Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[polymath257]

---

The same is true for almost everything physical. For example, I do not actually *see* the table. I see the *light* that interacted with the table. In other words, I detect the effects of the table and not the table itself.

This is typical: when I hear a bell, I actually hear the *effect* of that bell on the air: pressure waves that we call sound.

We never detect neutrinos. We detect the *effect* of those neutrinos on certain nuclei that become radioactive when hit by neutrinos. And we don't even detect those nuclei: we detect the light produced from the decay products moving through matter. So we have a second order 'effect' that serves as a detection.

And the point is that an *effect* is a detection. And if we can use the effect to distinguish information about the 'cause', then we can do scientific analysis.

So why is the 'supernatural' so special? If it has effects that we can measure (detect), then we can do science.

Hmmm....I guess that means the term 'supernatural' has consistency issues.

No, what you need "to do science" is a cause obeying a set of rules that create a consistent effect so that when you understand it, you can make prediction and test the theory.  Random observations with no process is not "science". 

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
   

Supernatural has it's own definition that clearly excludes it from this process because the supernatural does not have a set of rules that can be ascertained and predicted. Discussion of the supernatural is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. 

su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/
adjective

1. (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   

You can use science to investigate claims of supernatural causation. I think it is rational to believe a probabilistic naturalistic explanation of an cause before jumping to a supernatural explanation. But the fact remains that the supernatural either exists or does not and science has no standing in making that determination.

OK, so you are claiming that the effects of the supernatural look purely random?

In that case, how do we distinguish it from pure randomness?