(May 26, 2020 at 10:29 am)polymath257 Wrote:But that's the point metaphysicians are interested in testing and theology seems to want to dodge it at all cost(May 26, 2020 at 5:53 am)Belacqua Wrote: Thank you. It's the only definition of "supernatural" that I understand.
I'm pretty sure it's the original meaning. Back when people started talking about this stuff, they were clear about what they meant. Gradually the system they used fell out of fashion, but some of the terms stayed in use. So we still use the word, but have mostly forgotten what it was supposed to mean. That's why it's incoherent to most modern people. (There are some other examples of this kind of thing.)
Even if you don't like their system overall, I see no reason why we have to jettison all of the concepts. For example when we talk about a thing's "nature" we're just referring to what the thing is and does, as opposed to something else. There's nothing supernatural, anti-science, or anti-modern about that.
In fact just now I was watching a TV show (nicely full of sex and drugs) called "Flack" and one of the characters told a joke with exactly that usage of "nature." So I know it's still in use.
And, using your example, if a frog was found that could sing Mozart duets, then that is an observation of what it can do. By your definition, it would then be in the nature of that frog to sing Mozart duets.
Would that be an unusual frog? Certainly! Could it potentially lead to a revolution in science? Absolutely.
But could it be studied using science? Absolutely.
Science is NOT limited to 'explanations' that are dependent on current physics, chemistry, etc. In fact, current physics, chemistry, etc. are around because those are the best model we have for the observations we can make.
But, in a sense, the quantum world acts in ways that are *very* different than those of the classical world. Causality is mangled, realism is wrong, and things can appear and disappear for no reason. And yet, science manages to find patterns and use those patterns to give a predictive theory. And that predictive theory *is* the explanation.
(May 26, 2020 at 10:24 am)SUNGULA Wrote: But Poly we have to respect metaphysical making stuff up and demanding actual standards we know work as opposed to the invisible dragon is" faith "
Physicists 'make up possibilities' all the time. And there are some very strange suggestions that are made.
The key is testability: is there a way to make some observation that distinguishes between the proposal being true and it being false.
So, saying ghosts raise my garage door when I push the button isn't a good explanation not because it uses 'supernatural beings', but because we know a better explanation that fits into a larger theory whose predictions work in every case we have found. Adding ghosts to the mix doesn't actually help at all in the explanation, especially when E&M theory explains the magnitude of the forces involved.
"Change was inevitable"
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM
Nemo sicut deus debet esse!
“No matter what men think, abortion is a fact of life. Women have always had them; they always have and they always will. Are they going to have good ones or bad ones? Will the good ones be reserved for the rich, while the poor women go to quacks?”
–SHIRLEY CHISHOLM