Testing a Hypothesis about the Supernatural

[SteveII]

A few things wrong with this. 

1. You are making a category error. You cannot test the hypothesis of the supernatural with natural tools. You can observe the supernatural. You can infer the supernatural. You cannot apply a scientific test to the supernatural. 

How come you can't test a hypothesis of the supernatural using natural tools yet you can observe it using your natural eyes and senses?

Or do you have supernatural eyes? Maybe even spidey-senses?

Sounds like special pleading to me.

I should have been clearer. You can observe and examine the effect of the supernatural. You cannot observe or examine the supernatural cause with natural tools.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you telling us that people can't see apparitions, only the vases they knock over?  It seems like ghost believers might disagree.

I think you might be conflating the notion of the hiddenness of god with an inability for the supernatural to be detected by the natural. The supernatural only exists as a conceptual set or category because we implicitly and explictly claim that the supernatural can be detected...even by "natural" tools. The failure of the supernatural is and has always been that these claims turn out to be rank bullshit.

That the devil doesn't appear at the cross road to buy your soul when he;s supposed to.

That the ghosts of the previous residents don't dance across the rafters on the anniversary of their death..like they;re supposed to.

That the cantrip doesn't cure cancer...like it's supposed to.

The the grape juice and cracker is still grape juice and a cracker..when it's -not- supposed to be.

That the prophecy never materializes in the present.

That the island doesn;t appear out of the mist every seven years.

....etc.

If the supernatural was somehow undetectable these would not be problems...but..otoh..there wouldn't be any claim to begin with. In any case, allow me to suggest that you don;t have to go to bat defending the failures of ghost photography and esp in order to defend your silly hidden god.

[I_am_not_mafia]

How come you can't test a hypothesis of the supernatural using natural tools yet you can observe it using your natural eyes and senses?

Or do you have supernatural eyes? Maybe even spidey-senses?

Sounds like special pleading to me.

I should have been clearer. You can observe and examine the effect of the supernatural. You cannot observe or examine the supernatural cause with natural tools.

How does the supernatural effect the natural yet cannot be detected by natural means?

Natural things are also observed by the effect they have on other natural things. Like for example, what photons are absorbed and emitted.

Sounds like special pleading to me.

[polymath257]

How come you can't test a hypothesis of the supernatural using natural tools yet you can observe it using your natural eyes and senses?

Or do you have supernatural eyes? Maybe even spidey-senses?

Sounds like special pleading to me.

I should have been clearer. You can observe and examine the effect of the supernatural. You cannot observe or examine the supernatural cause with natural tools.

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.

[SteveII]

I should have been clearer. You can observe and examine the effect of the supernatural. You cannot observe or examine the supernatural cause with natural tools.

How does the supernatural effect the natural yet cannot be detected by natural means?

Natural things are also observed by the effect they have on other natural things. Like for example, what photons are absorbed and emitted.

Sounds like special pleading to me.

Because our tools and abilities (which themselves are bases in the natural world) are only useful in observing natural states of affairs. If there is a supernatural (something not in the natural world), it would be by definition, beyond our abilities to examine. So a supernatural cause would be, by definition, beyond our ability to examine. 

We are left with only observing the natural effect. We can rationally infer a supernatural cause if the probability of there being a natural cause is sufficiently low. 

It cannot be special pleading because we are talking about definitions and what those definitions entail.

---

I should have been clearer. You can observe and examine the effect of the supernatural. You cannot observe or examine the supernatural cause with natural tools.

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.

[I_am_not_mafia]

How does the supernatural effect the natural yet cannot be detected by natural means?

Natural things are also observed by the effect they have on other natural things. Like for example, what photons are absorbed and emitted.

Sounds like special pleading to me.

Because our tools and abilities (which themselves are bases in the natural world) are only useful in observing natural states of affairs. If there is a supernatural (something not in the natural world), it would be by definition, beyond our abilities to examine. So a supernatural cause would be, by definition, beyond our ability to examine. 

We are left with only observing the natural effect. We can rationally infer a supernatural cause if the probability of there being a natural cause is sufficiently low. 

You don't know how things are observed do you. It's like you think that information is magically transmitted from an object to your brain. You're argument relies on your continued ignorance.

Regardless of what it is, you can only observe things based on how it affects the parts of nature that our brains can sense (air pressure, photons etc), as has been pointed out to you twice now (now three times because I am sure this won't be the last time).

So using your definition of supernatural, it both cannot be observed by definition of it being supernatural, but can be observed because it affects natural things just like anything else.

Not only is there no evidence that the supernatural exists, but you can't even come up with a definition that distinguishes it from the natural.


And I think we all know how this thread will proceed. You'll ignore this point and continue pasting the same definition and repeating yourself while becoming more arrogant. So next question.

How is the supernatural different from the natural if both can only be observed by how they affect the nature that we can sense?[

[KevinM1]

I wonder if Steve realizes he's championing the God of the Gaps fallacy here...?

Nah.

[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?

[LostLocke]

But the fact remains that the supernatural either exists or does not and science has no standing in making that determination.

I agree that it exists or it doesn't. And no matter how much we choose to believe or not believe in it, it makes it no more or less real.
But, if we have no way of testing for the supernatural, how can we even determine that it exists in the first place?
If 'Event A' happens, and it's claimed to be supernatural, there must be something about that event that gives you reason to believe that it is "supernatural" and not just "unknown". Supernatural is not synonymous with unknown, which is what a lot of people seem to be doing.

[robvalue]

If we can only observe the effects of the supernatural and can never investigate the supernatural itself, then any supernatural cause is indistinguishable from any other; or from no supernatural cause at all.

That's the problem. People generally define these things so that they can't be disproven; but by doing so, they can't be proven either.

The only sensible definition, I think, is things going on outside of our self-enclosed environment (assuming there is an outside). Otherwise, it's just "unknown" or gibberish.