The Science of Science; or, the true Scientology

[Wiccan_Child]

A dramatic title I'll grant you, but since 'Scientology' means 'the knowledge of knowledge', I think it fits.

I consider science to be a method by which we pursue truth, the accrual, testing, and refining, of theories to explain facts. So, I reject the notion that science is somehow prohibited from testing the supernatural, the paranormal, the spiritual, etc.

But since it's such a widely held view, I'll put it to a vote, if only to see what other people here think. Please answer 'yes' or 'no'. If you answer 'no', please also answer 'No, by the definition of 'science'' or 'No, by the definition of 'supernatural'', as applicable.

For the purpose of discussion, here's a question: Is the supernatural, paranormal, and/or spiritual, within the realm of scientific scrutiny? If so, can you give an example? If not, why not, and can you give an example?

 

[sfs]

I don't have an answer, since "supernatural" has no clear definition for me. Science can test any model that makes predictions about objective data. Whether that includes the supernatural I don't know.

 

[Gracchus]

I voted for all four answers. Science can't study what has no observable manifestation, but science can study delusions, hallucinations, misconceptions, frauds and fantasies. And manifestations of the supernatural surely fall into one or more of those categories.

 

[Elendur]

I voted on the bottom two. That since, correct me if I'm wrong, science is the study of the natural world and supernatural stuff is beyond the natural world.

 

[juvenissun]

A dramatic title I'll grant you, but since 'Scientology' means 'the knowledge of knowledge', I think it fits.

I consider science to be a method by which we pursue truth, the accrual, testing, and refining, of theories to explain facts. So, I reject the notion that science is somehow prohibited from testing the supernatural, the paranormal, the spiritual, etc.

But since it's such a widely held view, I'll put it to a vote, if only to see what other people here think. Please answer 'yes' or 'no'. If you answer 'no', please also answer 'No, by the definition of 'science'' or 'No, by the definition of 'supernatural'', as applicable.

For the purpose of discussion, here's a question: Is the supernatural, paranormal, and/or spiritual, within the realm of scientific scrutiny? If so, can you give an example? If not, why not, and can you give an example?

Science can find evidences of supernatural event.

 

[AECellini]

Science can find evidences of supernatural event.

if it has manifestation in the natural world, it's natural.

 

[Orogeny]

if it has manifestation in the natural world, it's natural.

This.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm interested to hear the views of those who voted "No, by of the definition of science" - can we use scientific methods, but not just call it science?

 

[Elendur]

I'm interested to hear the views of those who voted "No, by of the definition of science" - can we use scientific methods, but not just call it science?

I gave my reason in post #4 and I don't see how studying the natural world, but calling it something else, can result in a study of the supernatural.

Edit: So in short, no.

 

[The Engineer]

Voted for #2 and #4. The supernatural is that which is not subject to the rules of nature. If it was subject to objective rules, it would stop being supernatural.

 

[juvenissun]

if it has manifestation in the natural world, it's natural.

The origin could be supernatural.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I've used the example of ghosts in my responses, (if ghosts existed, it seems you must accept them as natural, not supernatural entities); in case it came across as such, it's not meant to be an objection to the position.

I don't have an answer, since "supernatural" has no clear definition for me. Science can test any model that makes predictions about objective data. Whether that includes the supernatural I don't know.

There seem to be competing definitions at work, depending on who you talk to:

• Ghosts and spirits are clear examples of the supernatural. But if they exist, scientific methodology could test them. Thus, the supernatural can be tested by science. The wrinkle is that by allowing the supernatural to be tested by science, that opens the door to an spiracle test for prayer and God, which upsets some people - they prefer that God remain untested, for fear he should fail...
• The supernatural is defined as that which is not natural, and that which is natural is that which can be scrutinised by science. Thus, by definition, the supernatural falls outside scientific purview. The wrinkle is that we have to then consider both ghosts and God to be 'natural', which is upsetting to some.

So it depends on whether you take a bottom-up or a top-down approach, I think.

I voted for all four answers. Science can't study what has no observable manifestation, but science can study delusions, hallucinations, misconceptions, frauds and fantasies. And manifestations of the supernatural surely fall into one or more of those categories.

They might also genuinely exist. In either case, it seems your answer is 'yes', so I'm confused why you voted 'no' .

I voted on the bottom two. That since, correct me if I'm wrong, science is the study of the natural world and supernatural stuff is beyond the natural world.

Well, that begs the question of just what constitutes the natural world. If ghosts (â la Casper) exist, would they be natural or supernatural?

if it has manifestation in the natural world, it's natural.

So ghosts are natural?

Voted for #2 and #4. The supernatural is that which is not subject to the rules of nature. If it was subject to objective rules, it would stop being supernatural.

What if it had a manifest appearance in the world, if it could interfere with natural things, but it itself obeyed non-natural laws? What exactly constitutes a rule of nature, and why can't we simply label all rules as being rules of nature?

 

[acropolis]

Science is only concerned with the physical. If it has a physical manifestation the science can interact with it. The supernatural either is or isn't measurable depending on how you define supernatural.

 

[Elendur]

Well, that begs the question of just what constitutes the natural world. If ghosts (â la Casper) exist, would they be natural or supernatural?

If they exist (and in any way are observable/measurable/interacting) they are natural.

I would say the only things that are supernatural that we handle daily are abstract concepts. Examples; a perfect sphere, pi, mathematics.

This was a new thought for me so it might not be so well polished, oh well.

 

[The Engineer]

What if it had a manifest appearance in the world, if it could interfere with natural things, but it itself obeyed non-natural laws? What exactly constitutes a rule of nature, and why can't we simply label all rules as being rules of nature?

If the supernatural adhered to objective rules, than those rules could be described by science. If supernatural phenomenons are actually observed, this would mean they are not outside science, either.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If the supernatural adhered to objective rules,

What's that?

than those rules could be described by science.

Why?

There could be a particle which zips around and has no interaction with normal matter. It'd obey objective rules, but wouldn't be describable by science, which seems to contradict your claim that objective rules are describable by science.

Also, what of something normally considered natural whose behaviour isn't completely dictated by rules? What of quantum particles, whose behaviour is mostly governed by rules, but those rules have distinct 'gaps' where probabilistic behaviour appears - when the rules allow for multiple different behaviours, what actually happens isn't governed by rules. Are quantum particles(i.e., all particles) therefore supernatural?

If supernatural phenomenons are actually observed, this would mean they are not outside science, either.

I agree. If such phenomena were observed, would they still be considered 'supernatural'?

 

[The Engineer]

There could be a particle which zips around and has no interaction with normal matter. It'd obey objective rules, but wouldn't be describable by science, which seems to contradict your claim that objective rules are describable by science.

Such a particle couldn't be observed if it didn't interact with normal matter in any way.

Also, what of something normally considered natural whose behaviour isn't completely dictated by rules? What of quantum particles, whose behaviour is mostly governed by rules, but those rules have distinct 'gaps' where probabilistic behaviour appears - when the rules allow for multiple different behaviours, what actually happens isn't governed by rules. Are quantum particles(i.e., all particles) therefore supernatural?

In this case, scientists could still describe what they are seeing.

I agree. If such phenomena were observed, would they still be considered 'supernatural'?

Definitely not. Rather, our view of the natural world would need to change to accommodate the supernatural phenomenon.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Such a particle couldn't be observed if it didn't interact with normal matter in any way.

Indeed. But you said "If the supernatural adhered to objective rules, than those rules could be described by science" - my point is that, if a particle obeys objective rules but cannot be observed by science, then science can't, in fact, describe those rules. Would such a particle be natural, or supernatural?

In this case, scientists could still describe what they are seeing.

Yes, but its behaviour isn't wholly governed by objective rules. By your definition, that make it supernatural, no?

Definitely not. Rather, our view of the natural world would need to change to accommodate the supernatural phenomenon.

Then would it be fair to say that the premise "If supernatural phenomena were observed..." is logically incoherent by definition?

Another question: If God exists, would he be natural or supernatural?

 

[The Engineer]

Indeed. But you said "If the supernatural adhered to objective rules, than those rules could be described by science" - my point is that, if a particle obeys objective rules but cannot be observed by science, then science can't, in fact, describe those rules. Would such a particle be natural, or supernatural?

Okay, now I understand.

Well, in this case, I'd say that it's either non-existent or, if we could still observe it by standing outside of our reality, that it is paranatural. You could call it supernatural, too, but that term would be misleading, as it implies that the object doesn't adhere to natural rules. It does, just not to our rules of nature, but to a separate set of rules.

Yes, but its behaviour isn't wholly governed by objective rules. By your definition, that make it supernatural, no?

Good question. I still wouldn't call it supernatural, as this seems like an absolute negative claim, like saying that the behavior in question is completely ungoverned by any natural rules.

I would say that we simply have no explanation for this behavior. Pure agnosticism on that matter.

Then would it be fair to say that the premise "If supernatural phenomena were observed..." is logically incoherent by definition?

I wanted to agree with this, but then realized that this would be extremely inconsistent with what I wrote below.

I think I made my mind up. Saying that something appears supernatural is valid if there is no natural explanation for it, but when we flat-out state that something is supernatural, we make an absolute negative claim, which is impossible.

Another question: If God exists, would he be natural or supernatural?

I would say that he would be, by definition, supernatural, as he stands above our current laws of nature and is not bound by them.

I must say, I didn't think much about this issue before. Thanks for raising it!

 

[JessicaJ]

I cannot also vouch for an answer. but i believe supernatural and spiritual should and will be explained in science. whatsoever for me science is something we can live without. we are using science everyday every moment even for the littlest things. and we are understanding the ultimate knowledge via science.

Bottom line is Science is the Vehicle for the pursuit of knowledge. read below article where it is explained really well.

What is Science? The Designated Vehicle for Enquiry, Science | WTM