Summations Only

So can you explain how genuinely magical Leprechauns don't qualify? You are still conflating conclusions with investigations. That something is supernatural/magical isn't necessarily a barrier to investigating or studying it is it? Why do we need to know in order to decide whether or not they are able to be investigated using the scientific method? Why does it matter? If they are observable they can be studied can't they?

I think your disagreement has to do with what y'all mean by "study". If you drop your famous pen, and it falls upwards away from your desk, then you could "study" it in the sense that you could observe the direction its falling, but you wouldn't have a scientific explanation for its behavior. When you did come up with one, it have to be a natural explanation.But none of this has anything to do with the 3 kinds of creationists...

I agree with all of that. But still there is no need to conflate scientific explanations with scientific investigations. If (to use the same example as above) genuinely magical leprechauns exist and are observable we will never scientifically understand them (because they are genuinely magical) but that doesn't stop us putting them in a lab and investigating their abilities. But it is the cause that is invariably cited as being supernatural. Storms are observable phenomenon. But Thor remains a supernatural entity no matter how much scientific knowledge we might acquire about storms.It's just that increased understanding of storms leads to increased doubt about Thor as the cause of such things.....

Quite. Studying and explaining are not the same thing. Which is why it is stupid to just assert that we cannot study supernatural phenomena unless it is also being asserted that supernatural phenomena are undetectable for some reason. Yes - If a scientific explanation can be found then it will be a naturalistic one. True.

It seems to me that jar is using the term "study" more closely to 'explain' than just 'observe'.

I see no way to even identify a "genuinely magical Leprechaun" for study.

I don't mean just "observe". I mean investigate. I mean scientifically study.We scientifically study lots of things that we haven't yet explained. Obvioulsy.Jar has asserted that we can't study that which is supernatural and is now just being an evasive twit in that way that he does so effectively when caught out.

You don't need to identify it as such first in order to study a genuinely magical leprechaun in the unlikely event that such a thing actually exists.Likewise any other detectable phenomenon or entity. If the supernatural phenomenon or entity in question is observable - Why not?

LOLSorry but that makes no sense, how do you study a genuinely magical leprechaun when you cannot even identify a genuinely magical leprechaun?And the scientific method involves natural things. It can be used to study something claimed to be supernatural but how can it study something that IS supernatural?

Let's try a different approach.Entity A is empirically detectable. Entity A has some unusual abilities the effects of which are also empirically detectable. Entity A may or may not be a supernatural/magical/whatever being.Can we scientifically investigate Entity A and it's unusual abilities?

We can investigate it and determine if it is explainable or unexplainable.If explainable then we can say that it is natural.But if it is not explainable then we can not say that it is supernatural.

Right. We can investigate it scientifically because it is detectable. Whether it is supernatural or not is irrelevant to whether it can be investigated or not. To determine anything requires investigation. Using the same methods and techniques that we use to investigate something that may or may not be supernatural.Which part of this is confusing you?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Do forget: jar thinks that 'study', 'identify' and 'explain' are all synonyms.
This will make any discussion an up-hill struggle through jar's equivocation.Good luck with that.

All of it is quite frankly, worthless when it comes to investigating the supernatural.You can investigate something that is claimed to be supernatural but you can never know whether or not your are investigating the supernatural unless you can show me some way to distinguish between just unknown and supernatural.

Do you now accept that it is possible to scientifically investigate the supernatural if the "the supernatural" in question is empirically detectable?Or not? Whether one can know that one is investigating the supernatural is a separate issue.The point is that the supernatural is not by definition immune from scientific investigation.