The Supernatural and plausibility
I have got the impression over the years that the main objections against the supernatural are based on plausibility.
But now I think that lots of human technology like the internet and mobile/cell phones is implausible as well as aspects of reality like the basic existence of something, infinity and such like.
So what grounds do we have now to say something is implausible as opposed to it not having evidence for it?
For example if you told someone a Brit like me could almost instantaneously communicate with An Australian down under that would sound implausible and most people don't understand the technology behind it. It would sound as absurd as saying ghosts can move through solid walls.
Is implausibility an argument or an appeal to ridicule?
But now I think that lots of human technology like the internet and mobile/cell phones is implausible as well as aspects of reality like the basic existence of something, infinity and such like.
So what grounds do we have now to say something is implausible as opposed to it not having evidence for it?
For example if you told someone a Brit like me could almost instantaneously communicate with An Australian down under that would sound implausible and most people don't understand the technology behind it. It would sound as absurd as saying ghosts can move through solid walls.
Is implausibility an argument or an appeal to ridicule?
Comments (89)
What do you mean by Supernatural? I would think that means actions of God.
I had the same thought. Is talking between minds, without talking, supernatural? If it can be done, no.
We can most certainly mistaken something highly implausible for something supernatural. The main difference being when this happens the supernatural dissipates and nature remains as nature.
Beyond the laws of nature and beyond the known laws of nature are two different things. Maybe all supernatural ideas are just natural items yet to be unveiled.
But that natural order of things is not known, generally.
Ten june... I know, I know...
You will not be getting any responses from me in the immediate future (months+).
I consider that as a compliment! :kiss:
In what sense are they supernatural, though? If they're not, then how do they support your point?
Lack of objective evidence - non anecdotal - I would say. But it's pleasant to think of ectoplasm slowly oozing from the aether.
Here is a dictionary definition of The Supernatural.
"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
But what I am referring to is things commonly referred to as supernatural such as ghosts, things with magic powers, prophecies etc. Maybe God's actions and gods.
If you get into definitions you can end up in an infinite regress of justifying each definition so I am assuming a common notion of the supernatural.
If as per the definition it is something above or beyond science and sciences laws then in a way that is trivially easy to prove by pointing out things (consciousness for one) that science doesn't understand or have laws for.
I am assuming a shared concept of the supernatural here in popular culture. I don't think that as has been said absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
My assertion here (I suppose) is that people simply mean the implausible when they refer to the supernatural now. Apparently the word dates back to at least 1425. As something beyond human understanding (among other things).
My argument is that the main objection against The Supernatural has been implausibility but that modern technology and modern scientific discoveries make previously implausible things look as plausible as the new world picture. Things can go through walls which are apparently mainly made up of empty space.
I am not supporting either the supernatural or natural because I think they are rather tautologous and don't refer to anything. They are not properties of anything. But that is a reason I think they stand for Rational explanation/materialism versus implausible/causality independent.
In summary I think there is no grounds to say that reality it self is plausible/coherent/rational etc in the way it used to be characterised/viewed via the the success of science.
I suppose someone could argue that somehow reality is at bottom logical and rational if they could and define logical and rational.
Yes, but as you say it makes the supernatural implausible.
I can't see where this discussion is going.
Isn't "unlikely given the available evidence" a fitting definition of 'implausible'?
'“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” ~ Arthur C Clarke.
I suspect that there's an element of genuine magic involved in much of the technology that exploits the mysterious properties of quantum physics, such as non-locality (which is nowadays used for secure communications technologies) and for quantum computers. It's magical insofar as, while the formulae of quantum mechanics can be used to great effect and almost unbelievable levels of precision, nobody really understands what it means. So it seems to me that with the discovery of quantum mechanics the previously well-defined boundary between the two domains became a lot more permeable, as can be evidenced by the search for books on 'quantum consciousness'.
As far as 'plausibility' is concerned, in a more general sense, the issue is more one of having a suitable epistemic framework within which to judge whether an idea is plausible or not. Post-Enlightenment, it is generally simply assumed that this framework is provided by science as distinct from metaphysics or religion, the testimony of which is set aside as a starting point. Then you have the situation where any attempt to argue for a metaphysic has to meet the requirements of peer-reviewed science, or else it is dismissed as anecdotal, hearsay or myth. Essentially the requirement is that beliefs ought to be plausibly supported by what can be categorised as scientific evidence, starting from an historically-conditioned view of the boundaries of science.
-No the main objection is and always should be "Possibility". If we are unable to demonstrate objectively the possibility of the supernatural then its non sensible to argue about its plausibility.
It's the same logical error Alchemists did by spending money time and effort on something they thought it was plausible (chemical transmutation of metals) when they didn't even knew how possible or impossible it is.
People's belief in the supernatural is irrational not because its existence is implausible, but because we haven't demonstrated its existence to be possible.
So the Belief in the existence of the supernatural is Irrational, not a verified wrong belief.
Possibility is demonstrated objectively while plausibility is demonstrated through statistical probabilities. The first quality gives us the right to argue in favor of the later.
The Supernatural in general is a claim that appeals to the existence of agents or causation by processes and phenomena that are in direct conflict with our current Scientific Paradigm.
Mainly they argue about the existence of properties or agents or entities being non contingent to fundamental natural structures and processes.
The claim that chemical or mental or biological or kinetic etc properties/entities can manifest in the cosmos without being contingent to the workings and functions of verified natural elements, structures or their documented limitations....that is in essence the main idea behind any supernatural claim.
-
Statistical evidence showed us that we can explain Telepathy "hits" by Random Chance...same rates.
-That is a direct insult for the all the trolls and manics of this world! Mr Hillary is a league on his own.
Quoting I like sushi
I will agree with your position. The Supernatural is nothing more than a made up bin where we human toss everything we currently don't understand. Every-time we had to go back and take something out out from that bin..that was because the explanation was always Natural.
I guess the Empirical Regularity of Nature doesn't leave much room for the Supernatural but at least it can still hide in everything that appears to be mysterious to us....like all fallacious arguments of ignorance do.
I would think that a supernatural explanation becomes less plausible the more a natural explanation is provided.
It seems to me that the supernatural is something that humans have always claimed is behind the scenes of nature giving reality attributes like life, consciousness laws and forces. Or the hand of God or fate.
My point I suppose is that reality is at bottom mysterious and illogical and weird, that there is not a concrete machine like reality to be contrasted with the supernatural just the strange inexplicable reality of existence.
We haven't escaped the supernatural through science and philosophising but just deepened the mysteries. We have made the implausible/impossible the normal.
That's the point. Modern technology is amazing and has changed how we communicate and what is possible. It is not reductive like a reductive mechanistic philosophy but expansive.
It shows us more possibilities not less.
Weird Thought experiments like the brain in a vat become more plausible not less.
I think these technological innovations should also shape new philosophical directions.
Would you say that anyone finds anything implausible without believing they have reason to think so? And does not believing you have a reason to think that something is likely to be the case amount to believing that you have some evidence to think that, even if the "evidence" is nothing more than a gut feeling? This is why I disagree with the definition of faith as "believe in spite of the evidence", because that definition only speaks to a certain conception of what constitutes evidence; a conception which has its own unevidenced presuppositions underpinning it.
They are. I'm into this book at the moment https://siliconthebook.com/
Mind you, the author of this book doesn't see reality as 'illogical and weird' (although certainly mysterious), but he's dismissive of old-school mechanistic materialism. This conviction arose from two sources, one the attempt to develop AI systems (a byproduct of which is https://www.synaptics.com/) and also from an unexpected spiritual awakening which occurred to him in his fifties.
It's a classic in the rapidly-growing genre of 'Californian metaphysics'. :wink:
Quoting Janus
:100: :clap:
Yes, my presupposition would be that there be robust, testable physical evidence. I don't generally accept anecdote, stories, feelings or claims as proof.
I generally hold to 'good evidence' as opposed to just evidence. There is the 1967 Roger Patterson film footage of Bigfoot which is clearly evidence of Bigfoot. But is it good evidence? Is it ultimately persuasive, or does it look like some person in a monkey suit? Is there anything more than testimony and blurred 8mm film to demonstrate the existence of this creature? The Bible is evidence of god. But it is good evidence, or just one of many contradictory old books which exist for disparate faiths?
For me faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence. Sure they can point to an old book that says a thing or to an aunt in Nebraska who saw an angel once. But is this good evidence? Perhaps you'd like to call it implausible?
If you want implausible to be the same thing functionally as not having good evidence, fine. I just find implausible weak. Personal taste? Implausible describes the plot of a James Bond film or the acting of Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanys.
But this is all general and not very interesting. I'd be interested to understand just what 'supernatural' claim is more plausible now that we have our technology.
Are you able to be specific? I am willing to be convinced but I'd appreciate some examples. What supernatural claims seem to be more realistic in the light of our technology? What do you count as supernatural claims?
For me technology just seems to emphasise the physicalist nature of reality and that technology is about understanding and reproducing the science.
Reincarnation has been made more plausible because we can imagine consciousness interacting with the body in a different way like a radio interacts with a signal or things can be stored on memory sticks.
I am not referring to any specific claims however just referring to the type of claims. Anything now seems possible because there are less theoretical restraints.
I think how we view reality is important for our mental health and incorrect models of reality and humans could be harmful. (see Eugenics)
But the issue isn't what ghosts can do - it is the existence of ghosts in the first place. If my dead mother appeared that would be much more noteworthy than her walking through a wall.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
The problem is people use the same examples to undermine such metaphysical claims. People talk about the brain and consciousness as a fancy computer - the brain being a kind of hard drive. I don't accept this reduction, but you can see that this idea goes both ways.
One can demonstrate and reproduce technology - can the same be said for any supernatural claim? Is the world not less magical with technology?
I think if you make a claim like this and stick to generalities the idea can't be fully understood. One needs to drill down and look at examples to make any kind of case.
Perhaps the closest example might be certain interpretations of QM leading to idealism.
-Yes this is what some people claim by the term "supernatural". IT appears to be directly linked to our superstitious heuristics and an easy way to ease our existential and epistemic anxieties by using a concept with zero explanatory value.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
-Well science keeps pointing to a Regular and Rational nature of reality. There are mysterious aspects of reality but every mystery we solve tends to verify the above rational and regular nature of our world.
So I don't see any difference between the term supernatural and a label we use as an "answer" to a mystery.
It sounds more like a hasty shortcut than a meaningful answer.
Quoting Andrew4Handel
We have never verified the supernatural so we don't need to "escape it" but to demonstrate it.
Possibilities need to be Objectively verified, not assumed and probabilities need to be mathematically calculated based on verified cased...that we don't have.
So we can not rationally argue in favor of this concept (supernatural ) without first being able to verify those two values (possibility and probability).
I agree with you, for what it's worth, and I think it is a lot easier to establish what is good or real evidence in empirical matters. But when it comes to metaphysical matters it's another story. For example there can be no clear evidence for reincarnation, because any evidence, even if granted as legit, can always be explained in other ways, or if scriptures are taken as evidence, as per your example, then the fact that they appear to contradict one another does not inspire confidence except in those who are already disposed, or predisposed, to believe.
Then the answer will be either that I just happen to believe in the one true religion, or the apparent contradictions are just that, only apparent. or most religions posit one God in some form or other, and we don't always get it right because God is mysterious, but the fact that God is, or gods, are universally posited is itself good evidence. For the latter type of case think of the Baha'i faith, for example.
Of course none of this type of evidence is good evidence in the kinds of ways that empirical evidence can be, but there is good reason to expect that to be the case, the proponents will argue, and I think they do have a point.
While I don’t have a bias toward Abrahamic religions, they tend to predominate - and so are better known to most of us. As a fairly well-known aspect of Catholicism, there are Marian apparitions. A fair share of Marian apparitions where reportedly witnesses by a plurality of people, in at least one case reportedly by hundreds of thousands. (see below)
The materialist and/or atheist will always be unimpressed, either finding materialist/atheist-accordant justifications for these occurrences - which tmk are most often quite forced - or else affirming that such must exist even though not now available. Personally, I don’t take Marian apparitions to be proof for or against any religion. What interests me is that despite not being replicable, this for maybe obvious reasons, many were nevertheless reportedly witnesses by multiple observers. And to me collective hallucinations wherein the same supposed hallucination is being witnessed by a plurality of individuals defeats the entire purpose of calling such “hallucinations”. (This being different from mass hysteria in that the latter concerns delusions, i.e. false beliefs of what is, rather than hallucinations, i.e. false perceptions of what is.)
Are occurrences such as Marian apparitions good evidence for spiritual realm(s)? Not if one is a materialist/atheist seeking to confirm one’s own worldview; they certainly don’t concern the material world and so cannot be scientifically tested by default. But, short of a physically spiritual occurrence - whatever this might be - what could possibly amount to good evidence for spirituality’s existence for the materialist or atheist – this, again, when the spiritual, or supernatural, is deemed distinct from the physical?
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition#Examples
I'd say we have to look at an individual claim and assess the evidence for it rather than posit an abstract and overarching, 'what evidence is there for the supernatural'. We need a for instance to investigate.
Quoting javra
I am quite happy to accept that hundreds of people saw a thing. The fact that they put it down to a specific religious vision is a separate part of the claim and probably all about their socialization. If the event happened in a non-Christian setting it would have been explained as a Muslim vision, or a Hindu one, depending on geography. It's also been said that the visions were alien in origin. The point for me is we are not in a position to make any conclusion about such events.
Implausibility is a function of an existing, current/latest framework of knowledge at our disposal. If an event X is inexplicable i.e. contradicts the system of knowledge we've vetted and given our nod to, it is labelled implausible.
It appears that the OP is, all said and done, a query about science and its much-extolled method. Any observation that is inconsistent with what we know about reality, instantly renders even our cherished hypotheses/theories null and void. It's back to the drawing board then - replace/mod our theories/hypotheses.
Wait, there's more...
An argument from implausibility for the supernatural is essentially the god of the gaps argument. This particular line of reasoning for theism is a lost cause because it's based off of ignorance and not knowledge.
There's more still...
In my humble opinion, people who use implausibility in defense of the supernatural conflate a wrong hypothesis/theory with science, in its entirety, being erroneous.
Models of the atom were wrong and imaginary. Science uses the imaginary and posits the implausible.
Theories require the imaginary and symbolic before they start to be used to manipulate reality. Useful fictions. Likewise morality and social norms/psychology/culture. Useful fictions.
Some beliefs aim to fill in gaps but some are more of a general attitude towards reality or general model/belief such idealism vs naturalism, uncertainty versus mechanical materialism.
In what cases can "supernatural magic" not be replaced with "unknown" without incurring informative loss?
In what cases have "supernatural magic" as an explanation done away with ignorance/errors?
What does "supernatural magic" derive that's differentiable?
For that matter, is there anything that "supernatural magic" couldn't be raised to explain?
Such cases seem few and far between (if there are any).
In hoping not to be talking past each other, my question concerns the epistemic. I can’t conceive of any type of evidence that can convince an adamant materialist or atheist of the occurrence of anything supernatural - and so I’m asking for examples of what this might be given sufficient investigation.
Even if one for example happens to see a ghost with one’s own eyes, one can always be humble and uphold that one has had a hallucination - hence resulting in no evidence to speak of.
Or to illustrate via a different example: If there is a person’s claim of having had a dream that gives the person a clear depiction of what will happen, or else of what has happened on another part of the world, of which the person has no way of directly knowing about and this event indeed unfolds as envisioned in the dream - not an unheard-of claim - what evidence is required to not deem this overall occurrence a mere coincidence, an instance of deception, or related to a momentary psychosis? (To make this example more concrete: One of my grandmas, who lived in Romania at the time, claimed that a dream informed her that a friend, who lived in the USA, who was otherwise healthy just passed away; when she called to inquire about the friend after explaining the dream to us, we acknowledged that this person just passed away. She had, or at least appears to have had, such premonition-laden dreams throughout her lifetime.)
Again, what evidence is required to rule out such claims being either coincidence, deception, or momentary psychosis? I can’t myself think of any.
(That said, if it were neither mere coincidence, nor deception, nor psychosis (nor aliens’ technological voodoo, to address even this), this same claim of having had a direct insight into an otherwise unknown present or future state of affairs would then imply an instance of clairvoyance, which at the very least in today’s world is deemed supernatural.)
I will emphasize that this isn’t about convincing anyone about there being or not being anything supernatural. It’s simply a philosophical question regarding the epistemology of possible evidence for the supernatural among those who have a predisposed disbelief in the matter.
And how can the supernatural be justified as impossible other than via the metaphysical worldview of materialism?
Sure, it aims at producing grounds for the otherwise unsupported claim that the supernatural is impossible.
[quote=Wikipedia;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Cupertino]Joseph of Copertino (Italian: Giuseppe da Copertino; 17 June 1603 – 18 September 1663) was an Italian Conventual Franciscan friar who is honored as a Christian mystic and saint. He was said to have been remarkably unclever, but prone to miraculous levitation....He applied to the Conventual Franciscan friars, but was rejected due to his lack of education. He then pleaded with them to serve in their stables. After several years of working there, he had so impressed the friars with the devotion and simplicity of his life that he was admitted to their Order, destined to become a Catholic priest...
He was ordained a priest on 28 March 1628. He was then sent to the convent of Santa Maria della Grotella, just outside Cupertino, where he spent the next 15 years.
After this point, the occasions of ecstasy in Joseph's life began to multiply. It was claimed that he began to levitate while participating at the Mass or joining the community for the Divine Office, thereby gaining a widespread reputation of holiness among the people of the region and beyond. He was deemed disruptive by his religious superiors and church authorities, however, and eventually was confined to a small cell, forbidden from joining in any public gathering of the community.
As the phenomenon of flying or levitation was widely believed to be connected with witchcraft, Joseph was denounced to the Inquisition.[/quote]
It seems secular authorities aren't the only ones dismissive of 'the supernatural' (although in the end Joseph was beatified.)
Another anecdote about levitation.
[quote=Edward Feser: Aquinas (A Beginner's Guide)]Anscombe and Geach relate a story according to which Aquinas once came upon “a holy nun who used to be levitated in ecstasy.” His reaction was to comment on how very large her feet were. “This made her come out of her ecstasy in indignation at his rudeness, whereupon he gently advised her to seek greater humility.”[/quote]
I'm a methodological naturalist (my metaphysical claims are modest), but yes, as I have already said, I require some physical evidence or something testable. But I do not argue that the supernatural is impossible.
Hm. Personally, I have no idea! But then again, I’m not the one affirming this:
Quoting 180 Proof
BTW, my own views on the matter are in many a way unconventional, and I remain in many a way agnostic about the matter. I however take it that if there is the super-natural it by default would neither be that which is observable by all nor that which affects all in principle, if not also in practice - which I take all things physical, “natural” in this sense, to be … fully including natural laws. But then, if there is the so called “super-natural”, I, personally, can’t conceive of it as that which is beyond the naturally occurring cosmic order of things. The supernatural is “not natural” as in “not commonplace/ordinary/normal”, sure, but not as something that resides beyond the natural process of the cosmos. At any rate, not quite common place as a perspective, I would think. But, then again, I’m not here to investigate hypotheticals regarding the nature(s) in which the supernatural could manifest - much less justify them.
As to why I hold these largely agnostic perspectives? Precisely because I can’t find any philosophically substantiated reason why the supernatural would be impossible. As to shunning the very possibility by ridiculing it as “magic”, hell, the very reality of the universe’s being is magic regardless of how one views it: it just is (it’s an uncaused given), it was caused by a psyche, it was caused by nothingness, and so forth. None of these are non-magical occurrences. And if the universe's very occurrence is magic, I fail to comprehend why anything "magical" within it would be necessarily impossible. Again, agnosticism is my preferred position.
At any rate, my only - maybe so far implicit - affirmation in this thread is that the supernatural would be impossible to satisfactorily evidence in any empirical manner if it indeed in any way occurs - and this precisely because it is the supernatural, hence by default neither being observable to all in replicable manners nor affecting all at all times (such as natural laws do). Because the supernatural does not hold these properties, any accounts of it, be they personal or secondhand, could always be delegated to coincidence, deception, or psychosis. Such, I’m arguing, is the inherent nature of the supernatural if it is.
Groovy. On what grounds do you then discern which human does and does not have consciousness? For consciousness "completely lacks evident or (directly / indirectly) observable, properties".
I forget if you deny the reality of consciousness, so I'm asking.
Don't think I agree. If we stop talking about generalities and deal with specific claims, then we can look at evidence and assess it. There is often evidence of some kind, or people would not be making claims in the first place. The questions are : what is the quality of the evidence AND the claim itself?
In many cases supernatural claims are about matters which impact in some way upon the physical world. Mind reading, spiritual healing, levitation, raising the dead, fortune telling - are all examples of supernatural claims that directly impact upon the physical world and therefore can be tested.
In relation to spiritual healing, for instance, the whole point of it is physical evidence of healing. And while people often rise out of wheelchairs for a few minutes and walk, permanently restored people seem rare. It is also interesting that while god or spirits seem to allow people to 'walk again' for a minute or two, where are the examples of an amputated leg or arm which has regrown?
I actually think the main objection to anything supernatural occurring is actually a statistical argument. There's an implicit assumption that whatever happens must be repeatable or happen often enough to be believable. Hume's argument against miracles comes to mind
However, to what extent should we be skeptical if someone tells us they've had a supernatural experience, seen a ghost, etc? What if multiple people claim they have seen ghosts across time; this should factor in as well?
But, philosophically speaking, I think the issue is this. From the perspective of classical philosophical traditions, the accepted view of what is natural or normal is distorted or corrupt. From their perspective, while we think we know what is natural, in reality we do not know. We only have opinions. They might say that what you think of is the real world, is not your real home. You're a stranger in a strange land, who has forgotten where you came from.
(We are talking about the space between us all, and the people who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion. They don't know, they can't see. Are you one of them?)
Maybe fascination with the idea of the supernatural is part of this. Or maybe, as Augustine said, what we see as miracles are not against nature, but against what we know of nature. But then by the time the scientific revolution came along, western culture was already radically estranged from its philosophical roots. So having abandoned that religious and philosophical framework, what was left is a skeletal outline based on only what can be known and measured by scientific instruments. That delimits and also radically alters the bounds of what we regard as plausible. We're willing to contemplate parallel universes and wormholes but not OBE's.
Anyway, the upshot is, I'm open to the supernatural. Remember it's the Latin equivalent of the Greek 'metaphysics'. If you're not open to it, you reduce yourself to a smart monkey.
I have addressed a specific claim of clairvoyance. No reply as to what evidence could possibly validate its reality.
Quoting Tom Storm
Scientific tests require that they be replicable by anyone anywhere. Otherwise they are not considered to produce valid conclusions, and this for good reason.
To observe an instance or two of any of the above is not in and of itself a valid scientific test. One could be momentary psychotic in what one thinks one witnesses, after all. Others could deem that you are lying in what you claim. And if neither of these, one can always fall back on explanations such as that of coincidence. The guy did this, and by coincidence that happened. And any of this could happen toward one individual's claim, the claim of ten, or that of a hundred. This goes back to Marian apparitions.
How do you propose to validly test for the reality of any of the examples you mention such that the results are conclusive to all - rather than cable of being relegated to complex instances of psychosis, deception, or coincidence from the point of view of others?
Quoting Tom Storm
You lost me with this question. Assuming the reality of inexplicable walking for a few moments necessitates that lost appendages be regrown as well?
Fair enough. Curious to know your reply to this. I might even agree with it.
If consciousness is not a delusion - such that the hard problem does occur - on what grounds would consciousness itself not pertain to the supernatural, this when the supernatural is contrasted with observable evidence?
Yep - your 'clairvoyance' story has too many missing pieces to investigate. It’s an anecdote.
Quoting javra
The point is that many people in wheelchairs are able to walk for a minute or two. My grandmother was a case in point. Getting someone psyched up to stand and walk and psychologically override pain is not hard to explain. What is hard to explain is the growing back of a limb. It is interesting to note that no miracle healers ever seem to be able to do this one. And it would be fairly easy to demonstrate, right?
The supernatural would be some aspect of reality that is apart from the rational/regular nature of the natural world, not merely an unsolved mystery of the natural world. Consider that we don't know what dark matter is, but no knowledgeable person would label it as supernatural.
You say, "good evidence can verify supernatural occurrences."
I ask, "what would 'good evidence' be?"
You answer, "tests."
I ask, "can you provide a viable test for anything supernatural?"
You reply with the just quoted. Which does not philosophically address any of the points.
Quoting Tom Storm
Not if I were to adopt a stance of skepticism toward the evidence you'd have for it - and yes, eyes can deceive. Unless, of course, the evidence could be replicated by anyone anywhere. But then it wouldn't be evidence of the supernatural but of an ordinary/normal/commonplace process that has heretofore been undiscovered.
Nope. Just one that has gone unanswered.
Good evidence for me would be something like my dad's thumb being brought back (he lost it 60 years ago). Or my mum coming back to life. Not repeatable or rigorous, scientific evidence, but it would do me. But the question for any such event is what precisely does it establish, apart from the extraordinary nature of the event? We can attribute remarkable events to religion or some occult cosmology but there is no necessary connection. Just as a Muslim might say that the world is evidence of a god.
Quoting javra
You tell me. If you want to discuss science methods with someone I'm not your guy.
:up:
OK, but then it seems you'd be expecting the supernatural to not only be inexplicable given what's currently known about nature but to outright contradict what's already known about nature (distinct from the metaphysical supposition of materialism).
Quoting Tom Storm
You mean, for example, what does an instance of clairvoyance establish if at all believed? It would establish that there's more to the universe than meets the eye; in this one case, that clairvoyance can occur.
Quoting Tom Storm
As contrasted to a necessary connection to an atheistic materialism in which no such events can occur. Of course if any such claims are real they then would debunk the reality of materialism - hence leading to, quote, "religion or some occult cosmology". Isn't that what the big hubbub against anything supernatural is based on?
Quoting Tom Storm
As a reminder, I've already affirmed my position on this: no such tests are feasible.
As opposed to, if you are open to it (whatever that could actually mean), a dumb monkey?
You'd have to demonstrate it was clairvoyance first. It would just be an event that has no current explanation.
In the 1997 my mother said she had a sense that my grandma was about to die. She died a few days later. I asked my father just how she knew this was going to happen. He laughed and said she had been saying the same thing to him for a couple of years. My grandma was in her nineties.
There are so many potential rival explanations for any alleged supernatural event - how do you know you have ruled out quotidian explanations first?
Quoting javra
I haven't said they 'can't occur' (how could that be demonstrated?) just that we can't say they have occurred.
You seem to have a thing about atheist materialism. I am not a materialist. My friend, John, a Catholic priest doesn't believe supernatural claims either (apart from the idea of a god) - although he tends to construct his religious stories as allegorical and mystical. Many Christians I have known have been strong skeptics of woo.
Quoting javra
Full circle, huh? I guess I am done too. That was a cool discussion. Thanks.
-You are not providing a definition for the supernatural. You are just stating what the supernatural wouldn't be part of.
In my opinion definition is far more meaningful.
Supernatural is the belief and the claim that Process and Agents can be manifested in our reality without being contingent to the laws and the conditions verified by Science.
I.e. the claim that mind properties can manifest in reality non contingent to the functions of a biological brain is an example of a supernatural claim.
Verifying Advanced Properties of matter in the fundamental scale of reality (quantum world) would be evidence for the supernatural.(i.e. finding biological, chemical or mental properties in fundamental particles)
Verifying a causal mechanism in our classical world that doesn't obey the laws of its physical scale would also be evidence for the supernatural (i.e. cases where mind properties alone can act as a cause of an effect outside an organism).
There is a good reason why we don't consider dark matter to be a supernatural phenomenon. The ability of particles not to reflect light, or generating pulling forces in the universe are basic properties displayed by particles. We just need to investigate the ontology of those physical phenomena.
I gather then that we agree there can be no (universally recognizable) proof either for or against the reality of supernatural claims as we know them.
Quoting Tom Storm
Sure. Ditto.
Thus, they are indistinguishable from fictions.
Yea. I'm finding it hard to believe that I need to explain this on a philosophy forum to one who seems familiar with philosophical concepts, but so be it:
Fictions are by definition known to be unreal. A known fiction - like Harry Potter - will have universally recognizable proof of being unreal. The typical, known claim of the supernatural does not. Ergo, claims of the supernatural are not indistinguishable from fictions.
They however are, for one example, indistinguishable from claims of certain lesser lifeforms having awareness, or else "qualitative aspects". No universally recognizable proof for or against such claims. This does not signify that the claim "(I hold that) cats have conscious qualitative aspects (like awareness of pain and pleasure)", is indistinguishable from fiction (which is always an intentionally told story known to be unreal).
Or, else - if this is more to your liking - typical claims of the supernatural are indistinguishable from typical claims regarding the existence of extraterrestrial sapient life, including claims of UFOs. Some get conclusively debunked; others don't, and remain possible.
Not "a told story known to be unreal" but a belief regarding what is, or what might be, that cannot - at least as of yet - be conclusively evidenced either true or false.
Or are you claiming that SETI researchers are researching "stories known to be unreal"?
After all, one's holding an opinion of what is and isn't does not of itself make that opinion a universally confirmable fact.
Quoting javra
It's an interesting position but I don't think I agree. The most I can say is that we have not established here what would prove or disprove the reality of a supernatural claim. This is not the same thing as saying it can't be done. Nevertheless, if Allah were to present on earth and demonstrate his power, a deity like this would know how to prove its reality. If a faith healer were to raise the dead and restore amputated limbs in good numbers, I would say we would have warrant to believe that something supernatural has taken place.
No. I'm saying that they're epistemologically indistinguishable from supernatural claims. Belief in neither can be definitely evidenced either true or false given the tools we currently have at out disposal.
Quoting Tom Storm
Are the "good numbers" something that would make these acts commonplace and thereby universally verifiable evidence? How would they then be distinguished from that which is natural - but has so far been undiscovered as natural process? (this without reliance upon materialist metaphysics, of course)
Otherwise, I'll maintain that there will yet be a great deal of skepticism toward the reality of these feats which will claim that not all quotidian explanations have been ruled out. Hence, no definitive evidence.
Besides, there are no supernatural claims that I know of which purport the restoration of amputated limbs ... although advancements in scientific know how could one day lead to such restorations.
Indeed. Which is why skeptics often raise this one. We hear a lot about healers curing cancer - but this happens in nature, spontaneous remission, etc. But restoring a limb? Now why would a faith healer be able to vanquish cancer and restore walking, hearing and sight, but not be able to do this? Could it be because this is impossible to fake (outside of a one-off conjuring trick that when examined collapses)?
Quoting javra
In part. Would you not think that if a UFO arrived on earth, (say on top of the Capitol Building) with aliens pouring out of it we would very quickly have sufficient warrant? Would not replicability and testability be superfluous?
Same thing could be asked of the Allah example you previously mentioned.
Can you clarify your question?
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting javra
Are we debating this? Probably none. I wasn't trying to make an argument about this - clumsy writing.
Made me giggle a little. The exact same can be said of claims of extraterrestrial intelligence. Are you not familiar with people walking about with tinfoil hats to protect against them aliens' thoughts?
Quoting Tom Storm
It would seem as though we agree, then. If so, then no debate.
Of course - I should have included UFO's but I had moved on from that part.
For my part I've said what I had to say.
... which are in turn epistemologically indistinguishable from fictions.
When an improobable event occurs, there are two ways to respond to it:
1. Our understanding (of the universe) is flawed; we need to scrap/modify our theories to accommodate the Black Swan Event. Science.
2. Our understanding (of the universe) is perfect; the Black Swan Event was effected by a supernatural force/being. Religion.
[quote=Pierre-Simon Laplace]Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (I had no need of that hypothesis).[/quote]
One issue is morality which used to be considered God's/gods laws. In nature nothing is right or wrong things just can happen or can't happen. This is why philosophy's like logical positivity and empiricism undermined things like moral statements an any statement that didn't just state a fact or observation.
Societal norms, concepts like ownership become more like useful games/fictions arbitrarily enforced by humans with no law like or logical legitimacy
It also effects logic and mathematics which appear to have no realm to exist in.
Subjective mental states including thoughts also appear to have no realm to exist in and no causal mechanism. We cannot see how the brain causes minds with some kind of causal necessity or mechanism. How do symbols work and language get its meaning?