Sorry for being unclear.
The question was (basically): What method or criteria do you use in order to distinguish between the two?
E.g. how did you arrive at the notion that telekinesis is paranormal, not supernatural?
Upvote
0
So what does "supernatural" actually mean?
- Thread starter Mountainmike
- Start date
- Status
The question was (basically): What method or criteria do you use in order to distinguish between the two?
E.g. how did you arrive at the notion that telekinesis is paranormal, not supernatural?
- Nov 13, 2017
- 12,212
- 12,526
- Country
- Romania
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, if you aren’t a hardcore materialist then it’s a moot point. What I mean is that although the materialist worldview provides a coherent and logical means for a person to frame their thoughts about reality etc, sometimes people start to believe that it reflects reality itself in some comprehensive, objective sense, rather than being what it is, a functioning narrative.
Upvote
0
- Nov 13, 2017
- 12,212
- 12,526
- Country
- Romania
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I believe that non-physical things exist, and no, I don’t have any material evidence for that. I’m not asking you to accept any claims, in any case they are not my claims. The bible makes allusions and direct descriptions of things said to be spiritual, linking these to human behaviour in a way that indicates a duality we have to contend with between our physical selves and our ‘spiritual’, conscious, aware selves. The bible makes no attempt to explain what that means as such in any sense that might be thought of as scientific. The accent is on what do we choose to do, how do we choose to live, and the bible provides a backdrop to how our actions play out in terms of their affect on other people and on mankind’s relationship to the creator, through example - good and bad - and through parables, proverbs and so on. To my mind, and in my experience, the proof is in the doing, the acting out of what the bible prescribes as being behaviours beneficial to human relationships (nb there is often confusion between what the bible teaches about how we should live and what are passages describing how people actually behave), and what the results of those behaviours are in the long run. Trying to make all of that fit into a contemporary view of proof as lab-testable proof doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,810
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I thought I was clear on that back in post #29. If it has a religious or spiritual component/aspect I tend to call that supernatural. If it is something that could have naturalistic explanation then it tend to call that paranormal.
A cryptid like Bigfoot would most likely be a previously unknown bipedal mammal. Telekenesis would most likely be some previously unexplained force that humans can generate which moves things without touching them. A ghost, however, would not have a naturalistic explanation.
Again, these are just my personal classifications. I'm not expecting anyone else to adopt them.
Upvote
0
So your distinctinve terminology informs me about an assumption you make? (I´m not criticizing it, I just want to find out if adopting this distinction could possibly have any merits for me).
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
Like what? And why do you believe it? On what grounds?
Then why do you believe it?
And I didn't specify any specific type of evidence. I just said evidence.
So does scientology. Why would I care?
Yes. It's what I would expect primitive tribes to come up with who don't understand how brains work etc. Humans, most animals actually, have tendencies of being superstitious and such, so the many many MANY (supernatural) mythologies and deities that humans invented over the years, really isn't that surprising to me. Nore does it require any kind of "special" explanation... It's just basic human psychology, and the exploit of the weaknesses thereof.
Which isn't surprising either, for pretty much the same reason as mentioned above....
First of all, the bible doesn't have any exclusivity on "prefered human behaviour" at all. Most, if not all, if the "good ideas" on that matter contained in the bible, pretty much exist in all cultures and isn't original to the bible at all. Not even the golden rule. Christians like to claim exclusive rights on that, but the fact is that this rule, and variations thereof, has been present in as good as all civilisations in one form or another. Including in pre-biblical times.
There's also a lot in that book which doesn't strike me as "favourable behaviour" at all. Au contraire.
The point is, I can find good (and bad) ideas in pretty much EVERY religion that has ever been devised by humans. And they are good (and bad) ideas, regardless of the religion. In fact, I'ld say that those good ideas, don't require any religion at all.
Conversely, the bad ideas frequently in fact ARE exclusive to the religion (or simply require the religion, as in: they don't make any sense outside the context of that religion).
But off course, that's not what is subject to scientific investigation in the natural sciences. Perhaps in social studies or something. But when this book starts to make claims about objective reality (like origins of life, physically impossible floods, etc) then it IS tresspassing on scientific teritorry. And then these claims are fair game to scientific study.
And like you most likely know, these claims don't really stay standing under harsh scientific scrutiny.
Upvote
0
On a few of those issues.
1/ "physical world" The evidence for telepathy is more or less a slamdunk, and it is hard to conceive of a physical explanation. Spooky action at a distance is as close as there is to a possibility: but that begs more questons than answers.
2/ It would be arrogant of us to assume we can observe all that exists or all dimensions (and that is science speaking - eg consider superstrings) Our senses are sufficient to live our lives, but condemn us to only seeing a projection of reality, not the totality of it. The non observed universe (in other dimensions or things we cant detect) are viewed by us as "non physical" can be just as "real" whether or not we sense them. So there is a world beyond our senses, whatever we call it.
3/ "Origins of the universe as rightful preserve (only) of science". Questionable.
Science studys only a projection of the universe (for reasons above) and tries to fit the observations into an axiomatic scientific model. Its limited to what we observe, what we can repeat, or what does repeat, and what present axioms suggest There is much outside those boundaries and philosophy of science is very guarded about how much you can ever actually "know" from science. ( as pertaining to reality rather than a model of it)
1/ "physical world" The evidence for telepathy is more or less a slamdunk, and it is hard to conceive of a physical explanation. Spooky action at a distance is as close as there is to a possibility: but that begs more questons than answers.
2/ It would be arrogant of us to assume we can observe all that exists or all dimensions (and that is science speaking - eg consider superstrings) Our senses are sufficient to live our lives, but condemn us to only seeing a projection of reality, not the totality of it. The non observed universe (in other dimensions or things we cant detect) are viewed by us as "non physical" can be just as "real" whether or not we sense them. So there is a world beyond our senses, whatever we call it.
3/ "Origins of the universe as rightful preserve (only) of science". Questionable.
Science studys only a projection of the universe (for reasons above) and tries to fit the observations into an axiomatic scientific model. Its limited to what we observe, what we can repeat, or what does repeat, and what present axioms suggest There is much outside those boundaries and philosophy of science is very guarded about how much you can ever actually "know" from science. ( as pertaining to reality rather than a model of it)
Upvote
0
Interesting - do you have a reference or citation?
I've followed these sorts of claims for years, and the best quality work I've seen was the attempted replications of the superficially interesting Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) results (although barely significant), which failed. PEAR closed in February 2007 without having produced replicable scientific evidence for remote perception, psychokinesis, or telepathy.
If you have any more recent 'more or less slamdunk' evidence for (non-electronically aided) telepathy, I'd be interested to see it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
So when and where has "telepathy" ever been demonstrated to be a real thing?
To my knowledge, just about every case when such claimed abilities have been put to the test, has failed miserably.
Sure. The reverse is also true. It would be arrogant to make truth claims about those things that supposedly exist within those unobservable realms.
As for string theory and the stuff associated with that... that's just some internally consistent hypothesis. A mathematical model that attempts to explain reality. To my knowledge, there isn't any real evidence in support of that. It's not even clear if it is actually testable or not.
Unless I'm missing something, while the model might be interesting, it seems to me that it's more intellectual masturbation then anything else.
In any case, I dare say that you won't find a single physicist who'll preach string theory like theists preach their religion. He won't call it "truth". He won't even call it accurate.
He'll call it an interesting model that seems internally consistent which attempts to explain reality, at best.
So if your goal here is to compare such a hypothesis with a religious beliefs... that won't work because they are nothing alike.
Yep. That's why we build instruments and tools, to measure things more precisely or to be able to "see" and map things that our senses can't detect. Like magnetic fields, radio signals, radioactivity,... etc
Did you notice what you did there?
You somehow concluded that this "undetectable" world is real and exists. You made a truth claim about what you yourself defined as being "undetectable".
This is the problem.
I'm not saying that "undetectable" things don't exist. Because how could I possibly know that?
You, however, don't seem to have any problem claiming that that "undetectable" world in fact DOES exist. But how could you possibly know that? Especially if it is by definition "undetectable". If it can't be detected, then you can't know it.
It might exist, it might not. We'll never know (if it's truelly undetectable).
So either claim... be it "it exists" or "it does not exist", would by definition be unjustified until such time as we actually have a means to detect that which is today undectable.
You are welcome to suggest another methodology with equal or better trackrecord / results.
The point I was making is simply that whenever you start making claims about observable reality, then those claims are scientific claims. As in: they are within the realm of claims that science can study.
I'ld say that those aren't just scientific limits. They are limits, full stop.
We can only know that which is knowable. We cannot know anything about the unobservable, the undetectable. If you disagree, you are welcome to share your method by which you think we can.
How would you know?
Upvote
0
Most of what I said is supposition, but it would be sheer arrogance to assume we do detect all there is - and it is indeed a debate in philosophy of science as to how much it can ever tell us anyway, Mainstream science conjectures other dimensions and universes. So it's hardly pushing the envelope to say it. Where we may disagree is ( I believe) there is evidence of the inexplicable within the context of what we presume to be the observable, although this is not the right place for it.
But I reentered the thread to say metastudies of telepathy by such as Jessica Utts from US defence source data ( one of several metastudies) show unarguable statistical significance. And at a more micro level you would find it hard to challenge either experimental method or high significance of Sheldrakes Nolan sisters experiment, which implies close relation matters. ( a systematic test on whether you can guess who is ringing you) . If you've not seen it - watch it - it is fun!
One of the problems is that many in science hold an apriori negative view ( Dawkins is one of many) who refuse even to look at or discuss the evidence of telepathy before debunking it, as a lecture at the Royal Society showed. Which in my view brings shame on the scientific community which should only care about evidence, ( (as did a letter the editor of nature once wrote ) .
Sheldrake has wrongly been blackballed for thinking the unthinkable ( eg there is more to inheritance than only molecular genetics) and experimenting in areas considered unworthy ( like telepathy) . The fact his results say he is on to something, doesn't seem to matter with the conservative gatekeepers.
But I reentered the thread to say metastudies of telepathy by such as Jessica Utts from US defence source data ( one of several metastudies) show unarguable statistical significance. And at a more micro level you would find it hard to challenge either experimental method or high significance of Sheldrakes Nolan sisters experiment, which implies close relation matters. ( a systematic test on whether you can guess who is ringing you) . If you've not seen it - watch it - it is fun!
One of the problems is that many in science hold an apriori negative view ( Dawkins is one of many) who refuse even to look at or discuss the evidence of telepathy before debunking it, as a lecture at the Royal Society showed. Which in my view brings shame on the scientific community which should only care about evidence, ( (as did a letter the editor of nature once wrote ) .
Sheldrake has wrongly been blackballed for thinking the unthinkable ( eg there is more to inheritance than only molecular genetics) and experimenting in areas considered unworthy ( like telepathy) . The fact his results say he is on to something, doesn't seem to matter with the conservative gatekeepers.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Steve Petersen
Senior Veteran
Agree. Atomic theory was merely a hypothesis for 2500 years before we developed the tools to test it.
Upvote
0
I give a couple of examples in the post above.
One of the big problems with all of this is science inbuilds an impossible test.
The idea you can repeat an experiment exactly.
Reality is even if you could get funding for repeats ( you can't- as a condition of grant funding) you could never publish it anyway - journals won't accept repeats. Cash poor research departments cannot afford to do work they can neither fund nor publish. So in practice it rarely if ever happens ( even on mainstream science)
So things are modified enough to say it is new research. The problem with that is if you don't know the cause, you can't say what it is safe to modify, without losing results.
There's only been one claim of a repeat of Sheldrakes Nolan sisters. But they didn't repeat it anything like exactly, and changed several things and it didn't show the same results so what did it prove?
The metastudies of such as Utts on large quantities of data give high significance.
One of the big problems with all of this is science inbuilds an impossible test.
The idea you can repeat an experiment exactly.
Reality is even if you could get funding for repeats ( you can't- as a condition of grant funding) you could never publish it anyway - journals won't accept repeats. Cash poor research departments cannot afford to do work they can neither fund nor publish. So in practice it rarely if ever happens ( even on mainstream science)
So things are modified enough to say it is new research. The problem with that is if you don't know the cause, you can't say what it is safe to modify, without losing results.
There's only been one claim of a repeat of Sheldrakes Nolan sisters. But they didn't repeat it anything like exactly, and changed several things and it didn't show the same results so what did it prove?
The metastudies of such as Utts on large quantities of data give high significance.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Kaon
Well-Known Member
- Mar 12, 2018
- 5,676
- 2,349
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Celibate
The denotation of "supernatural" is anything that is beyond the scope of the observable, natural world. That, alone, is full of subjectivity.
The connotation of "supernatural" is anything that cannot be explained by modern science.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
So the results of double slit quantum experiments are supernatural? Eg Wheelers. In which single things take multiple paths through history as well as present, observation defining the outcome.
The point I make is almost any definition people come up with for supernatural also includes chunks of what is regarded as mainstream science.
In a hundred years nobody ever " explained" quantum paradoxes. Shut up and calculate is the mantra. They have pretty much given up on ( rational!) explanation or philosophy.
I think the word supernatural is subjective.
Upvote
0
DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
But nobody is claiming that....
It seems to me that in these types of discussions, the only people who are making claims about "undetectable" things, are theists and their claims about "spirits" and "deities" and other supernatural stuff.
First of all, they aren't posited as true / existing.
Second of all, especially in the case of a multi-verse, that isn't pulled out of thin air. The multi-verse specifically, naturally flows as a prediction from inflation theory. At least, that's what I understood from listening to theoretical physicists on that subject.
Lawrence Krauss once said it like this, which I thought was quite comprehensive, when asked if the multi-verse is science or metaphysics since we can't test for other universes(paraphrasing):
Suppose you have a theory that makes 100 predictions, 99 of which are testable and 1 which isn't - and that one being the prediction of other universes.
Suppose you test all 99 and they all check out perfectly. At that point, you couldn't really say that the one untestable prediction is metaphysics...
In that sense, the multi-verse is rather well motivated. It is not something that was invented out of thin air. It was rather something that scientists were driven to. It's one of the many predictions flowing from a cosmological theory. Krauss also said in that talk that he doesn't even like the idea of the multi-verse. In his own words: he's being driven to it "kicking and screaming". In science, it's always the evidence that takes the lead, that decides where the models need to go.
The multi-verse isn't a theory / hypothesis by itself. It's a prediction that naturally flows from other theories / hypothesis.
It's a subtle, yet important, difference.
Hmmm.
If something is inexplicable, it seems to me that that just means that you can't explain it. And that's pretty much where the conversation should end: "we don't know". Not "therefor, spiritual realm" or alike.
"unarguable" ey?
A report by Utts claimed the results were evidence of psychic functioning, however Hyman in his report argued Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, especially precognition, was premature and the findings had not been independently replicated.[8] According to Hyman "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."[9] Funding for the project was stopped after these reports were issued.
Jessica Utts - Wikipedia
So how come none of these are sending shockwaves throughout the scientific community? Why isn't this front page news everywhere?
Or maybe, just maybe, their claims of telepathy etc aren't actually scientific and can't actually be demonstrated / replicated?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Kaon
Well-Known Member
- Mar 12, 2018
- 5,676
- 2,349
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Celibate
That is explained by optics - which is classical (more or less). But, 300 years before that you would likely be a warlock.
When you hear "supernatural," you think ghosts, demons, telekinesis and psionic ability (including empathy), astral projections, witchcraft and magick. etc. These are not explanable by so called reputable academics.
However, that doesn't mean people with vast scientific and mathematical ability cannot explain those things. The key thing that separates "woo" from "supernature" or "nature" is the ridiculously subjective line defining what is possible. Most people have a very restricted view of what is possible - which 1) spiritually, 2) psychologically, and 3) mechanically blinds them from true reality - which includes both "supernatural" and "natural."
Quite a few of us have some answers... some of us who are academics even. Those answers aren't exactly well-funded projects, so the more a philosphy depends on experimental verification, the less likely it is to prove (and, therefore, give credibility to) those answers. That is a money issue, not a philosophical one.
However, the "shut up, and calculate" mantra is a psychology taught to undergrads from the beginning. Those undergrads go on to grad school and regurgitate the same things. Then, they become academics or professionals, and continue the process. Part of that psychology is purposeful; the rest is a consequence of personal psychological fears manifesting (e.g. you have been lied to).
I would say it is too. Nothing - observable or not - is "unnatural" in the sense that it is a mystery as to how and why it exists. Everything that exists is supposed to exist. It is up to the individual to/not qualify his or her life.
Upvote
0
- Status
