How to study the supernatural?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is mostly what science does, study what it does not already know.
In other words, study what is beyond the natural knowledge.
As it does so it expands the natural realm of knowledge.

Yet for some, that's just not enough.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is something that repeatedly pops up every time someone goes on a rant against science not doing what they want science to do:

SCIENCE ONLY STUDIES NATURE!

Of course science studies nature. It's what science does.

But if you want science to study the supernatural, that which is supposed to exist beyond and outside nature, you have to actually give it something to work with.

So I ask you: how exactly CAN science study the supernatural? What methods, what tests?

Question: Which sectors of science could study the supernatural?

Answer: Not those that require experimental data.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Question: Which sectors of science could study the supernatural?

Answer: Not those that require experimental data.

So how can the supernatural be tested then? How can it be studied?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So how can the supernatural be tested then? How can it be studied?

It can't be tested for on an empirical level. If empirical evidence is what anyone is looking for, we won't find it situated there.

This is just par for the course within the field of The Nature of Science (N.O.S.), and it is an issue for discussion within The Philosophy of Science.

This is also one reason there is a distinction between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism since "God"-----whatever He "is"-------can't be controlled for as a scientific variable.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It can't be tested for on an empirical level. If empirical evidence is what anyone is looking for, we won't find it situated there.

This is just par for the course within the field of The Nature of Science (N.O.S.), and it is an issue for discussion within The Philosophy of Science.

This is also one reason there is a distinction between Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism since "God"-----whatever He "is"-------can't be controlled for as a scientific variable.

I'm keeping in the discussion of actual science.

There are people who claim that science should test for the supernatural but they remain silent when asked how science should test for it. AV says that science should just acknowledge that the supernatural exists but that gives nothing as to how it should be scientifically tested.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is mostly what science does, study what it does not already know.
In other words, study what is beyond the natural knowledge.
As it does so it expands the natural realm of knowledge.

I take it you disagree with this:

SCIENCE ONLY STUDIES NATURE!

 

[essentialsaltes]

One can certainly test particular claims.

If a dowser or 'psychic' claims to be able to detect which of ten containers has water or gold in it. You can see whether they select the correct container with a frequency greater than chance. Obviously, it's important to design the test to avoid any natural explanations (like preventing the test subject from jiggling the table to see which container is denser). A successful test indicates either a natural explanation we hadn't thought of, or a supernatural explanation. Either would be worthy of further study.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV says that science should just acknowledge that the supernatural exists but that gives nothing as to how it should be scientifically tested.

"Just"???

I thought I made it clean that is the FIRST STEP?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"Just"???

I thought I made it clean that is the FIRST STEP?

Ah, so you did.

But you also did nothing to elucidate on that topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm keeping in the discussion of actual science.

So am I. "Actual Science" isn't separate from the "actual praxis" by which any one working scientist applies his/her methodology and work.

We all HAVE to realize this.

There are people who claim that science should test for the supernatural but they remain silent when asked how science should test for it.

And those people are wrong.

AV says that science should just acknowledge that the supernatural exists but that gives nothing as to how it should be scientifically tested.

There's a reason that Methodological Naturalism has the qualifier that it does: "methodological." It's also the reason that most working scientists realize they can't control for God as a variable. So, they don't.

But if AV knows someone who can 'control' for God, maybe AV can introduce us to that particular scientist.

 

[AV1611VET]

One can certainly test particular claims.

If a dowser or 'psychic' claims to be able to detect which of ten containers has water or gold in it. You can see whether they select the correct container with a frequency greater than chance. Obviously, it's important to design the test to avoid any natural explanations (like preventing the test subject from jiggling the table to see which container is denser). A successful test indicates either a natural explanation we hadn't thought of, or a supernatural explanation. Either would be worthy of further study.

I think it was NBC that aired a paranormal challenge show, hosted by Bill Bixby.

But I can't for the life of me find it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ah, so you did.

But you also did nothing to elucidate on that topic.

Why should I?

You asked a specific question, and I gave you a specific answer.

Case closed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So am I. "Actual Science" isn't separate from the "actual praxis" by which any one working scientist applies his/her methodology and work.

We all HAVE to realize this.

And those people are wrong.


There's a reason that Methodological Naturalism has the qualifier that it does: "methodological." It's also the reason that most working scientists realize they can't control for God as a variable. So, they don't.

But if AV knows someone who can 'control' for God, maybe AV can introduce us to that particular scientist.

So, in the end, all you can say is agree that science can't test for the supernatural in any method. Am I right on that?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why should I?

You asked a specific question, and I gave you a specific answer.

Case closed.

I very much didn't since at the end of the OP I asked the question:

So I ask you: how exactly CAN science study the supernatural? What methods, what tests?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, in the end, all you can say is agree that science can't test for the supernatural in any method. Am I right on that?

Yes, you're right. I work and think within the usual academic expectations of N.O.S. (....it's what I studied in my Master's Degree, anyway).

 

[essentialsaltes]

I think it was NBC that aired a paranormal challenge show, hosted by Bill Bixby.

But I can't for the life of me find it.

Exploring Psychic Powers ... Live was a two-hour television special aired live on June 7, 1989, wherein Randi examined several people claiming psychic powers. Hosted by actor Bill Bixby, the program offered $100,000 (Randi's $10,000 prize plus $90,000 put up by the show's syndicator, LBS Communications, Inc.[79]) to anyone who could demonstrate genuine psychic powers.

I was referring more directly to Uri Geller's appearance on the Tonight Show in 1973, which Randi was also involved with.

 

[NxNW]

It can start by acknowledging the supernatural exists.

A documented example would be a good start.

 

[NBB]

Like the bible says, the things of the spirit, are craziness for those who don't have the Spirit Of God, so to know the supernatural, you would need the Holy spirit. Because they are 'spiritually discerned'.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like the bible, says the things of the spirit, are craziness for those who don't have the Spirit Of God, so to know the supernatural, you would need the Holy spirit. Because they are 'spiritually discerned'.

So those scientists that are Christian, can they test for the supernatural then? Are they allowed to do so? And if so, how?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

So do you know of a way to study and/or test [God] then?

There, I fixed it for you (making it consistent with my response).

And the answer is: No, for God is outside the competence and purview of scientific inquiry.