(May 30, 2020 at 9:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(May 30, 2020 at 8:33 pm)polymath257 Wrote: If a frog is singing, that is part of what it 'is or does' and therefore part of its nature, right?
If science told us in great detail and with great confidence that a frog can't sing Italian duets [i.e., that such singing is not a part of the frog's nature], and yet we saw it do so, then people who are open to the possibility of the supernatural would take this as evidence of the supernatural.
People who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would assume that science hadn't discovered something yet. That in fact it was part of the frog's nature. Even if a million years went by and no explanation was offered, people who are not open to the possibility of the supernatural would continue to assume this.
For clarity: I am not saying that it's possible.
I think I see what you're trying to say (maybe). If I started seeing frogs singing Italian duets and I was sure it wasn't me hallucinating and the notes were clearly coming from them through mysterious processes within their bodies (and not through some hard-to-see nearby device that is emitting Italian songs and deceptively making it look like it's the frogs singing), I'd definitely consider the "supernatural" (as in beyond the scope of science) as a serious possibility in this case, at least temporarily until/unless a clear explanation in science points us back to a very "naturalistic" explanation. But I'd still opt for a naturalistic explanation primarily, due to the metaphysical worldview I hold to.
