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
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sorry for being unclear.I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you use a specific example to help me figure out what you mean?
My comment was merely how I differentiate between two different words used to describe non-mundane phenomena.
I don't know what that means.
It just means that I am only aware of evidence for physical things.
If you wish to claim that non-physical things exist too, you are more then welcome to state your case and present the evidence. Lacking such evidence, why would I accept your claims?
Also note, I'm not talking about "abstract" things that only exist in people's minds. I'm talking about actual existance, independent of humans and/or brains. Objective existence, if you will.
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?
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).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.
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).
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
Trying to make all of that fit into a contemporary view of proof as lab-testable proof doesn’t make a lot of sense.
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.
Supernatural would be from the spirit realm.Is it just subjective?
A definition I just just stole from the web.
"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
Which must be the opposite of: natural
For which another stolen definition is
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
Which apparently means anything human is not natural so supernatural?.
Dont think anyone would agree with that.
So does it relate the behaviour or whether a cause can be modelled?
Telepathy is beyond reasonable doubt statistically, (not that Dawkins will ever let it in to his limited view of the world) but even though it is not understood, so does that make it "supernatural"? Dawkins would say so as part of a determination to debunk it!
Does it relate to the model? Which can only ever be incomplete
The only things that ever get to go in the scientific model (ie laws) by definition are things that repeat or can be repeated, or for which there is an axiomatic model. So is a one off by definition superanatural?
So was the big bang by definition supernatural?
Or is it because (from the top definition) the laws dont work.
Laws break down at a black hole..so is that supernatural?
A lot of quantum events break laws, in fact hawking agrees with me...when he defines "model dependent reality" as some phennomena have multiple models that can never be reconciled.
One happens to give the right answer, the other a wrong one.
So are quantum events supernatural (eg spooky action at a distance)
Or does anything that violates the assumption of the deterministic causal evolution of the universe supernatural. In which case all quantum actions do!
Like "extraordinary" "supernatural" even "magic" is seemingly just subjective.
To me, if the evidence says it happened beyond reasonable doubt, it happened beyond reasonable doubt,. It is ergo natural, (ie nature portrayed the behaviour) whether or not you like what happened you can no longer call it supernatural!
It seems to me...
Whether people call it supernatural largely depends on whether you believe it true, whether or not the evidence says it.
It also seems to me...
Science must treat the evidence the same whether or not people "Like" the conclusion!
But it doesnt.
Some kind of evidence are not alllowed into research programs or journals - the gatekeepers of the establishment are very protective as what they allow in...
Which is the point at which they say "supernatural" meaning not in the "nature they like!
Discuss
Interesting - do you have a reference or citation?1/ "physical world" The evidence for telepathy is more or less a slamdunk, and it is hard to conceive of a physical explanation.
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)
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?
I'll guess that paranormal is the unexplained that's potentially amenable to scientific explanation, and supernatural is the unexplained that cannot by definition have a scientific explanation?
If so, the question is then, can one distinguish them in practice, and if so, how?
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.
Is it just subjective?
A definition I just just stole from the web.
"(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
Which must be the opposite of: natural
For which another stolen definition is
"existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind."
Which apparently means anything human is not natural so supernatural?.
Dont think anyone would agree with that.
So does it relate the behaviour or whether a cause can be modelled?
Telepathy is beyond reasonable doubt statistically, (not that Dawkins will ever let it in to his limited view of the world) but even though it is not understood, so does that make it "supernatural"? Dawkins would say so as part of a determination to debunk it!
Does it relate to the model? Which can only ever be incomplete
The only things that ever get to go in the scientific model (ie laws) by definition are things that repeat or can be repeated, or for which there is an axiomatic model. So is a one off by definition superanatural?
So was the big bang by definition supernatural?
Or is it because (from the top definition) the laws dont work.
Laws break down at a black hole..so is that supernatural?
A lot of quantum events break laws, in fact hawking agrees with me...when he defines "model dependent reality" as some phennomena have multiple models that can never be reconciled.
One happens to give the right answer, the other a wrong one.
So are quantum events supernatural (eg spooky action at a distance)
Or does anything that violates the assumption of the deterministic causal evolution of the universe supernatural. In which case all quantum actions do!
Like "extraordinary" "supernatural" even "magic" is seemingly just subjective.
To me, if the evidence says it happened beyond reasonable doubt, it happened beyond reasonable doubt,. It is ergo natural, (ie nature portrayed the behaviour) whether or not you like what happened you can no longer call it supernatural!
It seems to me...
Whether people call it supernatural largely depends on whether you believe it true, whether or not the evidence says it.
It also seems to me...
Science must treat the evidence the same whether or not people "Like" the conclusion!
But it doesnt.
Some kind of evidence are not alllowed into research programs or journals - the gatekeepers of the establishment are very protective as what they allow in...
Which is the point at which they say "supernatural" meaning not in the "nature they like!
Discuss
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.
Most of what I said is supposition, but it would be sheer arrogance to assume we do detect all there is
First of all, they aren't posited as true / existing.Mainstream science conjectures other dimensions and universes.
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.
Not really discussion: beyond natural power, is Grace from the God of the Bible. It has many manifested forms in the natural. But is rooted in a Being's Power towards us.
Many Bible verse examples.
Some kind of evidence are not alllowed into research programs or journals - the gatekeepers of the establishment are very protective as what they allow in...
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?