Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Define specifically what you mean by "supernatural". For me, that is a loaded word, and I don't want to answer based on my assumptions of your meaning.
Click to expand...
Something that doesn't exist within the parameters of time and space, at least as we understand it.
 
Iacchus said:
Something that doesn't exist within the parameters of time and space, at least as we understand it.
Click to expand...

Personally, I wouldn't consider that supernatural, but I'm perfectly willing to answer the question based on that definition.

No, the scientific process would not be designed to address the supernatural as you have it defined.

To clarify, as based on my limited understanding of some of the corrallaries to the anthropic-principle, since we (intelligent humans) have evolved under given circumstances we therefore view those circumstances as being necessary for intelligence to evolve. Therefore, it is improbable that we could conceive of, define, and test for something outside of those circumstances and, even if we were to encounter such an intelligence, we may well not even recognize it as such.

addendum: And, if any such intelligence were to interact with us, it would be functioning under the circumstances under which we evolved, and would therefore no longer be considered supernatural under the above definition.
 
AnotherSillyAlias said:
Originally Posted by Iacchus :
So, it is not designed to test for the supernatural then?
Click to expand...
This question is disingenuous at best. You are either being deliberately obtuse or it's a sad reflection on your reasoning powers.
Click to expand...

Shermer stated "natural phenomenon" for the very reason that natural phenomenon should be able to be evidenced physically.

By definition, "supernatural" goes beyond the natural.

Yes, I can provide no proof that "supernatural" phenomena exists.

Nor can you provide proof that it doesn't.

It's really that simple.
 
Huntster said:
Shermer stated "natural phenomenon" for the very reason that natural phenomenon should be able to be evidenced physically.

By definition, "supernatural" goes beyond the natural.

Yes, I can provide no proof that "supernatural" phenomena exists.

Nor can you provide proof that it doesn't.

It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

I cannot provide evidence that unicorns exist. However, as there is no evidence that they do, it is reasonable to disbelieve in unicorns.
 
Last edited:
Huntster said:
Shermer stated "natural phenomenon" for the very reason that natural phenomenon should be able to be evidenced physically.

By definition, "supernatural" goes beyond the natural.

Yes, I can provide no proof that "supernatural" phenomena exists.

Nor can you provide proof that it doesn't.

It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

I think I disagree with that. The crux of my disagreement is the following portion of his quote, "...which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon..." There is nothing in there to preclude the demonstration of natural phenomenon for which we do not have a natural explanation or supernaturanal phenomenon.


"Nor can you provide proof that it doesn't." Proving the negative.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
I cannot provide evidence that unicorns exist. However, as there is no evidence that they do, it is reasonable to disbelieve in unicorns.
Click to expand...

I can provide you with some "evidence":

But, frankly, I just don't give much of a damn about whatever you say.

I don't like you.
Click to expand...

More:

Stuff it, little boy.

I have no need or obligation to play word games with you.

Au revoir.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the meaning of the English language?

Yet, despite the fact that you haven't posted to this thread until now, you come over here to push your luck after I gave you some "evidence"?

Apparently, you aren't very good at "evidence-collection", don't know how to analyze it after you get it, or you're looking for trouble.

Which is it, boy?
 
Huntster said:
I can provide you with some "evidence":



More:



Do you understand the meaning of the English language?

Yet, despite the fact that you haven't posted to this thread until now, you come over here to push your luck after I gave you some "evidence"?

Apparently, you aren't very good at "evidence-collection", don't know how to analyze it after you get it, or you're looking for trouble.

Which is it, boy?
Click to expand...


I'm here to discuss things. Are you here to be a beligerent bully?

Incidentally, what sort of evidence as to the existence of unicorns is that?
 
ImaginalDisc said:
.....Are you here to be a beligerent bully?.....
Click to expand...

As far as you're concerned, yes.

I don't like being called "ninny" by a little boy, and I think you searched my participation activity to piss me off some more.

Tread carefully, miscreant.
 
Huntster said:
As far as you're concerned, yes.

I don't like being called "ninny" by a little boy, and I think you searched my participation activity to piss me off some more.

Tread carefully, miscreant.
Click to expand...

you have vastly overestimated your importance. The thread happened to be at the top of the R&P list.

P.S. I'm a miscreant? Does that make me a...hold on, let me get my dictionary. Ok, am I a rascal, or am I an infidel?
 
Huntster said:
Shermer stated "natural phenomenon" for the very reason that natural phenomenon should be able to be evidenced physically.

By definition, "supernatural" goes beyond the natural.

Yes, I can provide no proof that "supernatural" phenomena exists.

Nor can you provide proof that it doesn't.

It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

Yes, supernatural goes beyond the natural, that statement is correct however, if you wish to subject your "experiences" or claims to scientific scrutiny, and if such scrutiny suggests that there is something in your claim, then it is no longer supernatural.

If no evidence for your claim can be produced by scientific method then it remains supernatural and I will continue to believe that there is nothing there until I see evidence.

Obviously I can not prove that it does not exist nor should I be required to do so.

If you wish to believe that your supernatural whatever exists despite any scientific evidence, that's perfectly fine by me but don't expect me to accept or believe it.

That's how simple I think it is.
 
AnotherSillyAlias said:
Yes, supernatural goes beyond the natural, that statement is correct however, if you wish to subject your "experiences" or claims to scientific scrutiny, and if such scrutiny suggests that there is something in your claim, then it is no longer supernatural.

If no evidence for your claim can be produced by scientific method then it remains supernatural and I will continue to believe that there is nothing there until I see evidence.

Obviously I can not prove that it does not exist nor should I be required to do so.

If you wish to believe that your supernatural whatever exists despite any scientific evidence, that's perfectly fine by me but don't expect me to accept or believe it.

That's how simple I think it is.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Iacchus said:
Something that doesn't exist within the parameters of time and space, at least as we understand it.
Click to expand...
More scientifically, exists within the parameters of time and space but is poorly understood, or, unidentified/unknown.
 
The only thing a skeptic cannot reduce is a tautology. Everything else is fair game, however doubt operates on the sliding scale subjectivism.

(Do you doubt this statement? Good, it's not a tautology.)

:)

Flick
 
stamenflicker said:
The only think a skeptic cannot reduce is a tautology. Everything else is fair game, however doubt operates on the sliding scale subjectivism.

(Do you doubt this statement? Good, it's not a tautology.)

:)

Flick
Click to expand...

Tautologies aren't meaningful statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom