Innocent until proven guilty?

[notachance]

When trying to decide if somebody is innocent or guilty of a crime, we can either assume that he's guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty.

Which do you think makes more sense?

When trying to decide if an event is natural or supernatural, we can either assume it's supernatural until proven natural, or assume that it's natural until proven supernatural.

Which do you think makes more sense?

For example if we see a magic show, should we assume the guy is doing real magic until proven it's just trick, or should we assume it's just a trick until proven it's real magic?

If we see a guy turn water into wine, should we assume it's real magic until proven it's just a trick, or should we assume it's just a trick until proven it's real magic?

[ChristShepherd]

If an event supersedes the laws of Science, then evidence, proof, is required.

[McCulloch]

If an event supersedes the laws of Science, then evidence, proof, is required.

If an event supersedes the laws of science, then evidence, proof, is impossible. Our knowledge of the laws of science are incomplete, so we cannot know whether there was a genuine miracle or a gap in our understanding of the natural laws. If you allow that events can happen that do supersede the laws of science, then the entire basis for evidence can be dismantled. Every anomaly, everything we do not understand could possibly be explained by the miraculous.

[notachance]

If an event supersedes the laws of Science, then evidence, proof, is required.

uh?

[JayDeist]

That is a good analogy notachance. You would think that natural should supercede supernatural. But proof of a supernatural event would be hard. With all the people in the world who claim to have seen ghosts, or claim to have been abducted by aliens, or all the NDE's, you would think we would have some kind of evidence for or against these. We do not. Since we can not prove nor disprove supernaturals, it would hard hard to have irrefutable evidence.

[notachance]

That is a good analogy notachance. You would think that natural should supercede supernatural. But proof of a supernatural event would be hard. With all the people in the world who claim to have seen ghosts, or claim to have been abducted by aliens, or all the NDE's, you would think we would have some kind of evidence for or against these. We do not. Since we can not prove nor disprove supernaturals, it would hard hard to have irrefutable evidence.

Well, maybe absolute proof is too much to ask for, but one could ask for tangible evidence to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Flail]

When trying to decide if somebody is innocent or guilty of a crime, we can either assume that he's guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty.

Which do you think makes more sense?

When trying to decide if an event is natural or supernatural, we can either assume it's supernatural until proven natural, or assume that it's natural until proven supernatural.

Which do you think makes more sense?

For example if we see a magic show, should we assume the guy is doing real magic until proven it's just trick, or should we assume it's just a trick until proven it's real magic?

If we see a guy turn water into wine, should we assume it's real magic until proven it's just a trick, or should we assume it's just a trick until proven it's real magic?

The presumption that what is claimed as supernatural has natural causes and explanations only, must remain until overcome by verifiable evidence so strong and so convincing to be beyond all reasonable doubt, just as with the presumption of innocence for the criminally accused.

[bro]

to answer the OP,

i would think guilty until proven innocent is the safer alternative. sure some innocent people will be imprisoned unjustly, for a short period of time ( untill proven innocent ). i would rather have someone be imprisoned for a while that is innocent than have someone that is guilty be free, and about

i would consider an event natural before the alternative any day. mostly because to this day we have yet to find something we cannot explain. ( id love to be contradicted on that, it would make a very interesting read )

[ChristShepherd]

If an event supersedes the laws of Science, then evidence, proof, is required.

If an event supersedes the laws of science, then evidence, proof, is impossible. Our knowledge of the laws of science are incomplete, so we cannot know whether there was a genuine miracle or a gap in our understanding of the natural laws. If you allow that events can happen that do supersede the laws of science, then the entire basis for evidence can be dismantled. Every anomaly, everything we do not understand could possibly be explained by the miraculous.

Good point! You are correct.
I don't expect any supernatural events anyway.....I believe in Science....so it's all a moot point.

[Ragna]

When trying to decide if somebody is innocent or guilty of a crime, we can either assume that he's guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty.

Which do you think makes more sense?

Guilty means having done something. Innocent, on the contrary, doesn't imply any action - the subject is passive, it's not an agent (normally). Therefore, if there's no reason to believe somebody has done something, we should not. So innocence seems default until proven otherwise.

When trying to decide if an event is natural or supernatural, we can either assume it's supernatural until proven natural, or assume that it's natural until proven supernatural.

Which do you think makes more sense?

Supernatural means transcending natural laws. How should we understand supernatural here? Maybe as unexplainable with these?

In that case, the question turns into: "should we think an event is unexplainable just because it's still unexplained?" In most cases, unless there's a demonstration that it's unexplainable, I think it's safer to think it's just unexplained at the moment. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. They constitute their own categories. Supernatural cannot ever be default, because it's something transcendent by definition.

For example if we see a magic show, should we assume the guy is doing real magic until proven it's just trick, or should we assume it's just a trick until proven it's real magic?

The second. Unexplained doesn't imply unexplainable. We need at least 1 unexplainable fact on the table and then we might consider any alternative. But all this is a little void until we can get to define supernatural meaningfully (which, like McCulloch pointed out, can be an impossible task).

If we see a guy turn water into wine, should we assume it's real magic until proven it's just a trick, or should we assume it's just a trick until proven it's real magic?

The second as well.

i would consider an event natural before the alternative any day. mostly because to this day we have yet to find something we cannot explain. ( id love to be contradicted on that, it would make a very interesting read )

Well, it depends. We can't explain many things now, but we may be able in the future. There's a lot we don't know yet. For example, in areas like physics, linguistics and many others.

What's more, that something acts according to the laws of the universe might not imply we have the (physical or mental) capacity to understand it. It may simply escape our grasp. It's not a remote possibility, actually.

Btw, nice to meet you bro.