist, then both our opinions would be falsified, but that wouldn't mean that we were not able to have those beliefs logically due to the evidence available before then.http://english.glendale.cc.ca.us/unicorn1.html (one of my favorite stories).If someone says "{X} does not exist," or that "the preponderance of evidence shows that it is highly improbable that {X} exists," they should be prepared to substantiate those claims with some objective evidence (and not just the "absence of evidence" that it exists).Enjoy.

---

Notes:⁽¹⁾ - see Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia and Marcello Truzzi - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Truzzi was an investigator of various protosciences and pseudosciences and, as fellow CSICOP cofounder Paul Kurtz dubbed him, "the skeptic's skeptic." He is credited with originating the oft-used phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

​

After leaving CSICOP, Truzzi started another journal, the Zetetic Scholar.[2] He promoted the term "zeteticism" as an alternative to "skepticism", because the term "skepticism", he thought, was being usurped by what he termed "pseudoskeptics". A zetetic is a "skeptical seeker". ... Truzzi considered most skeptics to be pseudoskeptics, a term he coined to describe those who assume an occult or paranormal claim is false without bothering to investigate it.

---

Maybe I should describe myself as an open-minded zetetic ... ? ⁽²⁾ - For the stalkers, belief that {X} does not exist would be a 5, imho.

Hi nwr, thanks. Agreed, however I find it more parsimonious to reply to you as a clarification of how I see the picture that you initiated and I agree with.Enjoy

Hi Rahvin, (& readers),Apologies for the length, but I feel the level of detail is important for clarity. I will provide a summary at the end, and you can chose to respond to those points, keeping the details fleshed out here in mind. This is taking me a fair bit of time, so your consideration is appreciated. A side benefit (to others, anyway) is that I won't be spending this time on other responses today. Correct, the purpose of the thread is discussion of how you can, or cannot, study the supernatural. Spirits are just an example that can be discussed. Actually, I am subdividing the set of {supernatural possibilities} into sets that {can possibly be studied} and {cannot possibly be studied} to see if further study of the aspects that {can possibly be studied} can provide insight or evidence for the {exist} or {not exist} sets, and not confuse them with discussion of the aspects that {cannot possibly be studied} and thus are indeterminate.This is absolutely relevant to the topic. The existence of "quarks and gluons, as random examples" is inferred from their (theoretically) detectable actions, yes? So you would agree that IF spirits are members of the {exist} set, that THEN it could be possible for their existence to be inferred from their (theoretically) detectable actions, yes? Poltergeists, for one example, possession for another. Mundanely, tautologically true, but pointless without relation to knowledge (tentative or absolute) of the facts or the ability to study and test them. What we know (tentatively) is inferred from the evidence and deduced from testing of the evidence, and is necessarily an approximation of what is real - it is the map, not the territory. The more it is tested, the more accurate the map, and the higher the confidence we have that the conclusions approximate reality. The approximation is improved by discarding falsified concepts, thereby narrowing the possibilities, and the confidence is improved by undertaking additional (and targeted) testing without falsification or false results occurring. Sorry, I should have used "un=natural" there instead of non-natural. My mistake. I've corrected that post to say: "As an example, the attribute of ghosts/spirits to move through walls\etc. would be "un-natural" (unexplained?)^(a) behavior, ..." where the (a) footnote refers to the edit made.Thank you for catching me on not using the terms I introduced (Message 17) to distinguish what can theoretically be testable from what cannot theoretically be testable. I'll repeat them here for clarity:

quote:

---

natural vs un-natural ... vs a-natural? -- a proposal of terms

​

Perhaps we should recognize\define\use "natural" to include all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science (which should be rather tautological, but done to make a point),

​

And recognize\define\use "un-natural" to include all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science but that run counter to existing\current scientific knowledge⁽¹⁾ -- which would also include sasquatch, aliens, and faster than light neutrinos, as well as some supernatural aspects.

​

And then recognize\define\use "everything else" to be both non-natural & non-unatural ... or "a-natural" - things\elements\aspects\etc that canNOT be studied by science for various reasons.

​

Thus aspects of ghosts that can be detected\studied by science would be "un-natural" phenomena, while aspects of god/s that cannot be detected\studied by science would be "a-natural" phenomena.

​

Supernatural⁽²⁾ aspects, such as the ability to fly by "magic" would be detectable "un-natural" phenomena, while something like {where god/s live} could be outside the capability of science to detect\observe\test\etc and would then be "a-natural"

​

Note that these "examples" are only for illustration of the differences, and I offer these terms as a means to provide clarity ...

---

(bold added, for the footnotes see Message 17)If you can think of better terminology or symbolic representation, I'm open to suggestions (perhaps "?-natural" instead of "un-natural" and "x-natural" for "a-natural"? would those be less confusing?). No, what is untestable would be a-natural (or x-natural) by the above terminology, introduced to prevent\reduce this confusion. Un-natural (or ?-natural) would include unexplained phenomena, such as aliens and sasquatches and some supernatural aspects. We don't know if natural explanations can apply (including ones that haven't been derived yet), it's not limited to supernatural and supernatural is not necessarily limited to un-natural (or ?-natural).Identifying a "mystery" Un-natural (or ?-natural) phenomena means that we can then target them for further study, and see if we can determine what kind of explanations can be derived.Clear as mud? and what you can reasonably test and what you cannot reasonably test, how those tests would provide bonafide positive and negative results, and how you could guard against false positives or negatives. So ghost images could be radio\tv type waves. That's testable: would finding radio\tv type waves be positive evidence of spirits or a false positive? Would not finding radio\tv type waves be negative evidence of spirits or a false negative?Does the image need to actually go through the wall or just disappear as it comes to the wall? Which is beside the point of what you can reasonably test and what you cannot reasonably test, how those tests would provide both bonafide positive and bonafide negative results, and how you could guard against false positives and false negatives.The Ben Franklin analogy again: if a Ben Franklin Wannabe (BFW) was flying a kite in a rainstorm, without a means to test for static electricity, with lightening striking the kite, could he rationally conclude:

1. that there is electricity in lightening?
2. that there is NOT electricity in lightening?
   or
3. that the existence of electricity is NOT tested?

Now let's say he has a bottle with a balloon over the end attached to the (wet part of the) string. Our BFW has not tested this apparatus with static electricity, under a variety of conditions, to show that the balloon only inflates when static electricity is present and does not inflate when static electricity is absent.

1. the balloon inflates; can he conclude:
   1. that there is electricity in lightening?
   2. that there is NOT electricity in lightening?
   3. that something causes the balloon to inflate(*)?
   ​
   or
   ​
2. the balloon does NOT inflate; can he conclude:
   1. that there is electricity in lightening?
   2. that there is NOT electricity in lightening?
   3. that the mechanism does not test for electricity?

^(*) - it's a dark and stormy night: he holds the bottle over a candle to observe the balloon ... minutes pass ...You need to know that your test mechanism will produce bonafide positive results and bonafide negative results and NOT produce false positive results or false negative results. The question is whether the appearance of possession is properly explained by a new mechanism (that may or may not be "natural" - according to current thought\knowlede\belief) or only by existing "natural" mechanisms.The question is whether or not you can test for it with a test mechanism that will produce bonafide positive results and bonafide negative results and NOT produce false positive results or false negative results. If all you can test for, if the only test mechanisms you have that are validated (ie tested, calibrated and known⁽¹⁾ to produce bonafide positive results and bonafide negative results and NOT produce false positive results or false negative results) are known⁽¹⁾ natural mechanism, then are you really able to test for supernatural presence/essence. Curiously, the "phenomenon called {supernatural}" is not being invented here, but is older than science, and what we are discussing is the question of whether or not we can test for "supernatural" essence/s to see if they fit in the {exist} or {don't exist} sets. By inferring that it may exist from other evidence, whether that evidence is anecdotal religious texts (that may or may not be true) or some other source. The preponderance of spirits in (virtually all?) most religions and the preponderance of narratives about possession by spirits, would make it a good target for shooting practice, yes?OR we can get the idea by inferring that it may exist from observable non-normal/abnormal behaviors that would be consistent with a hypothetical possession, as you said:

quote:

---

... It's conceptually possible that aspects of reality might exist yet be undetectable to us. In fact, it's historically true - quarks and gluons, as random examples, were for the great majority of human experience, completely undetectable.

---

... their presence was (and still is) inferred\deduced from observed behavior in the theoretical patterns, and not directly observable, "meaning it cannot be detected with any of the senses" - correct? If someone reports "a mysterious human-looking figure or other object passing through a wall" and you cannot repeat the experience, does that mean that the concept is invalid or untested? If you do see such an event, does that mean that the concept is valid or tested?When testing for permeability, how do you know what level is required? If you find impermeable substances where the puported wall passing occurred, does that mean that the concept is invalid or untested? If you find permeable substances, that allow liquid or gas but not your solid hand to pass, does that mean that the concept is valid or tested? Agreed. Particularly when there is a long tradition of labelling people with mental illness because of behavior that is not understood, it is kind of a catch-all, grab-basket, cubbyhole classification, rather than a well-defined one.However, I note that not all possessions need be malevolent, some may be benevolent, such as a person saying that a spirit moved them to do {X}. In this regard it would seem (to me) that this is possibly the most commonly reported experience of supernatural essence\presence.Further, it is conceivably possible to transport and study a possessed person, as compared to ghosts, which seem to be cantankerous at best.In my mind this may be the best candidate for further study. Certainly it could be used as a test pilot to use in discussion of how we can study the supernatural. The proper question/s would be does a possessed person respond differently to psychiatric medication than a non-possessed person? etc.If you assume a priori that response to psychiatric medication is evidence of mental illness ("or powerful suggestion and the like), rather than possession, then have you really tested for possession? But that is the question. Just asking that question though, does not tell you if your best guess of "many potential hypotheses" accurately explains the situation or just the tested aspects of the situation. Fully agree. summary points

1. the purpose of the thread is discussion of how we can, or cannot, study the supernatural.
2. The purpose is to see if we can determine if they {exist} or {don't exist} or that the question cannot be determined
3. Spirits are just an example of a fairly common supernatural concept that can be discussed\used\tested.
4. For clarity, I have divided the set of {supernatural possibilities} into
   1. Sets that {can possibly be studied} and
   2. Sets that {cannot possibly be studied}, in order to
   3. See if further study of the aspects that {can possibly be studied} can
      • provide insight or evidence for the {exist} set or
      • provide insight or evidence for the {not exist} set, and
      • Not confuse them with discussion of the aspects that {cannot possibly be studied} (and thus are indeterminate at this time).
5. Additionally, for clarity of discussion, I have defined three categories\sets based on our current knowledge and testing ability:
   1. "Natural" - which includes all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by current science, and explained by current scientific knowledge⁽¹⁾,
   2. "Un-natural" (or ?-natural) - which includes all things\elements\aspects\etc that can be studied by science but that run counter to existing\current scientific knowledge⁽¹⁾, and which are not (yet) currently explained by current scientific knowledge⁽¹⁾, and
   3. "A-natural" (or x-natural) - which includes things\elements\aspects\etc that canNOT (yet) be studied by science for various reasons.
6. What can we reasonably test
   1. Do test mechanisms exist that are validated (ie tested, calibrated and known⁽¹⁾) to) produce
      • bonafide positive results, and
      • bonafide negative results.
   2. Does the test methodology protect against
      • false positive results, and
      • false negative results.
   3. Infer whether may (or may not) exist from observable non-normal/abnormal behaviors that would be consistent with a hypothetical possession and inconsistent with other explanations,
   4. With no confusion of the tests\methodologies\results with what we can NOT reasonably test at this time.
7. Spiritual possession may be the best candidate to study initially.
8. The results may be that we don't know, and need to try something else.

conclusionsPersonally, I do not see it being possible to test any real supernatural aspects that may be in the {exist} set, because in order to properly validate (ie tested, calibrated and known⁽¹⁾) to produce proper results) such a test you would need bonafide positive and negative results, which would make the whole exercise unnecessary. This means you can only logically test for the effects of supernatural presence\essence on natural systems that can be tested. Problems here are (a) the strong possibility of false negative results, and (b) results that are confused with and ascribed to natural causes.Thus we have to work from inference from indirect evidence, rather than direct observation and deduction, and thus we need to practice extreme care not to make premature conclusions, pro or con.(whew)Enjoy.

---

Notes:
⁽¹⁾ - know\known\knowledge with scientific tentativityEdited by Zen Deist, : No reason given.

Hi Chuck77 A third possibility is that "natural" is "supernatural" -- that everything "natural" was created that way.Enjoy.

Content hidden because of similarity to discussions in other threads. --AdminEdited by Admin, : Hide content.

Edited by Zen Deist, : Content hidden per Percy request

Your call Percy.I don't see the response to Rahvin going there, but I'm okay with it.I expect consistency, of course.The problem I see is more with counter-productive and disruptive behavior on the Scientific Knowledge thread, than here with a reasonable exchange of views here.I don't have a lot of time free for a while, so my posting will likely be reduced in any event.Enjoy.

Hi 1.61803, I am reminded of the quote:

quote:

---

J. B. S. Haldane - Wikiquote
I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.
- Possible Worlds and Other Papers (1927), p. 286

---

When you look at the fine print of the universe (QM level) you see constant shifting and rebuilding. Everything changes from micromoment to micromoment yet appears to stay the same.Enjoy.

Hi GDR, I'm reading his book "the Elegant Universe" where he is showing how string theory can unify QM and relativity without the ∞ problems.Of course string theory then requires more dimensions ...Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : bold ∞