Supernaturalism: Does It Work?

Indeed, many supernatural explanations are rejected not because they are supernatural but because they cannot or do not lead anywhere. It is possible to come up with any number of possible explanations for anything -- lost socks could be caused by extradimensional vortices which our observations prevent from forming; hiccups could be caused by evil spirits inside us trying to escape; stock market fluctuations could be caused by the secret manipulations of powerful extraterrestrials. Scientists reject such claims on the grounds of parsimony. All of those claims are possible, but they require adding complicated entities which there is no adequate evidence for. To make matters worse, the nature of those entities effectively prevents investigation of them, and the impossibility of investigation prevents us from learning anything new about them. We cannot conclude that any of those explanations are wrong. But from a scientific standpoint, they are worse than wrong; they are useless.Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that's simply what the word "supernatural" means. There can be no limit to the kinds and shapes of supernatural forces and forms the human mind is capable of conjuring up from "nowhere." Scientists therefore have no alternative but to ignore "claims" of the existence of supernatural forces and causes. This exclusion is a basic position that must be stoutly adhered to by scientists or their entire system of processing information will collapse. To put it another way, if science must include a supernatural realm, it will be forced into a game where there are no rules. Without rules, no scientific observation, explanation, or prediction can enjoy a high probability of being a correct picture of the real world.

quote:

---

What I mean is the question about whether the thought of an intelligent designer "adds anything" to scientific inquiry AT ALL is different from whether or not it adds anything to MN specifically. I can see why it is said that it adds nothing to MN, and will just leave that alone.

---

I think you see the point. Nobody here is saying that you cannot have spirituality or a belief in God or gods as a motivation for your actions. Many scientists are religious..in fact the majority. However, their beliefs have no relevance to science. As Mr. Hambre has stressed, that is why people with completely different cultural backgrounds and beliefs can all practice science via MN. I cannot knowingly reproduce what your beliefs are as they are a personal experience. Mr. Hambre, holmes, JIM, or yourself could easily reproduce any result of any experiment I have done in the lab (except the ones I have totally screwed up). The supernatural thus contributes nothing to scientific inquiry and including it in ones "science" has yet to produce any novel discovery or system of scientific investigation that is as effective as MN.

As a friend recently reminded me after reading this whole interchange, "pick your battles wisely my son." I do see what you are talking about, esp. in terms of how the word "Supernatural" is being employed and veiwed. I can live with that and I depart from this debate with my pride in tact. "God" will simply crush you heathens. That was a joke. No offense.------------------
God is a comedian playing for an audience afraid to laugh ~ Voltaire[This message has been edited by MEH, 12-03-2003]

quote:

---

I do see what you are talking about, esp. in terms of how the word "Supernatural" is being employed and veiwed. I can live with that and I depart from this debate with my pride in tact.

---

Hi MEH,
It has been an enjoyable debate and I give you a lot of credit for making the attempt to address Mr. Hambre's topic. I hope when you say "depart" that does not mean from EvC entirely. There are lots of interesting debates. I hope you stick around and participate in some more of them.

quote:

---

"God" will simply crush you heathens.

---

The way my week is going he will have to wait in line to take his turn

We've heard a lot about bias in science, and you've asserted that philosophical assumptions are at the root of science's sticking to a naturalistic methodology. I'm saying that the naturalistic assumption is a valid one, considering the success of the methodology. So far you haven't presented us with any successful research that depends on supernatural factors.It's obvious that the naturalistic methodology that science favors is not the result of atheism run amok. I've repeatedly presented Newton and Pasteur as examples of believers who effected revolutionary scientific breakthroughs by proposing testable, natural mechanisms for natural phenomena. Biologists like Kenneth Miller and Terry Gray are devout believers whose research testifies to the universality and objectivity of science's naturalistic methodology.Therefore, it's simply not true that the philosophy behind science is more important than the results obtained through the methodology.------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

Supernatural forces, if they exist, cannot be observed, measured, or recorded by the procedures of science - that's simply what the word "supernatural" means.

---

Does that mean, by definition, that if you had a measurable,
repeatable effect it would no longer be supernatural?I.e. science cannot find the supernatural because as soon as
it finds something it is no longer supernatural.

Peter,Either way the creationists are stuck:1) The supernatural can't be empirically detected and thus it's meaningless in a scientific context.2) The supernatural can be detected but science just hasn't done it yet.I think that's the range of choices. With which do the people claiming science is biased agree?------------------
The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Devil's advocate time:I'm willing to wager this conversation will go around in circles when the response you get is "The supernatural can't be emprically detected, but still affects the results of science, thereby trumping science."

What I was meaning was:If you had an effect that was considered supernatural,
and discovered an underlying mechanism that was measurable
etc. but did not fit with any current theory of the way
things work -- would it automatically become 'natural'
(i.e. drop the 'super')?I agree, that from a creationist PoV it's just a not so subtle
way of side-stepping problems with the YEC myth (or ID myth
for that matter).Of your choices I'd say that (2) would only indicate bias if
there were poeple actively avoiding investigating supposed
supernatural 'observations'. That's not the case otherwise
you wouldn't have the term 'paranormal investigator'.
There are undoubtedly some nuts about, but there are reasonable
people who look at supposedly supernatural/paranormal things
critically ... if there's something behind it it will eventually
be found.(1) would mean it cannot be found, so it's meaningless in any
context apart from that of religous faith.

I have often argued precisely that. Science is about finding out how the world works. If 'how it works' were to include occasional violations of (what seem otherwise to be inviolable) laws of nature -- ie 'supernatural' events -- then science would have to take that into account. Our view of, and explanation for, the world would be incomplete if we didn't.But science would only need to take these things on board if these violations could be demonstrated to be real!So gods, for instance, would be just as 'natural' -- that is, part of 'how the world is' -- as anything else.Therefore, there is no such thing as the supernatural... or rather, the only 'supernatural' things are unreal, imaginary, illusory... (pick your own derogatory adjective ) things.Hence the saying: kindly demonstrate that there is a god, then we can talk about its doings, motivations and intentions.Cheers, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-09-2003]

quote:

---

I have often argued precisely that. Science is about finding out how the world works. If 'how it works' were to include occasional violations of (what seem otherwise to be inviolable) laws of nature -- ie 'supernatural' events -- then science would have to take that into account. Our view of, and explanation for, the world would be incomplete if we didn't.

---

It might just mean that we've got it wrong/incomplete though.