(June 1, 2016 at 12:05 am)robvalue Wrote: Ignorant: I don't understand how studying something tells us what an entity "naturally" does. Scientific enquiry models reality. [1] We may find out what slugs are made of, and we may model how they behave and what they are capable of, to the best of our ability. But science doesn't prescribe reality, or nature. It attempts to describe it. [2] So I don't think it's valid to say we have defined the nature of anything; we've just modelled it as best we can, given what we know. [3]
This again hits the problem with supernatural that we (a) assume we have all the information about something [4] and (b) when something happens which supposedly doesn't fit with this information, we call it supernatural. [5] Why not just call it unexplained? [6] If we do later find a natural explanation, we were categorically wrong to ever call it supernatural. So it's an attempt to predict the future. [7]
Maybe if we understood it better, it would no longer seem "supernatural". This again suggests subjectivity, as it depends on knowledge. And any particular claim of supernatural occurences is just a claim that our current knowledge was complete; [8] followed by the admission that it actually isn't, in order to create a new category.
I always enjoy those videos =)
1) Right. Question: According to the current scientific models of slugs' reality, do/can slugs create universes? Do those models have boundary conditions?
2) I'll remind you of my words here, with which I say the exact same thing:
"The more we observe it and study it, the more we discover and learn about its nature. Thank you scientific method." Here
"If the thing does something that was previously thought to be beyond its nature, scientific investigation must begin. If the act is within its natural powers, then it must be the case that the scientific method can discover this power." Here
3) I couldn't agree more, and the models which we develop use boundary conditions which set limits on the natures of things. We don't definine the nature this way arbitrarily. Instead, our observations and scientific investigations have provided data with which we can develop (hopefully) a model which best fits that data. So far, does the model of a slug's reality need to account for its possible universe creating powers? No. That would be absurd.
4) I don't assume that, and few thinkers in the theological tradition ever thought that "knowing-everything-about-something" was even possible for human beings. <= Read that again.
5) I will, again, draw your attention to a previous post in which I list several possibilities, only ONE of which was a supernatural conclusion: HERE
6) We often do.
7) If people call things like abiogenesis or evolution or whatever "supernatural", then they are well rebuked by this comment. Abiogenesis is possible in principle, and probably in fact. If it were ever observed, and people called it supernatural, it would be premature.
8) No, it is a claim about what we actually do know, not that we know everything. We know that a certain amount/orientation of brain tissue is necessary for understanding and investigating general relativity. The more primitive neural network of an ant, while complex and impressive in its own way, is not equipped with the processing power necessary to understand the concept. Now suppose an ant communicates, in some way, its perfect understanding of the theory. Based on what we know about neurology's relationship with intelligence and comprehension, we can conclude that the ant is somehow acting in a way that goes beyond its own neurology. Hopefully, you would consider an ant's comprehension and communication of general relativity as a possibly supernatural act.
