Studying the supernatural

If something is immaterial how can it be experienced at all? Have you heard of the mind body problem? If something cannot be experienced how can any concept of it be derived from anywhere but the internal workings of a creative brain? Are these ghosts and spirits detectable? If so how? Can they be seen? Touched? Heard? Science deals with detectable reality. Our investigations into detectable reality show us that humans will invoke "unknowable" beings and then start claiming to know various things about them.

Can you give an example?Because I really don't buy this whole "supernatural is just what hasn't been explained by science yet" malarky that you seem to be implying.For example - You could say that thunder and lightning was once supernatural and now isn't. I suppose. But that really doesn't do service to the explanation put forward on either side.For example - Thor as the conceptual cause of this phenomenon remains as conceptually supernatural as ever. And nothing science discovers will change that. Science doesn't make Thor natural. Science makes the supernatural explanation that is Thor redundant.Likewise it isn't the case that build up of electric static electric charge in clouds was once "supernatural" and is now "natural". This explanation is and always has been natural. It's just those who believed in Thor (or whoever) were (understandably) ignorant of such things.So my answer to "can we investigate the supernatural and how" is this - We investigate nature and where we find highly evidenced naturalistic alternatives to supernatural explanations we consider the supernatural explanation refuted to all practical intents and purposes.If however the supernatural explanation is borne out (i.e. we examine the Sun and it really is a Golden Armored being unbounded by the laws of physics riding a flaming chariot across the sky) then we acknowledge that there is actually a basis for such concepts.As yet no such evidence for any such entity has ever been forthcoming.

How are they detecting the supernatural? I experience all sorts of things that are the result of the internal workings of my physical brain with little relevance to external reality. But these don't really have anything to do with the mind body problem as applied to humans claiming to have detected immaterial supernatural entities.

As I understand the concept - No. Bigfoot is not supernatural. Like the concept of Nessie it is some sort of rare creature. But there is nothing that defines it as magical or unbounded by natural laws in any way. Now unicorns and dragons are (by most common definitions) a different kettle of fish. No - Why would they be? As I understand the concept of a ghost - Yes. The spirits of the dead are not bounded by physical laws. They are part of some ethereal existence which cannot be explored fully by science for some unstated reason. Instead one has to "open one's mind"......But I guess it depends exactly what definition of "ghost" one is talking about.Ultimately "supernatural" means those things which are defined as being inherently immune from physical explanation. Most believers in gods (for example) don't define the object of their belief as something which if we could just build a powerful enough particle accelerator we could investigate and understand. They instead imply that no such technological progress will ever allow the object of that belief to be physically explained.NOTE - Being materially inexplicable does NOT necessarily mean being materially undetectable or unable to be investigated. It simply means natural laws won't be able to explain it. It's "magic". Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Doh

I didn't know that my aim here was to garner allies?More to the point however - I am bewildered as to why you think I would want Nwr as an ally in any "Is it science?" context anyway? Nwr has demonstrated himself to have an entirely "unique" (to be polite) view of what science is.Nwr has rejected the role of inductive reasoning in science in a way that I fundamentally disagree with Induction and ScienceNwr has demonstrated himself as completely unable to distinguish between scientific descriptions of nature (e.g. the heliocentric model of the Solar system) and arbitrary human conventions (e.g. a geocentric co-ordiante system) - See Message 28 and upthread from that.More generally Nwr has described science as some sort of internally consistent human construct that is unrelated to any knowledge about nature at all:Nwr : "Apparently, I was not clear enough. I'll say it again. Scientific theories have nothing to say about how nature behaves."Nwr: "A scientific theory is, primarily, a description of the method rather than a description of the world."Frankly I probably agree more with RAZD's epistemological stance regarding the role and nature of science than I do Nwr's. What is he referring to?Until Nwr specifies exactly what he does mean I would suggest that any judgement is reserved. Because his past record on the nature of science suggests to me that his approach is all his own and very probably not what you are assuming it to be.

Does your participation here and lack of it over at Scientific Knowledge mean that you are unwilling or unable to take - A Constructive Approach to "Knowing" Message 81....? Surely the scientific conclusion is that thunder and lightning are caused by static electricity. Thus refuting any invocation of Thor as the cause of thunder and lightning to all practical intents and purposes. What role for Thor are you suggesting is required?Or are you just making the inane observation that any naturalistic explanation, no matter how highly evidenced, fails to prove the absence of any undetectable supernatural involvement?If so - You might as well invoke undetectable gravity gnomes, rather than space-time curvature, as the cause of gravitational effects mightn't you?It's the same old same old "you can't falsify my unfalsifiable belief" drivel.

No it was mine. But I know from past experience that Nwr doesn't think that scientific theories describe or explain nature. So he cannot of meant what you think he meant.If we are to study the supernatural (as per the thread title) then we need to know what it is we are talking about. My point was that when we talk about phenomena being supernatural (e.g. thunder and lightning) in most cases what we are actually talking about is the cause of that phenomenon. Did the ancients point at lightning and say "That is supernatural" - No. They invented "magical" (i.e. supernatural) entities to which they attributed the cause of these observed phenomenon.This is a subtle difference. But in the context of "studying the supernatural" it is (I think) a relevant one. Obviously not. That isn't what I said. It may well be a good strategic move on the part of theists to do that. Probably because the phrase "nature is God" is essentially meaningless.

Chuck do you think scientific investigation has to all practical intents and purposes refuted the existence of the Norse god Thor? Not the ToE no. It is a separate (but obviously) related branch of science.Would a full scientific understanding of abiogenesis effectively eliminate any "spark of life" type theistic claims in your view?In general - Is it ever legitimate to invoke a supernatural explanation where a highly evidenced naturalistic cause is scientifically known?

The irony of you talking about a "principle of clarity" is almost too much for me to bear.....But as for your position on the role and nature of science. You have been asked. And you have failed to answer. Message 188 and upthread for anyone interested.

It means you can setup experiments which involve people praying for certain outcomes and then measure whether or not the actual outcomes being prayed for occur to an extent that is statistically significant in comparison to the same occurance when not prayed for.Hopefully that clears that up for you..... More simply - What it means is that the effects pf praying can actually be compared to the effects of not praying to see if praying really does work in the way people claim it does.Even more simply - The effects of prayer are testable.

So - To be clear - No matter how evidenced or predictively powerful a naturalistic explanation is you consider a supernatural explanation for the same phenomenon to be equally valid?Thor is as valid an explanation for thunder and lightning as static electricity?Undetectable flight gnomes are just as likely to be responsible for aeroplanes flying as are the principle of fluid dynamics pertaining to air flow?Etc.Or is that not what you meant. If so what did you mean?

Yes - That is what I meant.But I am intrigued as to what you think the difference is between invoking flight gnomes as the cause of aerodynamics and Thor as the cause of static electricity that produces storms?What is the difference?As a Christian who (as I understand it) believes that Christ is a supernatural entity and who believes that Christ also physically walked amongst us (and will do so again at some point) - Can you explain why we would not be able to (in principle) scientifically study the supernatural entity that is Christ?

Sure prayer could be evidence. But it would have to involve properly studying prayer rather than just relying on people saying that they believe it works.Are you aware of the notion of double blind trials as applied to medical trials?That is the sort of thing that is required. Right?

Is God involved in absolutely everything or does anything happen on it's own? I guess that depends whether you believe Christ is amongst us at the moment or not. I am sure some do believe that.......But at what ever point Christ physically walks amongst us there is nothing in principle to stop us scientifically studying this supertrnatural being is there? I would imagine Christ's DNA (considering his parentage) would be rather interesting. For example.

In summary - We cannot scientifically test for the existence of supernatural entities despite the fact that many many people claim to be able to detect supernatural entities because.........?Can you clarify this?If the prevalence of human claims regarding the supernatural is an indicator of the existence of the supernatural (i.e. subjective "evidence") then it would seem that such entities should be readily detectable with more advanced equipment than human eyes, ears etc.No?