I think Bel's had enough and is going full troll.

(May 24, 2020 at 6:31 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 24, 2020 at 5:58 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: Making room for the supernatural.

Length - zero
Width - zero
Height - zero

Every property and attribute of nature - zero value

Turns out, you don't have to make any room at all.

Has the same amount of room as nothing.

Science works really well because it uses methodological naturalism.

It excludes supernatural explanations a priori.

Therefore it never finds anything supernatural.


Therefore there is no such thing as the supernatural.

----

This metal detector detects only metal.

I took it to the beach and it detected only metal.

Therefore there is only metal at the beach.

And Belacqua hits the strawman with a wicked jab followed by a right hook that could knock out a bull! Meanwhile his devastating techniques show no effect on what anyone in this thread has said so far.

(May 24, 2020 at 6:31 pm)Belacqua Wrote: 1) Science works really well because it uses methodological naturalism.

2) It excludes supernatural explanations a priori.

3) Therefore it never finds anything supernatural.


Therefore there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Uhm... Three does not neccesserily follow from two though, Bel.

Jus' sayin' is all.

Cheers,

Not at work.

Of course you can't find anything you cannot show to exist in the first place, that's a no brainer.

1) Science works because it deals with things that can be shown to exist

2) Science does not deal with things or explanations that rely on things you cannot show to exist (how would it explore it ? )

3) Therefore it never finds anything you cannot show to exist. (by definition it can't)

Still we are left with the claim only, no progress has been made no matter how you present the supernatural.

(May 24, 2020 at 7:21 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(May 24, 2020 at 6:31 pm)Belacqua Wrote: 1) Science works really well because it uses methodological naturalism.

2) It excludes supernatural explanations a priori.

3) Therefore it never finds anything supernatural.


Therefore there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Uhm... Three does not neccesserily follow from two though, Bel.

Jus' sayin' is all.

Cheers,

Not at work.

If it excludes supernatural explanations, then no supernatural explanations will be found.

4) Doesn't follow from 3).

The point is that if we accept only methods which exclude the supernatural as determinant of truth, then we have pre-determined the kind of answer we will accept.

For some people, "that which can be demonstrated by science" = "that which is true." It works well in practice, but it begs the question.

(May 24, 2020 at 7:48 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 24, 2020 at 7:21 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Uhm... Three does not neccesserily follow from two though, Bel.

Jus' sayin' is all.

Cheers,

Not at work.

If it excludes supernatural explanations, then no supernatural explanations will be found.

4) Doesn't follow from 3).

The point is that if we accept only methods which exclude the supernatural as determinant of truth, then we have pre-determined the kind of answer we will accept.

For some people, "that which can be demonstrated by science" = "that which is true." It works well in practice, but it begs the question.

But.. it's doesn't 'Exclude' supernatural explanations Bel.

Really, it doesn't.

Okay, lets try something.

Can you give a cognizant definition of what "Suprenatural 'Is'.

Not what the word 'Supernatural' means... But "What is (The) Supernatural" ?

Then, perhaps, we'll be closer to being on the same page?

EDIT:

"possibletarian" 

Put forth much more succinct words than I.

Cheers.

Not at work.

(May 24, 2020 at 8:16 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: But.. it's doesn't 'Exclude' supernatural explanations Bel.

Really, it doesn't.

The scientific method works with things that can be studied through repeated empirical evidence. 

Therefore, things which never repeat and can't be shown through empirical evidence can't be subjects for science. 

Quote:Okay, lets try something.

Can you give a cognizant definition of what "Suprenatural 'Is'.

Not what the word 'Supernatural' means... But "What is (The) Supernatural" ?

Then, perhaps, we'll be closer to being on the same page?

Cheers.

Not at work. 

Everything has a nature. Its nature is what it is and does. Frogs have a frog nature. They are and do what frogs do. It is not in a frog's nature to sing "Là ci darem la mano." If a frog started to do this, it would be outside of -- "over" -- the frog's nature. That's what supernatural means. 

So what is the supernatural? It is every event which happens which is not in the nature of the thing which does it. 

The universe is very large and has been around for a long time. Human beings evolved for survival, not full-spectrum truth. Since our senses and the things we pay attention to are extremely limited, there could be stuff going on all the time that we don't know about. There could be hapax legomenon-type events which science can't address. 

It used to be that when something happened that natural philosophers couldn't explain, they would call it "occult," which just means hidden. That leaves open the possibility of later explanation. But that doesn't mean that everything can be explained someday. We don't know.

I am not saying that supernatural events occur. I am saying that if we rule them out because science can't study them then we are affirming the consequent.

(May 24, 2020 at 7:48 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 24, 2020 at 7:21 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Uhm... Three does not neccesserily follow from two though, Bel.

Jus' sayin' is all.

Cheers,

Not at work.

If it excludes supernatural explanations, then no supernatural explanations will be found.

4) Doesn't follow from 3).

The point is that if we accept only methods which exclude the supernatural as determinant of truth, then we have pre-determined the kind of answer we will accept.

For some people, "that which can be demonstrated by science" = "that which is true." It works well in practice, but it begs the question.

Actually, science does NOT exclude supernatural explanations. What it excludes is explanations that cannot be tested.

In other words, it excludes any potential explanation if there can be no test, even in theory, that could show it to be wrong.

As an example, in physics, we might have a theory that predicts some measured quantity will have a value of 3.4 with an uncertainty of .2. If we then go and measure that quantity and it turns out to be 4.8, we have shown that theory to be wrong in this instance. Because of this, usually precision and testability are linked. But that isn't required.  For example, a theory might predict that a supernova should emit a certain amount of a certain type of radioactive nucleus. We can use spectroscopy to determine if that nucleus is present or not (although there might be a limit to how little we can detect). So that theory is testable: we can measure that quantity using spectroscopy and see if the theory works.

So, if you can come up with a testable supernatural explanation for *anything*, it could be a scientific hypothesis. We would then, of course, conduct the test to see if it holds up.

What that would mean is having some 'supernatural explantion' that makes a prediction that we can actually go out and do something to see whether that prediction is true or not AND if it is not, it brings the theory into question.

THIS is all science requires. Now, IN PRACTICE, nobody has been able to come up with such an explanation that is testable in this way. So, as yet, there have been no supernatural explanations that would be acceptable to science.

But, if an explanation is NOT testable in any way, why should we accept it as an explanation at all?

---

(May 24, 2020 at 8:33 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 24, 2020 at 8:16 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: But.. it's doesn't 'Exclude' supernatural explanations Bel.

Really, it doesn't.

The scientific method works with things that can be studied through repeated empirical evidence. 

Therefore, things which never repeat and can't be shown through empirical evidence can't be subjects for science. 

Quote:Okay, lets try something.

Can you give a cognizant definition of what "Suprenatural 'Is'.

Not what the word 'Supernatural' means... But "What is (The) Supernatural" ?

Then, perhaps, we'll be closer to being on the same page?

Cheers.

Not at work. 

Everything has a nature. Its nature is what it is and does. Frogs have a frog nature. They are and do what frogs do. It is not in a frog's nature to sing "Là ci darem la mano." If a frog started to do this, it would be outside of -- "over" -- the frog's nature. That's what supernatural means. 

Garbage. if a frog started to do this, we would just say that some frogs are able to do it and investigate how and why.

But the deeper problem is that talking about things having a 'nature' smacks of Aristotelian philosophy, which really should be put to bed by now.

What about subnatural or zeitranatural or even quadranatural

I could affix prefixes all day but why would we attribute truth to an untestable thing?

(May 24, 2020 at 8:33 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 24, 2020 at 8:16 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: But.. it's doesn't 'Exclude' supernatural explanations Bel.

Really, it doesn't.

The scientific method works with things that can be studied through repeated empirical evidence. 

Therefore, things which never repeat and can't be shown through empirical evidence can't be subjects for science. 

Quote:Okay, lets try something.

Can you give a cognizant definition of what "Suprenatural 'Is'.

Not what the word 'Supernatural' means... But "What is (The) Supernatural" ?

Then, perhaps, we'll be closer to being on the same page?

Cheers.

Everything has a nature. Its nature is what it is and does. Frogs have a frog nature. They are and do what frogs do. It is not in a frog's nature to sing "Là ci darem la mano." If a frog started to do this, it would be outside of -- "over" -- the frog's nature. That's what supernatural means. 

So what is the supernatural? It is every event which happens which is not in the nature of the thing which does it. 

The universe is very large and has been around for a long time. Human beings evolved for survival, not full-spectrum truth. Since our senses and the things we pay attention to are extremely limited, there could be stuff going on all the time that we don't know about. There could be hapax legomenon-type events which science can't address. 

It used to be that when something happened that natural philosophers couldn't explain, they would call it "occult," which just means hidden. That leaves open the possibility of later explanation. But that doesn't mean that everything can be explained someday. We don't know.

I am not saying that supernatural events occur. I am saying that if we rule them out because science can't study them then we are affirming the consequent.

Quick reply.

Am enjoying my breakfast far too much.  

You realise, Bel, you've decribed what 'Supernatural' is NOT...

You haven't actually described what it 'Is'.

Cheers.

Not at work.