Is Science the Search for Objective Truth in an Objective Reality

That is the reason that I don't find the lack of scientific evidence for anything 'supernatural' as sufficient to conclude that the supernatural does not exist (and especially when supernatural is defined as 'undetectable' a priori).

The point is that if we were in the Matrix using science, we would never discover that we were, in fact, in the matrix. Science would just be constrained to be 'inside' the matrix while the objective reality would be that we were sitting in those bathtubs, not going to work everyday.

I don't conclude that. I'm saying that the supernatural could be existing out of reach of scientific discovery all the while science is conclude that it doesn't even exist at all. As long as the model and predictions don't fail, science would be blind to a whole aspect of the 'objective reality' that the supernatural does exist. We've discussed the elsewhere here. I think I was along the lines of the supernatural comming in and out of physical interaction. For example, if someone saw a ghost we'd say the ghost is interacting physically, but then what if the ghost could then become undetectable after that, the the detectable again some time later, and then not. It would be hard to gather scientific/physical evidence of that ghost, and especially if it was intellegent and evaiding proof of its existance.

Yes, as long as the models and predictions work, it doesn't matter if they are describing real 'reality' or some closed system contain within reality that is not itself objective reality. But I guess that example still requires the objective reality around the closed system, even though I don't actually think it is required. Lacking falsifying evidence and having supporting evidence. Yes, it certqainly seems to suggest that there is an objective reality but I don't think it is neccessary.

But you assume that affecting physical reality makes it detectable. Couldn't something supernatural affect physical reality in a specific scenario (and not all scenarios while being scientifically undetectable. I just don't think that being undetectable means that it can't affect anything and is irrelevant. I don't think so. Because it could exist as undetectable while not being powerless.Let's say you drop a cannon ball and some supernatural power causes it to fly striaght up into outerspace right before your eyes. This would not be able to be explained scientifically. The source of the force could be unable to be detected even if the force itself could be measured.AABE: in that scenario the supernatural entitiy would not be powerless but would still be undetectableEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

I'm saying that it acted in a way that is directly scientifically observable, by relfecting or emitting photons of light, but that at a later point in time it no longer relects/emits light, so a person could see a ghost an then bust out there camera right after the ghost 'disappears' and take a picture of nothing even thought the ghost might still be right in front of them.Its like entering and exiting a physical realm, whereby supernatural entities could exist but not always be detectable.Or, on top of that, it were really talking about 'supernatural' then they could possess properties where the light they use is detectable by human eyes but not cameras. They don't really have to be limited to our natural laws if they aren't limited to them by definition of being super-natural.

I still disagree.It doesn't matter what is really real and what isn't, as long as the prediction hold true, science will function and be useful and 'have a basis'. See, I don't think science would ever discover that it was in the matrix or that there was anything outside of what it was experiencing within the matrix. Its the way science is set up to be depending on previous observations and limiting itself to what is observable that would prevent if from discovering the objetive reality of being constrained by the matrix. I don't think so, it would stop at being 'within the matrix' and all the laws would be based on those of the matrix and not whats outside of it. I don't really see why the objective reality is actually neccessary.

I don't think its impossible, especially when supernatural, by definition, isn't constrained by natural laws.

Well don't let my posts convince you of what views I actually have. Maybe you should have said I am using a narrow view of science instead of having one. But anyways.... There is a difference between theoretical science and applied science. That depends on wht you are trying to acheive by employing science. That is too broad of a statement, sometimes prediction is more important than understanding. I'd say that you are correct that the ultimate aim is a more theoretical one. But still, does it really require an objective reality to have a basis? From a more theoretical standpoint it seems like it does, from the predictive standpoint it doesn't.

That really depends on how strong your supernatural powers are.Lets drop this though, its off topic anyways and kindof a dumb discussion.

It kinda sucks for science that the only reality that we, as individuals, are capable of observing is subjective. Presumably... Can you show how you arrived at this conclusion because I still don't see why it is neccessary and inherent? Are you saying that science would be impossible without the assumption of an objective reality? Because I don't think it would be... Theoretically, yes, but as far as applications of science go, no.

I'm clear. So... is it a wave or a particle? [/smartass]But seriously,I know how light and eyes and cameras work. If the eye can see it then the camera can see it. There are pictures of what's claimed to be ghosts. It is just one example of a broader point I was trying to make (or did make). Yes, I know exactly what you are getting at.Its dumb to have a scientific discussion about what magic powers a ghosts could have.I think my point was that its illogical to base a lack of belief in the supernatural on the inabilities of science to detect it when science is defining supernatural as unable to be detected. If we did live in the matrix, the scientist would not detect it and if someone had a vision that we were in the matrix then the scientist would not believe them, even though they were desciribing the objective reality. That is why I don't think science is so concerned with the objective reality because it limits what it can consider to be real by its own limitiations and definitions.If the supernatural is a part of objective reality and science is unable to discover it then science isn't trying to find the objective reality, is it?

That's what I meant by: It depends on how good your magic powers are. I agree. Well, discussing ghosts on a discussion board and seeing them in person are completely different things. I don't think that all the people who believe in ghosts or claim to have seen them are just making it up. To me, it seems like there is something else out there, something un-natural (or supernatural) in the 'science can't see it' kind of definition.I think that science's failure to detect is a poor reason for the disbelief. It almost makes science your religion. True, but that is not the only way to know things about the supernatural.

I understand what you are really saying but this statement could be clarified a little. Science has certainly investigated things that are claimed to be supernatural, its just that they have all been found to be natural in actuality. Things have been put forward to science that have been claimed to supernatural, its just that when science dealt with them, there were found to be, in fact, not supernatural. You know, Wizards of the Cost can provide some very useful definition IMO. People I talk to in RL and I use their definitions for fantasy concepts in some of our discussions. Yeah, it is a slippery slope. Its just that I've had experiences (that I don't want to get into here) that I can't write off because there is no scientific basis for them. From my point of view, science is missing an entire aspect of objective reality.

---

I agree, but it can be useful in arguing the possibilities of things. Don't you think the Ethereal Plane could exist outside of scientific observation? And with ghosts temporarily entering the Prime Material Plane, we would get reports and observations similiar to what we do hear from people. Even though its pure fantasy, I think it is a pretty good model. Well, not all knowledge. Also, you have your incredultiy...

Oh, I was thinking that it could exist in our world today where we don't have those magic powers. Science, as we practice, would be unable to investigate it. It would completely miss it. But whatever. That's a great point. A ghost popping in an out of existence would be acting completely naturally to the ghost. It would only be a scientific impossibility to the scientists, who have found no evidence of it, and I think the ghost could be there doing his ghostly duties all the while the scientists are just refusing to believe he even exists.I still think that there could be a whole aspect of objective reality that science is unable to detect because of its initial asumptions and methods. There could be things that exist outside of scientific detection that behave according to their own, non-scientific laws/rules. They might not be supernatural in the context of the definition that the word implies, but the things that word describes could exist and science might never know about them.