How can we actually define 'supernatural'?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

In one sense, it's perfectly reasonable to say that if we can't adequately explain a phenomenon according to our ideas of how the world works, it's supernatural.

But this reasoning would suggest that every time someone discovers something truly new - like a subatomic particle previously unsuspected to exist - that they're uncovering the supernatural, and that just doesn't match the common-sense understanding of the word.

If we require complete and total understanding, then science really can't explain very much at all. A simple event, like turning on a light bulb, is far too complex for us to accurately model. We can do very well making general statements about what's happening, but no one could solve the mathematical equations describing the interactions of each and every particle in the system.

Logically, supernatural things should be inherently impossible if we interepret the word literally. The natural world is all-inclusive, and even if the universe includes elves, spirits, honest politicians and saucer-shaped alien spacecraft, then all those things are natural. It's just that our conception of what's natural would have been mistaken.

Since science automatically incorporates new data (at least, when it's done properly), how can there really be anything supernatural?

 

[apoger]

This subject should be in the skepticism and paranormal forum, not the million dollar challenge.

>In one sense, it's perfectly reasonable to say that if we can't adequately explain a phenomenon according to our ideas of how the world works, it's supernatural.

Supernatural is not a synonym for "unexplained".


>But this reasoning would suggest that every time someone discovers something truly new - like a subatomic particle previously unsuspected to exist - that they're uncovering the supernatural

No, a new discovery is finding new evidence of what is natural.



>If we require complete and total understanding, then science really can't explain very much at all.

Science neither demands nor needs complete and total understanding. Science "explains" with the facts that we have.


>A simple event, like turning on a light bulb, is far too complex for us to accurately model.

We certainly can model a light bulb well enough to understand it.


>We can do very well making general statements about what's happening, but no one could solve the mathematical equations describing the interactions of each and every particle in the system.

Science never claimed to do such.
Furthermore such levels of knowledge are not needed (or attainable)


>Logically, supernatural things should be inherently impossible if we interepret the word literally.

Bingo! Nature is everything that is, including what we don't know.
The supernatural, that which is outside or beyond nature, is in fact not real.


>The natural world is all-inclusive, and even if the universe includes elves, spirits, honest politicians and saucer-shaped alien spacecraft, then all those things are natural.

You got it.

>Since science automatically incorporates new data (at least, when it's done properly), how can there really be anything supernatural?

Things can only be supernatural in concept. If evidence of a supernatural thing were to come to light, the thing in question would be established as part of nature.

 

[Yahweh]

Well, for all intents and purposes, "supernatural" and "paranormal" can be loosely defined as:

An event or perception is said to be paranormal if it involves forces or agencies that are beyond scientific explanation.

(Source: http://www.skepdic.com/paranormal.html)

Its very easy to say "well, telekinesis may be supernatural today, but perhaps in the future we will find a mechanism to explain it", but that is what would probably be considered a cop-out by most people. That cop-out is most likely a semantics issue.

Some folks might quibble about the definition "beyond scientific explanation", I certainly wouldnt consider the discovery of a new elementary particle to be "paranormal".

Well, unless someone has a better definition, I guess "magical" works as a temporary definition for now.

 

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Something truly supernatural would defy all attempts at analysis, and forever be beyond the ability of science to explain. It would therefore have to be nonfalsifiable.

 

[Answer]

Something truly supernatural would defy all attempts at analysis, and forever be beyond the ability of science to explain. It would therefore have to be nonfalsifiable.

i've got something!

i call him g0d!

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

This subject should be in the skepticism and paranormal forum, not the million dollar challenge.

Since the Million Dollar Challenge rests on how JREF defines those words, this seems like an appropriate forum to me.

In one sense, it's perfectly reasonable to say that if we can't adequately explain a phenomenon according to our ideas of how the world works, it's supernatural.

Ah, but define 'adequate'. We currently can't explain high-temperature superconductivity - there are two alternate theories, each of which predicts certain observed aspects of the phenomenon, and which are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right, and yet neither can be eliminated.

Scientists would quite reasonably say that it's a natural phenomenon, not supernatural, and yet technically it lies beyond the scope of our current understanding of physical law.

Supernatural is not a synonym for "unexplained".

Yes, but if we're going to distinguish between things within and without natural law, we need to have a good understanding of what natural law is. If we don't understand the laws that govern a phenomenon, do we have any grounds for claiming it's either natural or supernatural?

No, a new discovery is finding new evidence of what is natural.

I would argue that's because "nothing 'supernatural' exists". Asking someone to provide proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn to win a million dollars is a perfectly safe bet.

Science neither demands nor needs complete and total understanding. Science "explains" with the facts that we have.

Yes, and that ultimately means science cannot provide a complete and perfect explanation of anything. Logic suggests that complete and perfect explanations are in fact impossible, but nevertheless we now have no grounds for accepting anything as natural or supernatural. We can apply the interactionist definition of 'natural' to conclude that everything that exists is natural...

We certainly can model a light bulb well enough to understand it.

Only on a gross scale. Ultimately it's behavior is not predictable according to known principles.

Science never claimed to do such.
Furthermore such levels of knowledge are not needed (or attainable)

Exactly - as I said, science cannot produce a perfect and complete model of the system, meaning the system is technically beyond the scope of science.

Bingo! Nature is everything that is, including what we don't know. The supernatural, that which is outside or beyond nature, is in fact not real.

But then why bother with the term at all?

If JREF is willing to entertain someone's claim that they can bend spoons with their mind, for example, then they are entertaining the possibility that spoon-bending is natural, not supernatural. That negates JREF's own claims about what the standards for the test are, and if the test is passed, it technically cannot award the Million Dollar Prize.

Things can only be supernatural in concept. If evidence of a supernatural thing were to come to light, the thing in question would be established as part of nature.

Yes. See the immediately preceding paragraph.

 

[geni]

But then why bother with the term at all?

If JREF is willing to entertain someone's claim that they can bend spoons with their mind, for example, then they are entertaining the possibility that spoon-bending is natural, not supernatural. That negates JREF's own claims about what the standards for the test are, and if the test is passed, it technically cannot award the Million Dollar Prize.
[/B]

Spoonbending with the mind would quailfy for the million dollars. Yes to a degree this has to be a done on a case by cases basis but it seems to work (I am yet to see a claim that would be considerded paranormal by most people be turned down).

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Spoonbending with the mind would quailfy for the million dollars. Yes to a degree this has to be a done on a case by cases basis but it seems to work (I am yet to see a claim that would be considerded paranormal by most people be turned down).

Yes, that sounds reasonable, and I have no problems with the way the Challenge is actually run.

But I'm concerned about the concepts in a purely abstract sense, even if the day-to-day operation of JREF isn't really affected by them. One of the many curses of amateur philosophy...

 

[apoger]

>Since the Million Dollar Challenge rests on how JREF defines those words, this seems like an appropriate forum to me.

So this is a semantics debate?
If a supernatural claim is evidenced, it would then become considered a natural phenomenon, as we would then have evidence of it's existence. When the claim is made it's fine to call the claim supernatural.



>In one sense, it's perfectly reasonable to say that if we can't adequately explain a phenomenon according to our ideas of how the world works, it's supernatural.

>>Ah, but define 'adequate'.

You are referencing your own quote. Talking to yourself?

As said before, unexplained is not a synonym for supernatural. Argument over "adequate" explanation is irrelevent.



>We currently can't explain high-temperature superconductivity -

We certainly can.

>there are two alternate theories, each of which predicts certain observed aspects of the phenomenon,

... and there you go. Two explanations.


>and which are mutually exclusive. They can't both be right, and yet neither can be eliminated.

This is not a problem for science. It is merely the current state of our knowlege.


>Scientists would quite reasonably say that it's a natural phenomenon, not supernatural, and yet technically it lies beyond the scope of our current understanding of physical law.

We have evidence that the phenomenon exists, thus it's part of the natural world.

Our lack of understanding is absolutely irrelevent to the phenomenon.


>Yes, but if we're going to distinguish between things within and without natural law, we need to have a good understanding of what natural law is.

You seem to have taken a leap from a discussion of nature, and jumped to natural law. We don't need to understand the mechanism of something that is in evidence in order to declare it exists. The evidence is enough.


>If we don't understand the laws that govern a phenomenon, do we have any grounds for claiming it's either natural or supernatural?

Sure do. The "grounds" is the weight of the evidence.
If there is evidence, the phenomenon exists and is thus part of nature, whether we understand it or not.

You seem to be caught up in a completely erroneous pattern of thinking that absolute knowledge and understanding is needed in order to evaluate the existence of a phenomenon.



>I would argue that's because "nothing 'supernatural' exists".
Asking someone to provide proof of the Invisible Pink Unicorn to win a million dollars is a perfectly safe bet.

Only if you are certain that invisible pink unicorns do not exist.
While it's not likely, it's possible that evidence will come in that the do exist. At that time we will incorporate them into our understanding of what we consider natural.

Since you seem to be very interested in semantics, you would be wise to use precise and technical langauage in order to make certain that there are fewer misunderstandings. When discussing science skip the word "proof" and instead use the term evidence. In common discussion they can be used as synonyms, but once semantic precision is needed, they do have different meanings. Proof is an absolute term and is only good for abstracts like logic and math (and discussing the alcohol content of liquor). In science we cannot "prove" invisible pink unicorns as they are neither a math equation nor a logic problem. Instead we consider the strength of evidence. Evidence is not absolute, and is always subject to debate and revision.

You seem to be lacking a basic understanding of how science works. I suggest putting down the philosophy text and picking up a book that explains basic scientific concepts.



>Yes, and that ultimately means science cannot provide a complete and perfect explanation of anything.

Again, this is neither offered nor needed by science.

Are you implying that since our understanding is not perfection, that it is a useless methodology?


>Logic suggests that complete and perfect explanations are in fact impossible,

Of course.

>but nevertheless we now have no grounds for accepting anything as natural or supernatural.

Fortunately we don't need absolute explanations for science to be worthwhile. Acceptance of what nature entails requires evidence, not a perfect understanding and/or explanation.



>We can apply the interactionist definition of 'natural' to conclude that everything that exists is natural...

Yes.



>We certainly can model a light bulb well enough to understand it.

>Only on a gross scale. Ultimately it's behavior is not predictable according to known principles.

A light bulbs behavior is very predictable. We don't need understanding on a subatomic level to generate light, nor understand how it was accomplished.


>Exactly - as I said, science cannot produce a perfect and complete model of the system, meaning the system is technically beyond the scope of science.

No insult intended, but you have no understanding of what science entails. Science does not need a perfect and complete model of a phenomenon in order to be useful nor valid. Science explains things as well as possible with the facts in evidence.



>If JREF is willing to entertain someone's claim that they can bend spoons with their mind, for example, then they are entertaining the possibility that spoon-bending is natural, not supernatural.

That is correct.
When it's just a claim it may be considered supernatural. If the claim was evidenced we would adjust our understanding of nature with the new facts.


>That negates JREF's own claims about what the standards for the test are, and if the test is passed, it technically cannot award the Million Dollar Prize.

The standards of every test are worked out in writing by both parties and to the satisfaction of all. This is to quash foolish semantic arguments such as you are toying with. There is no issue here that would invalidate the challenge.


[edited for spelling errors]

 

[Rolfe]

I had a homoeopath turn down my suggestion that he should apply for the Prize by saying that since homoeopathy is perfectly natural and scientific, then it wouldn't be eligible. After I quoted the bits from the Commentaries which explicitly say that homoeopathy is eligible, he seems to have shut up about it. Obviously doesn't want the money!

However, I thought it was a fair point. If something like homoeopathy could be shown to have a repeatable, reproducible effect on the real world, it would cease to be paranormal. I asked somewhere on the forum.

The answer I got was that paranormal is anything that is accepted as being beyond rational explanation at the time the test is agreed. That is, accepted by the JREF. If in fact someone passes the test and wins the million bucks it may be that we have to redefine our understanding of the real world, maybe (in the case of homoeopathy) start looking once more for that elusive memory of water, but nevertheless, the million dollars will still have been won.

Rolfe.

 

[Question]

i've got something!

i call him g0d!

So what is the difference between number-g0d and word-god?

FOOLS do not understand TIME-CUBE!

http://www.timecube.com/

 

[geni]

<marquee behavior=alternate> </marquee>

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

So this is a semantics debate?
If a supernatural claim is evidenced, it would then become considered a natural phenomenon, as we would then have evidence of it's existence. When the claim is made it's fine to call the claim supernatural.

You are referencing your own quote. Talking to yourself?

Yes, actually.

As said before, unexplained is not a synonym for supernatural. Argument over "adequate" explanation is irrelevent.

Precisely. Just because mental spoon-bending is unexplained does not mean it is supernatural, and thus Prize-worthy. You prove my point well.

We certainly can.
... and there you go. Two explanations.

[/b] Um, no. We are unable to reduce the phenomenon of high-temperature superconductivity to an elementary model.

This is not a problem for science. It is merely the current state of our knowlege.

What?! That is a perfect example of a scientific problem.

We have evidence that the phenomenon exists, thus it's part of the natural world.

Our lack of understanding is absolutely irrelevent to the phenomenon.

Precisely. Thus, no supernatural events exist, and if we allow ourselves to seriously consider that some phenomenon exists, we presume that it's not supernatural.

If we followed that reasoning to its end, then none of the phenomena which JREF can and is willing to test is supernatural or paranormal by definition.

 

[apoger]

>As said before, unexplained is not a synonym for supernatural. >Argument over "adequate" explanation is irrelevent.

>>Precisely. Just because mental spoon-bending is unexplained does not mean it is supernatural, and thus Prize-worthy. You prove my point well.

The semantic twisting only shows how disingenuous you are being. Do you really not understand the point in question?

Mental spon bending is not just unexplained, it has no foundation in EVIDENCE. If we actually found someone that could bend a spoon with their mind it would no longer be supernatural.

It is "prize-worthy" as both the JREF and the claimant would contend that the phenomenon is supernatural prior to the challenge.

What part of this are you failing to understand, or would like to dispute?





>We are unable to reduce the phenomenon of high-temperature superconductivity to an elementary model.

Pointless.

We have evidence of the phenomenons existence, and thus know it's part of nature. Being unable to explain it down to an elementary model does not make it supernatural, does not make the phenomenon vanish, nor does it make it less useful.



>This is not a problem for science. It is merely the current state of our knowlege.

>>What?! That is a perfect example of a scientific problem.


Problem as in something for science to explore? Yes, of course.

Problem in the context of your question about the definition of supernatural, no. This poses no problem in our knowing that it's part of nature.



>Thus, no supernatural events exist, and if we allow ourselves to seriously consider that some phenomenon exists, we presume that it's not supernatural.

Science works on evidence, not on "seriously considering" nor "presumption".


>If we followed that reasoning to its end, then none of the phenomena which JREF can and is willing to test is supernatural or paranormal by definition.

Absolutely wrong.
This statment would only be correct if you added the condition that the JREF did test and did discover compelling evidence. Only then would the phenomenon be thought of as natural.

Prior to the test "supernatural" and "paranormal" are defined by both interested parties to everyones satisfaction in respect to the challenge.

There is no issue here and this is the second time I have explained this to you. I am getting the distict feeling that I'm being led on a fools errand by someones sock puppet. If you really don't comprehend my answers then please respond by questioning what you fail to understand, however if this is just a trollish word game, please stop wasting my time.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The semantic twisting only shows how disingenuous you are being. Do you really not understand the point in question?

Mental spon bending is not just unexplained, it has no foundation in EVIDENCE. If we actually found someone that could bend a spoon with their mind it would no longer be supernatural.

No - if it's possible to find such evidence, then the phenomenon never was supernatural. Our use of the term would be incorrect. It wouldn't stop being supernatural just because we could demonstrate that it occurs.

It is "prize-worthy" as both the JREF and the claimant would contend that the phenomenon is supernatural prior to the challenge.

Precisely. My point is that no one using the word 'supernatural' in its technical sense would ever call something they believed was possible 'supernatural'.

>We are unable to reduce the phenomenon of high-temperature >superconductivity to an elementary model.

Pointless.

Not at all. That means that science can't come up with an explanation of the event, at least not at present.

In any case, you don't seem to be grasping the point I'm trying to communicate. Yahweh did, and offered a reasonable solution to the problem, which is more than you accomplished.

(Incidentally, Yahweh, were you aware that your eyebrows bear a striking resemblance to those of Dr. Daniel Jackson on "Stargate SG-1"?)

 

[apoger]

>No - if it's possible to find such evidence, then the phenomenon never was supernatural. Our use of the term would be incorrect. It wouldn't stop being supernatural just because we could demonstrate that it occurs.


The context of this thread as defined by you is "How can we actually define 'supernatural'?"

We use the term to the best of our ability. That is all we can do with our limited knowledge.

What you are doing now is moving the goal posts. You have changed the question to knowing in an absolute sense what is or is not natural. We both agree this is beyond the scope of human knowledge. However this has no bearing on the original question.

I have engaged trolls like you many times. You are playing word games and hoping to run everyone around in circles. I'm not playing anymore. This will be my final post to you. Anyone interested in understanding the topic has already been presented with all they need.



>Precisely. My point is that no one using the word 'supernatural' in its technical sense would ever call something they believed was possible 'supernatural'.

Irrelevant in the context of the JREF challenge.
For the challenge the only qualification is that Randi must agree to accept the claim as testable.



>Not at all. That means that science can't come up with an explanation of the event, at least not at present.

There is a difference between "an explanation" and total perfect knowledge. We certainly do have explanations.

Furthermore, as I have stated, this is not relevant. Explanantion is not what defines something to be natural nor supernatural. We have ample evidence that the phenomenon exists, and thus is part of nature.


>In any case, you don't seem to be grasping the point I'm trying to communicate.

I love it when people project their own issues onto their opponents.

Goodbye troll.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The context of this thread as defined by you is "How can we actually define 'supernatural'?"

We use the term to the best of our ability. That is all we can do with our limited knowledge.

Yes, as Yahweh said. That is a reasonable position, as long as both the JREF and the challengers are willing to accept a particular phenomenon as beyond current understanding.

The rest of your post is... frankly, not worth responding to, so I'm going to ignore it.

 

[Answer]

don't lose hope, Wrath. idiots know supernatural is what cannot be explained and all that is outside of explanation is necessarily supernatural. i've been trying to explain this to them in my own thread for the .last few days. we've got James Randi pretending he's the master magician of the messageboard here, the idiot that he is. of course, if he keeps believing he is g0d he can only fool himself. if he knew that i'm typing from the heart and not trying to read his dense mind he would know that if there are no assumptions there IS ONLY SUPERNATURAL. what a moron.

 

[Answer]

but don't fret James. faith is good. but faith does not mean being nice to people. it's accepting them for them. if i call spit in someone's face and they punch me in return, then that's what i deserve. all these idiotic concepts you hold dear are just that, idiotic concepts. do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. i don't get offended. i get even until idiots realize they are being the moron, or until they hit me back like they would if they had any heart. we learn from each-other. society teaches being polite because they are afraid of being made fun of. grow up.

 

[Answer]

but don't fret James. faith is good. but faith does not mean being nice to people. it's accepting them for them. if i spit in someone's face and they punch me in return, then that's what i deserve. all these idiotic concepts you hold dear are just that, idiotic concepts. do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. i don't get offended. i get even until idiots realize they are being the moron, or until they hit me back like they would if they had any heart. we learn from each-other. society teaches being polite because they are afraid of being made fun of. grow up.