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
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