Has The Supernatural Hypothesis Failed?

By what standard are we judging its failure? It seems disingenuous to judge something on a scale it was never claimed to occupy. There is no such thing as a 'super natural hypothesis'. An hypothesis by definition must be testable. By placing our hypothesis out of the realm of the natural, it is impossible to, through the natural empirical means to which the scientific method is subservient, verify or falsify—that, to test.Anyone who believes supernatural notions scientifically testable is either misguided or a liar or quack. Others realize it is outside the realm of science, and thus any judgement on it by science as being a failure is clearly inappropriate.So, by what standard are you judging it as a failure? And, is it appropriate to apply this standard to the notion of the supernatural?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Sure it has. What does that have to do with what I said? It doesn't matter what it seeks to explain, it's simply not an hypothesis—and not subject to review by the scientific method—if it precludes from its very form any scientific means of falsification, which is what supernatural explanations do.Science is biased against supernatural explanations; it excludes them on account of their being non-natural. There is nothing wrong with this, but it does mean that we cannot use science to falsify or verify supernatural explanations, and as such we cannot judge the veracity of a supernatural claim via the scientific method. We need an alternate, more appropriate, ruler against which to test such claims.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Again, read what I've written. If the explanation is supernatural, then the natural methodologies of the scientific method do not apply. We found a natural explanation for lightening, but our tests and resulting explanations had nothing to do with old Thor.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

You cannot refute something using empirical evidence when the something you are attempting to refute is in its very character non-empirical and beyond the realm of nature.The question of the supernatural is irrelevant to science because science simply does not deal with such things. Science cannot answer questions about supernatural Thor, making the application of the scientific method to such questions as supernatural Thor's existence or his hand in storm phenomena inappropriate.It is much similar to the way in which supernatural evidence is irrelevant to scientific explanations, only the other way around.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Wrong. Supernatural notions have been great at explaining many things. In fact, they do so even better than scientific notions, assuming we measure the success of an explanation as a function of how many things it does not leave unexplained. Where supernatural notions fail is not in their ability to explain, but in their ability to explain empirically. This is to be expected, though, since by their definition supernatural notions are not concerned with empirical things.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

No, that's not what I'm saying. Supernatural claims are of no concern to science, not natural ones. "[T]hat no method exists to explain it" clearly falls subject to the investigative techniques of the scientific method as it quite obviously makes claims about the natural order of things (saying 'no method' is a claim that all methods are false, and so includes natural ones, thus making science a perfect friend... at least in dealing with the natural ones).By the way, that little part I just dealt with wasn't in my original message nor part of my original claim; you added it. It is customary to avoid misrepresenting the viewpoints of others, but I'll assume this was an accident. Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Outside of nature; beyond nature. It's just as the root parts of the word would imply: super+natural. I think Thor was already given. With some minor tweaks, I'd accept that as a suitable example of something supernatural, even if the actions of Thor are not supernatural, but instead (supposedly) interrupt the natural orders of our world.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

I see that I am having difficulty convincing folk that supernatural notions are outside the concern of science, so let me try a different angle. It appears my statements have been viewed as an attack on the power of science, as if saying that there are some affairs in which science has no part to play is somehow weakening to the methods so cherished by empiricists and materialists. However, I'd like to show these people why they're wrong to think like this--dead wrong.When I say that science is in no position to deal with the supernatural, I am only emphasizing a key aspect of its empirical strength: it rules out, from the get-go—indeed, from its very form and character—what any science-minded empiricist would consider bullshit. Case in point:

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 323:
POSITED SCENARIO
The universe was supernaturally created fully formed, including our memories, two nano-seconds ago. It was created in such a way that things will behave very differently from the universe we falsely think we experienced. Natural laws as we know them do not apply.

---

Untestable supernatural claims of this type exemplify well the point I am making. In as much as science can never prove them wrong it can also never prove them right. Such claims are not merely supernatural, but they are unscientific. As such, no one doing honest and good science gives a flying rat's ass about such things; they just don't care, because the concepts simply aren't scientific, they aren't subject to the scientific method nor to empirical testing—they are scientifically useless. As Straggler later goes on to say:

quote:

---

Straggler in Message 323:
I do not concern myself with how cleverly unfalsifiable supernatural claims can be designed to be.
...
But that necessitates that [one] confidently dismiss the supernatural possibility detailed above.

---

On the flip side, if I'm wrong, and these methods are subject to review by the scientific method, then it means one little thing must be accepted as true: the scientific method has no screening system. Of course, this is false; the scientific method has a wonderful screening system: look at our claims and determine if they are falsifiable; if they aren't, then to hell with them.Is there anyone out there yet who still thinks we need to admit supernatural claims to review by the scientific method, thus confessing their statuses as full-blown hypotheses, finding them wanting, and considering them failed? I believe to do so seriously undermines the credibility of the scientific method. I s'pose others think elsewise on the matter, but then I'd like to see their proof. Why are you pretending supernatural crap is scientific?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

These aren't supernatural claims.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

They all make claims about the natural world:

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
a young earth

---

If I claim the Earth is 6,000 years old, that is as falsifiable (and natural) as the claim that it is 4.5 billion years old. Why is it supernatural? Because it happens to be wrong?

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago

---

If I claim a global flood, that is as falsifiable (and natural) as the claim that there was significant global volcanic activity c. 4.5 billion years ago. Why is it supernatural? Because it happens to be wrong?

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
lightning caused by a deity

---

Unless this claim also allows claims about other causes to be true, it too is merely a disguised claim about the natural world because it implies "no other things (natural ones included) cause lightning". If I claim Zeus causes lightning and electricity in the sky does not, that is as falsifiable (and natural) as saying electricity in the sky causes lightning and Zeus does not. Why is it supernatural? Because it happens to be wrong?

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
disease caused by evil spirits

---

Unless this claim also allows claims about other causes to be true, it too is merely a disguised claim about the natural world because it implies "no other things (natural ones included) cause disease". If I claim Loki causes disease and germs do not, that is as falsifiable (and natural) as saying germs cause disease and Loki does not. Why is it supernatural? Because it happens to be wrong?

quote:

---

Coyote in Message 72:
science can examine those claims and come up with alternate explanations for the phenomena.

---

Of course... because they're not supernatural.You might want to specify just how you're defining supernatural. Perhaps we've merely a disagreement in terminology, but I've never understood claims on the age of the Earth, Earth's geological history, or the causes of lightning and disease to be claims at all supernatural. Since you claim they are, though, I assume you've the evidence to back you; but I'd still like to see it nonetheless.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.Edited by Jon, : Uploaded content. My apologies for that down-time; I appreciate your waiting and kindness.

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Science only permits natural explanations. It has no way of dealing with supernatural ones.Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Ever tried explaining yourself to a worm?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Huh? The use of a god means nothing.a. "The Earth is 4.5 million years old." = natural
b. "The Earth is 3 million years old." = natural
c. "The Earth is 2 million years old." = natural
d. "The Earth is 6000 years old." = supernatural? Why does our classification system change simply based on the input value? These are all simply statements on the natural world, and yet you seem to think claim (d) is supernatural because...?Furthermore, a claim on the cause of a natural phenomenon is by default natural—no matter what the cause posited.Let me ask you this: Before investigating a claim, are you able to determine if it is supernatural? If so, how do you do this?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

So it is because the claim has been scientifically 'disproven'?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar

Good, because I don't want you to. I just want you to answer the questions. I've sent many your way that you refuse to address.Furthermore, your 'explanation' also didn't answer my question... any of them in fact.Again:Why is it supernatural? Is it supernatural because: "The age of the earth has been established by multiple measurements and observations [as] far older than 6,000 years."?AND What makes you think these things stem from the supernatural? How do you decide when a claim has been made on the basis of supernatural notions? What are your criteria for determining the supernatural?ANDHow are you defining supernatural?Jon

---

"Can we say the chair on the cat, for example? Or the basket in the person? No, we can't..." - Harriet J. Ottenheimer

​

"Dim bulbs save on energy..." - jar