Supernatural isn't a useful concept

[Edwardo Piet]

A-ha!

ETA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914

[ApeNotKillApe]

Zap's high up there for sure. And the Brains.

Bender also obviously.

[Minimalist]

Supernatural explanations are so much easier for the dolts.  None of that messy science stuff.

[Angrboda]

It is said that a natural law is a codification of an effect which deviates from the random in a consistent, non-random way. The law of gravity exists because objects depart from the traditional "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" and "an object at rest tends to remain at rest" in consistent and predictable ways. The paths of moving objects are changed in non-random ways.

If this is the hallmark of natural law, then perhaps the supernatural is that which deviates from randomness or natural law in inconsistent but non-random ways. So a phenomena which deviated from the consistency of natural law only under certain, repeatable circumstances, might be considered supernatural. For example, a person [allegedly] making a sphere levitate. It would be inconsistent with the way natural law ordinarily affects the sphere. The sticky wicket in all this is attributing cause. How do we verify that the person is actually causing the sphere to levitate as opposed to some other unknown cause. If the effect is inconsistent with natural law, differentiating between the supernatural and the unexplained seems impossible in principle. The inconsistency of the effect supercedes our ability to find a natural law to cover the phenomena.

[ApeNotKillApe]

A-ha!

ETA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2KMkQLZmI

[Edwardo Piet]

It is said that a natural law is a codification of an effect which deviates from the random in a consistent, non-random way.  The law of gravity exists because objects depart from the traditional "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" and "an object at rest tends to remain at rest" in consistent and predictable ways.  The paths of moving objects are changed in non-random ways.

If this is the hallmark of natural law, then perhaps the supernatural is that which deviates from randomness or natural law in inconsistent but non-random ways.  So a phenomena which deviated from the consistency of natural law only under certain, repeatable circumstances, might be considered supernatural.  For example, a person [allegedly] making a sphere levitate.  It would be inconsistent with the way natural law ordinarily affects the sphere.  The sticky wicket in all this is attributing cause.  How do we verify that the person is actually causing the sphere to levitate as opposed to some other unknown cause.  If the effect is inconsistent with natural law, differentiating between the supernatural and the unexplained seems impossible in principle.  The inconsistency of the effect supercedes our ability to find a natural law to cover the phenomena.

Very interesting thoughts.

Is it really worthy of the label "supernatural" though? Maybe "transnatural" as in transcending or going beyond the way nature usually is?

I mean... because supposedly "supernatural" applies to that which is not part of nature...

...and I personally think that what you described is nature behaving extraordinarily idiosyncratically.

[Edwardo Piet]

A-ha!

ETA:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djV11Xbc914

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2KMkQLZmI

Yeah. A-Ha, like most pop, fucking sucks.

But I said "aha!" just to react to your having changed your post to an image... and then I thought I'd edit my post and change it to a band of the same name as if to complement you...

...despite the fucking dreadful music.

Take On Me is the catchiest song I hate. I do sing it for hilarity sometimes. Simplistic shitty cheesy pop that it is it gets stuck in my head.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Take On Me is the catchiest song I hate. I do sing it for hilarity sometimes. Simplistic shitty cheesy pop that it is it gets stuck in my head.

I might've agreed with you once, but I've just had 1988's Opposites Attract by Paula Abdul stuck in my head off and on for the last week.

[Whateverist]

It is said that a natural law is a codification of an effect which deviates from the random in a consistent, non-random way.  The law of gravity exists because objects depart from the traditional "an object in motion tends to remain in motion" and "an object at rest tends to remain at rest" in consistent and predictable ways.  The paths of moving objects are changed in non-random ways.

If this is the hallmark of natural law, then perhaps the supernatural is that which deviates from randomness or natural law in inconsistent but non-random ways.  So a phenomena which deviated from the consistency of natural law only under certain, repeatable circumstances, might be considered supernatural.  For example, a person [allegedly] making a sphere levitate.  It would be inconsistent with the way natural law ordinarily affects the sphere.  The sticky wicket in all this is attributing cause.  How do we verify that the person is actually causing the sphere to levitate as opposed to some other unknown cause.  If the effect is inconsistent with natural law, differentiating between the supernatural and the unexplained seems impossible in principle.  The inconsistency of the effect supercedes our ability to find a natural law to cover the phenomena.

Very interesting thoughts.

Is it really worthy of the label "supernatural" though? Maybe "transnatural" as in transcending or going beyond the way nature usually is?

I mean... because supposedly "supernatural" applies to that which is not part of nature...

...and I personally think that what you described is nature behaving extraordinarily idiosyncratically.

Moreover do we have at our disposal any natural means to determine whether any action whose cause isn't fully understood has an unknown and currently mysterious natural cause?  Unless we can make that determination, it doesn't seem possible to establish the existence of anything supernatural.  This assumes that those who use the term are thinking anywhere near as carefully about it as you and not just working to confirm pre-existing biases without even realizing it.  Seems like a huge shot in the dark to expend much time or concern over.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

Supernatural seems like a waste of time

 
I’m in agreement if supernatural is used to explain away what we do not understand; thus, shutting off intellectual curiosity/pursuit and turning on a dim bulb of blind acceptance to social dogmas/beliefs.  However, if supernatural is being used as a descriptor for things that don’t conform to humanity’s most current thought patterns of what constitutes natural laws, then IMO, supernatural may indeed be a very important topic worthy of serious consideration, as it can help knock us off of our pedestal of self-importance: perhaps mankind’s greatest achievements are someone else’s ‘funny section’ in a morning newspaper.  Hence, understanding that which is alien to our sense-making processes may be the key that enables us to grow beyond our preconceptions of normalcy and come that much closer toward understanding reality as it really is.