The Problem With The Supernatural

[yairhol]

She/he is saying that for example in the early 1800's if someone would have said that you can transmit information over vast distances without having a direct link with those distant places, then that would be considered supernatural.

I see where the problem of miscommunication is. In my first post I wrote about EM radiation and said it would have been considered supernatural in the 1800's. I didn't make the distinction between supernatural and paranormal which I took both to be the same.

In the 1800's when people did not understand EM radiation and their transmission characteristics or even their existence (Light was just light without all the energetic fields associated with it), the thought of radio waves and their transmission, "big mirror in the sky" (plasma) and so on would have been considered paranormal but could have also been regarded as supernatural because their then knowledge of physics could not take into consideration such energies.

Think also about the speed of light as we know it today travelling inside some media and think about how it was seen before we knew its real speed. If we hadn't known about the permittivities and permeabilities of materials and the change in C in those media then we would have said that a claim of a different C than is known is supernatural as it contradicts the laws of physics as we know them at the time. Doing the relevant expermentation at the time was impossible.

Regards,
Yair

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Those aren't my words. Those are drkittens. Could you go back and either edit my name out of the quote source or quote something I said that would relate to post #21?

eta. - Thanks (might have a response later)

 

[yairhol]

Fixed. Thanks.

 

[T'ai Chi]

The problem with the supernatural is that it can NEVER in any way be proven.

Consequently, no attempt to do so is any more than a waste of time in 100 percent of all cases, no exceptions.

So you're saying that challenges by skeptic clubs are a waste of time then?

 

[Mojo]

I don't see why some things considered supernatural or paranormal couldn't be scientifically verified. Then they would no longer be supernatural or paranormal--maybe that's what you're saying?

The problem with the supernatural is that it can NEVER in any way be proven.

I don't think you've supported the above argument. Why not? If someone can really read minds, that would be pretty easy to prove, right? Or are you saying these things can never be proven because they're all bogus?

I wouldn't be surprised if one or more things presently considered supernatural turn out to be scientifically validated. Or at least I certainly wouldn't rule it out.

If it exists and manifest itself in any way it will be proven. If not, it wont. Its just that simple.

The problem is actually that (like any proposition) "the paranormal" cannot be disproven, so that no matter how many times an alleged paranormal phenomenon fails to appear under controlled conditions, we will still get people saying that it just happened not to have worked on that particular occasion, or that paranormal abilities are capricious or actively evasive, or whatever.

 

[Mojo]

So you're saying that challenges by skeptic clubs are a waste of time then?

And, of course, we'll also always have amoral people who think that nobody should bother to do anything about things that they think are wrong.

 

[drkitten]

I see where the problem of miscommunication is. In my first post I wrote about EM radiation and said it would have been considered supernatural in the 1800's. I didn't make the distinction between supernatural and paranormal which I took both to be the same.

In the 1800's when people did not understand EM radiation and their transmission characteristics or even their existence (Light was just light without all the energetic fields associated with it), the thought of radio waves and their transmission, "big mirror in the sky" (plasma) and so on would have been considered paranormal but could have also been regarded as supernatural because their then knowledge of physics could not take into consideration such energies.

But the fact that their knowledge of physics "could not take [something] into consideration" doesn't mean that their physics actively excludes it.

That's the point I'm trying to make. There's a difference between something that we don't know about and something we "know" can't exist. And that's the point at which science stops and the paranormal beings.

For example, I don't know what animals are living underneath my house. I don't think that I have termites, and I spend a fair amount of money making sure that stays the case, but there could easily be a termite colony that I don't know about. Nothing that I know about the world excludes the possibility.

On the other hand, I know that my house doesn't have a blue whale infestation. Because the properties I know of blue whales -- the fact, for example, that they don't burrow and are twice the size of my basement -- are actively incompatible with the idea of "living underneath my house."

Most -- not all -- of the "paranormal" falls into the second category. We "know" that the law of conservation of momentum holds, and it's related to a fundamental Noether symmetry of the universe. For this reason, TK is not just "unknown" but impossible -- to lift a rock requires momentum transfer, and there's nothing to transfer it to. Or if it's possible, then Emmy Noether was entirely wrong.

I already gave the example of Bigfoot. A new, undiscovered, large primate is not incompatible with science as we know it. So you're right there about "cryptozoology." But "psi" as generally defined violates at least two fundamental laws of physics (cause-effect and conservation of energy). So it's not sufficient to simply say that we don't know everything. If you want to justify psi, you have to say that everything we do know is actively wrong.

Think also about the speed of light as we know it today travelling inside some media and think about how it was seen before we knew its real speed. If we hadn't known about the permittivities and permeabilities of materials and the change in C in those media then we would have said that a claim of a different C than is known is supernatural as it contradicts the laws of physics as we know them at the time. Doing the relevant expermentation at the time was impossible.

This is historically incorrect. Newton knew about different speeds of light from purely geometric arguments. "C" isn't just "the speed of light," and "the speed of light" isn't supposed to be material-invariant. "C" is the speed of light in vaccuum, and Newton didn't have a clue about that -- meaning he woudn't have known enough to argue against the idea of invariance of the speed of light.

 

[drkitten]

The problem is actually that (like any proposition) "the paranormal" cannot be disproven, so that no matter how many times an alleged paranormal phenomenon fails to appear under controlled conditions, we will still get people saying that it just happened not to have worked on that particular occasion, or that paranormal abilities are capricious or actively evasive, or whatever.

Yup. And no matter how many times I fail to send in my utility check, I can still tell the company that "oh, I sent that check in two weeks ago. It must have gotten lost at your end."

The problem is that the company has no reason to believe me. Or even to take me seriously. Especially when their records show that this is the third check in a row that they've "lost."

 

[Pup]

Be it religion or any other beliefs, what test could any scientist design to PROVE that an observed mystery phenomenon is truly supernatural or simply the result of a perfectly natural process we do not yet understand?

Seems like what this boils down to is:

If a phenomenon could ever be understood, it's defined as "not supernatural."

If a phenomenon could never be understood, it is "supernatural."

It's impossible to prove that a phenomenon will never be understood, therefore it's impossible to prove a phenomenon is supernatural.

Well, duh. Yeah. So?

The more interesting problem, I think, is proving whether the phenomenon exists at all. Can dowsers find objects only by using their rods? Can the dead speak through ouija boards? Can psychics predict future events more reliably than non-psychics? Will just praying for something increase the chance of it happening? All testable by the usual scientific methods, regardless whether they're supernatural or natural.

 

[Senex]

Be it religion or any other beliefs, what test could any scientist design to PROVE that an observed mystery phenomenon is truly supernatural or simply the result of a perfectly natural process we do not yet understand? In other words, how can we distinctly differentiate between an as yet unknown natural explanation for a mystery phenomena as opposed to a genuinely supernatural cause of that same phenomena?

What mystery phenomenon today might be supernatural? I don't believe anything falls in this category to make your question relevant. We might have more to learn about black holes but there is no reason to suspect there will be anything supernatural about them. ESP and religion don't qualify as phenomenon because they are simply beliefs some people hold based on no evidence. No one can demonstrate ESP ability and no one can demonstrate their prayers affect anything. There is no mystery phenomena today that I can think of (at least once the Newregian college students get around to explaining the woo-woo lights that they promised )

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

No one can demonstrate ESP ability and no one can demonstrate their prayers affect anything.

A study of the efficacy of intercessory prayer is only a study of the efficacy of intercessory prayer. The supernatural components can't be calculated into the error bar. We can demonstrate that in a study, prayer was shown not to be more efficacious than doing nothing some other control group, but the mind of God is outside the perview of the scientific method - and thus supernatural.
Individual claims can be studied. General claims cannot.

 

[Senex]

A study of the efficacy of intercessory prayer is only a study of the efficacy of intercessory prayer. The supernatural components can't be calculated into the error bar. We can demonstrate that in a study, prayer was shown not to be more efficacious than doing nothing some other control group, but the mind of God is outside the perview of the scientific method - and thus supernatural.
Individual claims can be studied. General claims cannot.

But the original question was...

Be it religion or any other beliefs, what test could any scientist design to PROVE that an observed mystery phenomenon is truly supernatural or simply the result of a perfectly natural process we do not yet understand? In other words, how can we distinctly differentiate between an as yet unknown natural explanation for a mystery phenomena as opposed to a genuinely supernatural cause of that same phenomena?

To be a phenomenon is to be observable or known through observation. The mind of god does not qualify as a phenomenon. My point is that at this point in time there is no phenomenon that a reasonable person might think is caused by the supernatural. I think the question makes no sense because it asks to compare two things but one of the things doesn't exist at this time. I believe advanced technology could fall into this category -- but I don't know of any technology that is unexplained. I believe lightning and thunder once fell under this category but we've figured that one out. We don't know everything about how the brain works but we've established that chemistry, biology and physics are at the bottom of it. I think the question is flawed.


Webster on-line:phenomenon

1 plural phenomena : an observable fact or event
2 plural phenomena a : an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition b : a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon c : a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation

 

[tsg]

It's the flip side of Arthur C. Clarke's "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".

Sufficiently reliable magic is indistinguishable from technology.

Technology that is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

 

[drkitten]

What mystery phenomenon today might be supernatural?

Consciousness.

I know, from personal experience, that the phenomenon of consciousness exists, and I find the existing naturalistic explanations deeply unsatisfactory.

I could generalize this, of course, to any qualia; the color red, the taste of an orange, or the feeling of pain when I get pricked by a needle. I know quite about about the neurochemistry of flavor, but I still haven't figured out why I like orange juice but not crabmeat.

 

[Cainkane1]

I agree with you. Just because you can't explain something you run into doesn't mean that if all facts were known there would be a rational scientific explanation for everything.

 

[Senex]

Consciousness.

I know, from personal experience, that the phenomenon of consciousness exists, and I find the existing naturalistic explanations deeply unsatisfactory.

I could generalize this, of course, to any qualia; the color red, the taste of an orange, or the feeling of pain when I get pricked by a needle. I know quite about about the neurochemistry of flavor, but I still haven't figured out why I like orange juice but not crabmeat.

OK, you pulled out all the stops. I don't know any naturalistic explanations, but consciousness is the most difficult thing to explain.

Our planet was one in a trillion trillion that water didn't freeze or boil. Our atoms were so unlikely to become conscious that I won't even put the zeros on the page. We are terribly lucky to have consciousness for a brief period. It wasn't psychic reasons we are here -- it was the laws of physics

 

[drkitten]

OK, you pulled out all the stops. I don't know any naturalistic explanations, but consciousness is the most difficult thing to explain.

Yes, as you have amply demonstrated. That's exactly the sort of naturalilstic explanation that I find completely unsatisfactory, since it doesn't actually explain anything.

You might as well have said "things just happen." "We are terribly lucky to have consciousness for a brief period? Luck? That's your "explanation"? That doesn't even describe how the process works. What is it about our atoms that makes them conscious?

I'm terribly, terribly lucky -- in a cosmic sense -- that the atoms that make up my car can be driven, even if only for a brief period. But that's not why they can be driven. The reasons that atoms shaped in that particular configuration can be driven derives from metallurgy and engineering, not from luck. I can duplicate that configuration with minor (or substantial) variation and still get something drivable, or I can make relatively minor changes and have it stop working. And in either case, I know why.

Part of the reason that I find naturalistic explanations of consciousness unsatisfactory is because I would not accept such explanations under almost any other circumstance. If I assigned my students a paper to explain why and how the First World War started, there are lots of answers I would accept. But "Bad luck" isn't one of them. "Bad luck" isn't the reason U-235 is fissionable, but U-238 isn't, nor does it explain why ice expands when it freezes. In fact, "luck" doesn't seem to explain anything at all, which makes "luck" itself periously close to the supernatural explanation you are trying to avoid.

 

[Senex]

Yes, as you have amply demonstrated. That's exactly the sort of naturalilstic explanation that I find completely unsatisfactory, since it doesn't actually explain anything.

Well, I recommend you eat well and get your exercise -- it may be many years before someone gives you the mathematical equation you desire. It is only matter of time

 

[drkitten]

Well, I recommend you eat well and get your exercise -- it may be many years before someone gives you the mathematical equation you desire. It is only matter of time

Well, remember that I was responding to these statements of yours:

What mystery phenomenon today might be supernatural? I don't believe anything falls in this category to make your question relevant.

There is no mystery phenomena today that I can think of

My point is that at this point in time there is no phenomenon that a reasonable person might think is caused by the supernatural.

I know a number of quite reasonable people who believe that consciousness can only be explained as the result of a supernatural cause (it's the "soul," which distinguishes them from crude matter). And, unfortunately, "soul" is current the best and most explanatory description of consciousness that we've got going; despite the fact that it simply substitutes one undefined term for another, it doesn't make a pretence of minimizing the issue. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a fully satisfactory expanation, but it's the best of a bad lot.

I don't need a "mathematical equation" for consciousness, but a causal explanation would be nice. "God created our souls in his image" is at least causal. "Luck" isn't, nor is a vague wave of the hands and a muttering of the mystic incantation "neural architecture."

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And, unfortunately, "soul" is current the best and most explanatory description of consciousness that we've got going; despite the fact that it simply substitutes one undefined term for another, it doesn't make a pretence of minimizing the issue. It's not by any stretch of the imagination a fully satisfactory expanation, but it's the best of a bad lot.

Is "we're computers of a sort" in that bad lot? Why is that worse or not in the "bad lot"?