How can we scientifically test the supernatural?

[Kylie]

The self-existent transcendent Creator of the universe.

Ah, you mean Eru Ilúvatar.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, you mean Eru Ilúvatar.

[sarcasm] I wish I was educated too. Then I could use my scientific knowledge to make fun of Christianity. [/sarcasm]

 

[HitchSlap]

[sarcasm] I wish I was educated too. Then I could use my scientific knowledge to make fun of Christianity. [/sarcasm]

Lack of education doesn’t stop Hovind from making fun of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Lack of education doesn’t stop Hovind from making fun of evolution.

A child should be able to look an evolutionist in the eye and tell him he's wrong.

 

[Kaon]

I have the following hypothesis: God's intervention is actively required for healthy plant growth.

Can anyone describe a method by which this hypothesis could be tested scientifically?

Academia does not study what is considered the supernatural, so there is no academically approved method of testing the supernatural.

But, of course there are ways of testing the supernatural.

 

[HitchSlap]

A child should be able to look an evolutionist in the eye and tell him he's wrong.

Only if they have ignorant parents.

 

[HitchSlap]

Academia does not study what is considered the supernatural, so there is no academically approved method of testing the supernatural.

But, of course there are ways of testing the supernatural.

Lol. Prayer studies?

 

[pitabread]

A child should be able to look an evolutionist in the eye and tell him he's wrong.

Nothing is stopping a child from doing that. Not sure what good it will do though.

 

[Kaon]

Lol. Prayer studies?

No.

 

[pitabread]

But, of course there are ways of testing the supernatural.

Are there?

 

[Kaon]

Are there?

Yes. People use the supernatural everyday to do exploits. There are rituals, chantings, dimensional siphoning, astral interaction, and several other techniques and processes for "testing" the supernatural.

Just because a large number of people don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean it isn't real. And, that doesn't disqualify it as scientific; it just isn't academic. That is a uniquely Western myopia to believe if academic science can't vindicate something, it isn't real, or worth studying.

 

[pitabread]

Yes. People use the supernatural everyday to do exploits. There are rituals, chantings, dimensional siphoning, astral interaction, and several other techniques and processes for "testing" the supernatural.

How does any of that test the supernatural?

Just because a large number of people don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean it isn't real. And, that doesn't disqualify it as scientific; it just isn't academic.

Which is what I asked in my OP. How can the supernatural be scientifically tested?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Yes. People use the supernatural everyday to do exploits. There are rituals, chantings, dimensional siphoning, astral interaction, and several other techniques and processes for "testing" the supernatural.

Just because a large number of people don't believe in the supernatural doesn't mean it isn't real. And, that doesn't disqualify it as scientific; it just isn't academic. That is a uniquely Western myopia to believe if academic science can't vindicate something, it isn't real, or worth studying.

Given that western myopia is also very capitalistic if these things actually worked in any sort of way companies would have whole departments devoted to divination, clairvoyance, astral projection, etc. whose job would be to use these magic methods to gain an edge on their competitors.

Do you know anyone who works in Google's Department of Supernatural Strategic Operations?

 

[Kaon]

How does any of that test the supernatural?

I am not explaining how, and I am pretty sure it would violate the rules anyway. There are ways to test the supernatural because to some of us the supernatural is natural, with scientific methods of indicating results otherwise taken to be ludicrous. Academia can't even reconcile infinity, and it is a generator of the elements that are the basis of academia.

Which is what I asked in my OP. How can the supernatural be scientifically tested?

It cannot from a Western academic POV, or even at all academically. (Some academic schools of thought do coalesce the alleged supernstural with the natural.) It doesn't allow for supernature, and has no approved methods of verification since there is no archetype to compare against in the first place.

If you really care beyond a talking point on a forum, then go learn about the supernatural by visiting the Most Eastern Western nation you can land in, and their cultural history. That would be a start.

The East, though also academic, does not scoff at the alleged supernatural as easily as Western culture, because they have been cognizant and knowledgeble of this facet of nature for several thousand years.

 

[Kaon]

Given that western myopia is also very capitalistic if these things actually worked in any sort of way companies would have whole departments devoted to divination, clairvoyance, astral projection, etc. whose job would be to use these magic methods to gain an edge on their competitors.

Do you know anyone who works in Google's Department of Supernatural Strategic Operations?

Ok.

 

[Kaon]

Sorry OP, I thought you were asking this questions seriously.

 

[pitabread]

I am not explaining how, and I am pretty sure it would violate the rules anyway.

Why not? I mean, if it can be tested you could at least provide a high level example or maybe point to a site with such material. I won't report you, I promise.

There are ways to test the supernatural because to some of us the supernatural is natural, with scientific methods of indicating results otherwise taken to be ludicrous.

If the supernatural is natural then it is not supernatural by definition.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Sorry OP, I thought you were asking this questions seriously.

Can you demonstrate that any of the things you mentioned actually work in blind tests? That's all OP is asking for. You can't just say them, though. You just stated some supposedly supernatural phenomena and said if these things were true then they'd be true. You have to provide the method and explain why that would be a sufficient scientific test. You also need to explain how you could know that your experiment ruled out the supernatural as an explanation and didn't just not work this time because it was presumably not God's will in that moment. It has to be falsifiable.

 

[pitabread]

Sorry OP, I thought you were asking this questions seriously.

I started this thread because a number of posters in this forum have objected to the fact that science doesn't consider the supernatural. Thus, I am curious if anyone can offer a way to scientifically test the supernatural.

 

[Kaon]

Why not? I mean, if it can be tested you could at least provide a high level example or maybe point to a site with such material. I won't report you, I promise.

It doesn't matter; I am not teaching magick. I am pretty sure that is against the rules - even in a purely didactic climate.

Part of the reason why the ignorance of the alleged supernatural is an acceptable thing is because the responsibility for knowing about the alleged supernatural is too destructive in the alleged wrong hands. Someone scoffed about clandestine orders of supernatural analysis for the purposes of reconnaissance and engagement. But, why (assuming one were to believe that these powerful people do use this to get ahead) would it be something publicly promoted as profitable?

The world is near the brink of physical and psychological destruction from reconciling a small percentage of their natural world - and this is perpetual. Humans exploit and enslave their own kind for exploitation of natural resources; access to cosmic and inter-dimensional energy is asinine for the entirety of humanity. Of course there would be orders of select people who would keep this secret safe from the majority of the world. However, those people usually get the case of a big head, and enjoy the deification that comes with using trinket magick in the audience of a magically incredulous lot (i.e. the rest of the world.)

If the supernatural is natural then it is not supernatural by definition.

By your definition. Academia cannot define the supernatural because it is ignorant of the supernatural. There are much greater wonders than the status quo magical images conjured up in the average mind - so much so they make fantastical magic literally natural by comparison (and understanding.)