Why can't Science detect the supernatural?

[QED]

If there really were any supernatural goings-on in our world we would expect scientists to be all over them like a badly fitting suit. Some people might point to the very fabric of the universe claiming it to be permeated by the supernatural, but this never seems to translate into anything that we would could identify as being paranormal landing before us.

Of course reports of supernatural events surface on a regular basis with many people claiming to have paranormal experiences, but no systematic investigation has ever uncovered phenomena that could not be accounted for in a naturalistic framework. There is no "open book" in which phenomenon of the world is documented pending scientific explanation. Such a thing would rapidly draw the attention of the scientific community who relish all opportunities to study any such inconsistencies.

So it seems that our world is very much a "What You See Is What You Get" kind of place where no matter how romantic people may be, not one atom is out of place on account of even our deepest of superstitions.

If this view is to be disputed, I suggest that it would require at least one bone-fide example of a paranormal situation that cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic way. Any examples from the Quantum domain are disqualified on account of Quantum Mechanics having no universally recognized interpretation as yet. The world has billions of observers and if there was anything mysterious going on at the macroscopic level we should have no shortage of contemporary reports to consider.

[QED]

We are definitely not tapping into some extant spiritual wavelength (supporting evidence available on request).

Really ? Ok, let's see it I don't see how you can have supporting evidence against the supernatural, which, in the end, amounts to faith. Evidence doesn't work on faith. Especially since your evidence is natural, and we're discussing the supernatural here.

OK, I've presented this argument before... If we find ourselves lost in unfamiliar surroundings late one night and find a graveyard on our path, just as lightning streaks across the sky, I dare say even the hardiest of material realists might find themselves glancing over their shoulder apprehensively on hearing a noise off among the tomb-stones. Now what, I asked, is it that permeates the atmosphere is this place? Are we tapping into the genuine spirit of poor departed souls or are we just responding to the conditioning from watching too many late-night B-movie horror flicks?

I maintain that it is most definitely the latter, as it could be that we've happened to stumble onto the set of one of those very same movies. I am in no doubt whatsoever that the spookiness would not be diminished one jot if it wasn't realized that this was the case. There are many similar examples of this and while this particular scenario would be a little impractical for most of us to stage for others, there is a much simpler version that anyone can try for themselves: Just kid people that the place you are visiting together is haunted. It's the easiest thing in the world to engender a feeling of spookiness in others if they are unfamiliar with the environment.

Now people might like to say that this has no bearing whatsoever on the real supernatural but this is simply not possible. If it can be shown that conditioning can very easily lead people into a false sense of experiencing the paranormal, then we have a very good explanation for all such sensations due to the use of Occam's razor. I.e. the extraordinary explanations are massively outweighed by the simple explanations readily at hand.

BUT study any part of it as closely as you like and with or without the superstition the world looks just the same.

I'm not so sure. I think that theists really do see evidence of their gods everywhere they look... their mindset is basically alien to ours. Well, it depends on which brand of theist we're talking about, I suppose.

I disagree, I can very easily slip into the "God's actions are everywhere before me" mindset. The world does indeed look so very designed. Everything meshes into everything else in such a precise way and it does seem miraculous how everything works quite so well. But all the miracles are accounted for by evolution (no wonder this is so hated in certain quarters). If we cut ourselves, in a weeks time all that can be seen is a scar. The healing ability of the body always amazes me.. but then if I was not descended from an unbroken line of animals that had evolved this ability the line would have broken all too easily at some point in the distant past. Likewise, everything around us is thus the product of a painstaking effort to evolve fitness for survival.

If things are to last a lifetime (let alone a few million years) they must be getting on for perfect. However, the fact that they are not perfect is the key: a more fitting description might be that "things are adequate" for their purpose. Just being adequate is not the hallmark of an omnimax designer. It matches perfectly with every prediction we can make about the process of evolution. I've heard people joke about how once we've reproduced nature is no longer interested in us and bits start falling off. This little bit of irony is very well explained by the mechanism of evolution driving through the world.

I can also easily jog myself out of the theist mindset when I'm gazing at my wonderful natural surroundings: beneath the shrubbery there's a constant war going on. Life and death continues its perpetual dance with the balance of nature riding on the outcome of all the combined battles. Nothing that I would want to relate to on the level of love could be the orchestrator of all this turmoil. Indeed, nature is obviously quite content orchestrating her own performance. When Autumn comes the trees know exactly what to do. They don't need to be told from upon high. And neither do we.

[Cathar1950]

This is one of the most bogus claims ever made. I reject it completely and heap scorn on you for bringing it up.

My back hurts and you made me laugh.

IF a supernatural thing were real there would be no difficulty in studying it scientifically.

I couldn't agree with you more juliod. It stinks of dualism. I acknowledge that there are weird unexplainable things in the universe including quantum mechanics. I is funny I have a friend that says she is an Atheist yet she believes in all kinds of weird stuff. I tell her she doesn't know enough to be an Atheist and she gives them a bad name. I am sure it is true of Theists too.
QED wrote:

palmera wrote:
Depending on one's perspective, science has already uncovered supernatural phenomena. For example, before machines were invented to actually measure electromagnetic waves, the idea of an invisible forcefield was considered to be in the realm of the supernatural.

Good example, now see if anyone can come up with another phenomenon like this that has yet to be explained.

I would agree the supernatural is just the natural only we are ignorant.

[Bugmaster]

IF a supernatural thing were real there would be no difficulty in studying it scientifically.

Well, then it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be the plain old natural. The supernatural resists all scientific inquiry, by definition -- that's what makes it supernatural. I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just clarifying the concept.

[juliod]

The supernatural resists all scientific inquiry, by definition

What I'm saying is is that your definition is wrong. And it gives up way too much ground to the supernaturalists.

Supernatural things do not "resist" scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary, supernaturalist claims are usually (always, as far as I know) investgated and explained immediately by scientific means.

We can't say what a "real" supernatural thing would be like. no oone has ever seen one. That's a challenge for the supernnaturalists. Show us three supernatural things, ]then we'll decide how to define it.

DanZ

[Cathar1950]

palmera wrote:

Depending on one's perspective, science has already uncovered supernatural phenomena. For example, before machines were invented to actually measure
electromagnetic waves, the idea of an invisible forcefield was considered to be in the realm of the supernatural.

Good example, now see if anyone can come up with another phenomenon like this that has yet to be explained.

It is a good example. This is what I am talking about. It is the language or common meaning that is a problem.
I don’t separate the natural from the supernatural just because it cannot be explained.
I don’t believe in anything that some how be felt or perceived is real. But often Phenomena cannot be explained with any available means.

Bugmaster wrote:

juliod wrote:
IF a supernatural thing were real there would be no difficulty in studying it scientifically.

Well, then it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be the plain old natural. The supernatural resists all scientific inquiry, by definition -- that's what makes it supernatural. I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just clarifying the concept.

Yes you said it well. All things are natural.

As Juliod wrote:

The supernatural resists all scientific inquiry, by definition.

If this is true is it because we no not have the means or understanding.
Maybe everything is really supernatural for all we know.
As you explain later.

Juliod wrote:

Supernatural things do not "resist" scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary, supernaturalist claims are usually (always, as far as I know) investgated and explained immediately by scientific means.

Something things do defy explanations. That does not mean they can never be explained.

Juliod wrote:

a challenge for the supernnaturalists. Show us three supernatural things, ]then we'll decide how to define it.

Absolutely, and how it is different then natural phenomena?

Juliod wrote:

What I'm saying is is that your definition is wrong. And it gives up way too much ground to the supernaturalists.

Supernatural things do not "resist" scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary, supernaturalist claims are usually (always, as far as I know) investgated and explained immediately by scientific means.
We can't say what a "real" supernatural thing would be like. no oone has ever seen one. That's a challenge for the supernnaturalists. Show us three supernatural things, ]then we'll decide how to define it.

We should not give in an inch.
I have read about studies where they prayed for plants. There was a correlation. It even seemed that the more general the prayer the better the plant flourished. What was it that made these correlations?
It does not prove that prayer works it shows we do not know.
It maybe the whole universe is connected in ways we have not yet precived or dreamed of and all natural.
I would even give in that God is natural.
So lets hunt down some supernatural. I think we should go beyond the bible and not use it for proofs do to bias and obvious problems.
Lets be ghost hunters.

[USIncognito]

Because I am a non-dualist I think anything "supernatural" is natural.

My view is that anything supernatural would be natural if it actually existed. And that things are only labeled "supernatural" after they have been soundly falsified.

It's not an issue that supernatural things can or can not be accounted for by natural explanations. The issue is that no supernatural thing has ever been shown to exist in the first place.

DanZ

Exactly. And while it might seem to be a cunondrum of semantics, but supernatural is really just a label we apply to things we don't fully understand. Ostensibly if things like ghosts, angels and devine intervention were more ammenable to study we could at least draw some conclusions about events we were trying to label as such without appealing to ad hoc or post hoc rationalizations.

The same applies to "alternative medicine," which doesn't exist. Either it's efficacatious - in which case it's medicine, or it isn't - in which case it's quackery.

While the truly supernatural doesn't fit within the current scientific methodological paradigm requiring repeatablity and falsifiability, they should, at least, be substantive enough to allow some conclusions regarding the evidence.

[Alien]

My analysis:

The categories "natural" and "supernatural" are attributes that are given by humans to phenomena. These two categories are obviously mutually exclusive, ie what is natural cannot be supernatural, and viceversa. They are also complementary, because anything in principle can be labelled as "natural" or "supernatural", without the need for a third category.

We cannot honestly say that these categories are absolute, because we can find numerous examples by which what was categorised as supernatural in the past is now categorised as natural. Generally speaking, I can even find examples of the opposite.

Potentially, there are also disagreements about the same phenomenon: some might call it natural, others might call it supernatural. This is an evident contradiction, and this contradiction lies in the definition of the two categories.

If we accept a definition at the Knowledge level, then we can say that

natural = something that exists
supernatural = something that does not exist

This definition is evidently used by a Believer when he says that God is natural. He believes God exists, therefore God is natural. The same definition is even used by an Atheist when he says that God does not exist, therefore God is supernatural.
There is here the interesting situation by which an agreement on definitions leads to opposite categorisation due to opposite premises.

But I personally prefer to avoid any concept of Absolute, and therefore I would avoid the concept of Knowledge (this is another reason why I prefer to call myself an Agnostic). We can never reach the Knowledge in the sense of Absolute Knowledge. Absolute Knowledge does not exist. We cannot identify everything as 100% True or 100% False. We can only approach the understanding of the world behaviour with a set of explanations that reach an acceptable level of common agreement. This is the scientific approach, and the acceptability level is a flexible threshold that identifies the boundary between what is objective and what is subjective.

Science is objective because it is a process that covers all what is above the threshold. The rest is Faith, ie something subjective that must stay below the threshold.

My definitions therefore are

natural = something whose explanation can be called scientific
supernatural = something whose explanation cannot be called scientific

Bearing in mind that scientific explanation = "an explanation that has reached the acceptability threshold of objectivity".

Obviously, this analysis does not pretend to give a clear algorithm for unambiguous definitions of natural and supernatural. This is however impossible, IMHO. This analysis moves the problem towards the boundary between Science and Faith, and in this sense, it is a shifting of the problem; but it also generate the advantage of showing that Science and Faith (like objectivity and subjectivity) cannot be mixed. The only problem remains the acceptance threshold level.

My final answer to the question "Why can't Science detect the supernatural"
is therefore
"because by definition Science covers only the natural".

[kens91765]

IF a supernatural thing were real there would be no difficulty in studying it scientifically.

Well, then it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be the plain old natural. The supernatural resists all scientific inquiry, by definition -- that's what makes it supernatural. I'm not saying such a thing exists, I'm just clarifying the concept.

Wow, twice in one day we agree. This must be a miracle.

I think you hit the nail on the head. By definition, the scientific method deals with natural phenomena -- things that can be observed -- things that can be tested. The supernatural things, by definition also, are outside of this reality.

As stated in the Bible, God declares that "My ways are not your ways. My ways are beyond your ability to find out" We each can accept that statement or deny it. But what if what we think of as being reality is only an illusion? What if life, as we know it, is like the Matrix movie - a vast simulation. How can we be so certain that what we can see and touch is actually real and that which we can't see and touch is not real?

But one thing is certain and cannot be denied. One day we will enter a different reality through death. Will that reality consist of nothingness as an Atheist would claim? Or would that reality consist of being judged by our creator and being sent to heaven or hell as a Christian would claim. And, of course, there are other claims. None of us could prove the other wrong by natural means.

This, it seems to me, is a matter of faith not science.

[mishmash]

If there really were any supernatural goings-on in our world we would expect scientists to be all over them like a badly fitting suit. Some people might point to the very fabric of the universe claiming it to be permeated by the supernatural, but this never seems to translate into anything that we would could identify as being paranormal landing before us.

Of course reports of supernatural events surface on a regular basis with many people claiming to have paranormal experiences, but no systematic investigation has ever uncovered phenomena that could not be accounted for in a naturalistic framework. There is no "open book" in which phenomenon of the world is documented pending scientific explanation. Such a thing would rapidly draw the attention of the scientific community who relish all opportunities to study any such inconsistencies.

So it seems that our world is very much a "What You See Is What You Get" kind of place where no matter how romantic people may be, not one atom is out of place on account of even our deepest of superstitions.

If this view is to be disputed, I suggest that it would require at least one bone-fide example of a paranormal situation that cannot be accounted for in a naturalistic way. Any examples from the Quantum domain are disqualified on account of Quantum Mechanics having no universally recognized interpretation as yet. The world has billions of observers and if there was anything mysterious going on at the macroscopic level we should have no shortage of contemporary reports to consider.

This is a very good question. I do not think it is a good idea to take a position that anything supernatural is by definition not real. "Natural" has meanings ofther than real, such as "normal" and "uninfluenced by man". So I do not think supernatural occurances should be considered as not subject to scientific inquiry. What the supernatural qualifies as is something that is very difficult to disprove or prove, due to unanswered questions about the fabric of the universe.

I hypothesize that the various types of spirits are smart enough to detect systematic investigations and cover their tracks most of the time. The reason it invariably resembles natural phenomena is somehow inherent in the nature of the way they work. For example, it could be that spirits require a high enough amount of human-generated belief/faith, in the possibility of a given action to be able to perform it. This would tend to be higher for things that people are afraid of, desperately need, or cases where something similar might easily happen naturally.

Resisting scientific inquiry and being impossible to scientifically investigate are not the same thing. I believe anything can potentially be analyzed, it's just tougher for some things than others. Some things might be exponentially tough.

[Cathar1950]

kens91765 wrote:

But one thing is certain and cannot be denied. One day we will enter a different reality through death. Will that reality consist of nothingness as an Atheist would claim? Or would that reality consist of being judged by our creator and being sent to heaven or hell as a Christian would claim. And, of course, there are other claims. None of us could prove the other wrong by natural means.

My objection would be it may be neither. What if there is an afterlife and we are not judged. Or that there is no creator. Only two possibilities are presented and there maybe more. Is faith just believing in something or anything? It still seems dualistic. Experience is the ground beneath our feet. Science is experience of sorts as well as "faith". Which method leads to sane ideas and lives? It all seems to come down to the theory we hold of knowledge and how it is obtained. I still have problems with a working definition. I prefer an idea that at least leaves an opening for discovery. So maybe the supernatural is just what we don't know and everything is natural. It is a puzzle for sure.