Non-Scientists and Science

[Melendwyr]

Science starts out with enough humility to admit that it has no way of experimenting on supernatural causes.

No: 'supernatural' things do not and cannot exist, given the way science uses the word 'natural'.

That doesn't mean that ghosts, Bigfoot, and vampiric lawnchairs are impossible. But if they are possible, they're not supernatural. Natural is just a whole lot weirder than we were previously aware, that's all.

 

[Melendwyr]

No need to apologize. You have your beliefs about how the universe works and that's fine. Perhaps you are right. I'm just not as certain as you are about such things.

Things like, say, the definitions of English words?

 

[Mojo]

Things like, say, the definitions of English words?

You beat me to it there. I'm uncertain about many things, but for the definition of "universe," well, I just have to look in the dictionary I keep within arm's length of the computer.

 

[Melendwyr]

I have, on occasion, seen 'universe' used in the same way that the word 'plane' is used in D&D. But most of the time, 'universe' means 'cosmos', the totality of ordered systems that interact with the observer.

Nothing outside our universe exists relative to us, and we do not exist relative to anything outside our universe. That's just what the word means.

 

[Rolfe]

Not necessarily shooting you down, but if the other universe or mode of being interacts with this one in predictable ways, obeying the laws of physics as we understand them, how is that different from having a "natural" explanation?

Beth

I think I'll wait until something in this category is actually demonstrated before considering that one.

Rolfe.

 

[Beth]

I think I'll wait until something in this category is actually demonstrated before considering that one.

Rolfe.

Okay. Your perrogative. But the original question was "What's the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural one?" It's something I consider when contemplating the question.

 

[hammegk]

... the original question was "What's the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural one?"

By definition, 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' cannot exist in any way,shape, or form that could ever be determined scientifically. If it were determined scientifically, by definition it would be 'normal'. Some say, within this universe, but M-theory seems undecided on that question with its' multiverse
-- p-brane -- conjectures.

Therefore, for 'supernatural' to exist, and effect/affect this universe, you must be a dualist, and goddidit (outside of laws of physics as we will ever know them). In my mind that position is logically indefensible, albeit unprovable one way or the other. Your rational alternative is to choose your monism -- its' all 'material & physical', or its' all 'not-physical', which some would call 'mind'.

It's something I consider when contemplating the question.

Good. It's too bad our scientists' haven't bothered to when they make inane statements like "Science is not inimical to Religion.".

 

[Beth]

By definition, 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' cannot exist in any way,shape, or form that could ever be determined scientifically. If it were determined scientifically, by definition it would be 'normal'. Some say, within this universe, but M-theory seems undecided on that question with its' multiverse
-- p-brane -- conjectures.

Therefore, for 'supernatural' to exist, and effect/affect this universe, you must be a dualist, and goddidit (outside of laws of physics as we will ever know them). In my mind that position is logically indefensible, albeit unprovable one way or the other. Your rational alternative is to choose your monism -- its' all 'material & physical', or its' all 'not-physical', which some would call 'mind'.



Good. It's too bad our scientists' haven't bothered to when they make inane statements like "Science is not inimical to Religion.".

Thanks for your thoughts. I think I understand what you're saying. The idea that if science can explain something it can no longer be consider supernatural is one of the difficulties/differences I have regarding what is paranormal and what is not. My personal definition allows some overlap, but I use a somewhat laxer definition that you've given. Still, I ponder what it all means. I find it useful to listen to other people's opinions, such as yours and the other contributors to this thread.

Thanks to all of you for the food for thought.