(May 20, 2015 at 12:59 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: But then we would have to conclude that the set of things to which the word supernatural applies is the empty set. Is this not the same as saying there is no such thing as the supernatural? First of all, we have a definite semantic sense of what the term supernatural means. So if we conclude on the basis of your hypothetical that there are no supernatural events or forces, are we not begging the question prior to examining the phenomenon? I feel supernatural as a term has a sense, even if that sense is not satisfied by any real world object. So how do we bridge the gap between the sense of the word, and the fact that we have not examined all things to which the name supernatural might apply?
I think that the empty set is actually things to which you can prove the word "supernatural" applies. It doesn't negate the existence of the supernatural. It just makes it an unprovable concept, because if something supernatural did exist, it's possible it would simply remain in the "unknown" category. Where supernatural claims really come into trouble is their history and their lack of evidence. The human fallibility factor really hurts those claims, too.
As far as bringing that gap, I think it's best just to relegate the supernatural to a metaphor until we even get the hint of something supernatural that we could observe and study, and I'm not even sure if that is possible.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
