Talk:Supernatural

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Starting again

As I find the page to be of doubtful utility I have a proposed re-start here. Comments welcome. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 07:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Replace

OK. So I think we should replace this version with the version here. Various editors have made a start on it and it looks better than the existing one. Any disagreements or issues? If not I (or maybe somebody else) will make the replacement. If an editor who has a particular attachment to the existing version they might with to turn the parts they created into an essay.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been wondering when it would be time to make the move. No time like the present. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowing how easy it is to make accusations of indecent haste it might be best to wait to see if there are any objections. To be honest, I can't see how there could be as this version is fully in accordance with our objectives while the existing one is ... different. My feeling is that we should give it a few hours at the very least. But you may feel that I am being too conservative. (And that's with a very small "C".)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Festina lente is OK too. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Way less terrible than present article, which I still don't actually like. Brianpansky, think we can start again from Bob_M's version? I think so - David Gerard (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Make it so! Scream!! (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least it looks like an article (the history section is great). But I disagree with the assertion (that seems to be repeated 4 times in the opening) that evidence of the thing being real would mean it isn't supernatural. This isn't how the word generally is used, and I have no idea where people are getting this idea. At best, it is merely one way to use the terminology. Brianpansky (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I would guess that (for the most part) only non-believers could make the mistake of thinking that this is what the word means. And I guess they would get that idea merely from the fact that lack of evidence coincides with claims that fit Carrier's definition. Brianpansky (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretty obviously if a thing is real and can be reliably repeated under laboratory conditions it would no lounger be supernatural. But perhaps I'm wrong. Can you give an example of something which is both supernatural and has been reliably repeated, tested, examined and thus demonstrated to exist under controlled conditions?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No that isn't "pretty obviously”. Maybe I could just repeatedly assert that my definition is the pretty obvious one (or maybe even the [One True Definition]), but instead I've done more than that to support its merit.

Your implication that such an example is needed shows that you aren’t following along with what I said just above, or elsewhere on this talk page. My definition is a category for things with a certain aspect, not for whether it has been found to exist yet. Your level of apparently ignoring of what I’ve said doesn’t give me confidence about the future of working with you on this article. Brianpansky (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If IT is real, demonstrable and repeatable under controlled conditions then it is NOT supernatural. End of. Scream!! (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That isn't an argument, Scream.

I also just noticed that Bob maybe didn't even read the part where I said I don't believe any such things exist, because he asked as if I have such evidence. Brianpansky (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't intended as an argument - it's more like a definition. Scream!! (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And a self-evidently true one as well. The statement of Brianpansky which I took exception to was: But I disagree with the assertion that evidence of the thing being real would mean it isn't supernatural.

So I'm asking him for examples of things which fit this description where "being real" means able to to investigated using the scientific method.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 15:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

More assertions of your definition being "self-evidently" true. Do you mean demonstrably a very common way of actually using the word? Though not yet demonstrated here? Or do you mean any definition whatsoever is true "self-evidently"?

As for your request for examples, is this the same request for examples as before? Or a different request? If it's the same request, then notice I responded to that. If it's a new request, then I don't know what you mean by "this description", please clarify Brianpansky (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy is impenetrable. Don't know what his sort of "argument" is called, is it JAQing off? Anyhow he's a twit. Scream!! (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same request as before. I repeated it in an effort to understand what you are trying to say. To be honest, I'm starting to wonder if you are serious.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Brian has a bit of a point where it comes to certain things like psi which are sometimes considered supernatural but allegedly able to be investigated by "scientific methods." But, in any case, Bob's article is clearly superior. Replace this one. I see it's already been replaced. I am slow today. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To respond to the point you crossed out our Neb what I asked was: "Can you give an example of something which is both supernatural and has been reliably repeated, tested, examined and thus demonstrated to exist under controlled conditions?"

We could theoretically test for many supernatural things like PSI, ghosts, mediums, astrology or whatever - the question is whether we conclude there is evidence they exist or are are true after the test has finished. If there is no evidence they remain in the supernatural world. If there is good evidence then they leave it.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Bob, this is really frustrating, a few of you seem quite impenetrable to me. For now I’ll be brief.

Your request: “Can you give an example of something which is both supernatural and has been reliably repeated, tested, examined and thus demonstrated to exist under controlled conditions?” My answer is no.

I’m a Naturalist, after all. Brianpansky (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Then your statement: 'But I disagree with the assertion that evidence of the thing being real would mean it isn't supernatural' is incomprehensible.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Was my following line, "this isn't how the word generally is used", at least comprehensible? Even if you disagree with my assertion of how the word is generally used? Brianpansky (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"If there is no evidence they remain in the supernatural world." Not necessarily. I am going to try to address this in a new section I will add on phil of sci. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. :-)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Neb. You begin. "A common line of thought is that science cannot test the supernatural." Is it? I've certainly never maintained that.

In fact it sounds kind of straw-mannish to me. Surely any real-world claim (supernatural or not) can be tested scientifically. Santa brings the presents at Christmas. The earth is flat. The moon in made of cheese. God heals the sick via prayer. The Sun God makes the sun rise every day. Surely the question is what is the result of whatever test you have set up, not whether you can carry out a test.

I seem to recall debating this with another editor who maintained that is something could be tested scientifically therefore is was scientific. But all the things I mentioned above can be tested - the issue is the result of the test.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

But thinking about your point some more I guess it depends on whether your are talking about claimed real world supernatural event A or claimed supernatural intervention by mythic being B. Claimed supernatural event A could be investigated, but I can't see how science would get a handle on being B.

So OK, I can see how a form of this argument could be made.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Read on. It's a position endorsed by the NAS. In fact, I agree with you and cite Laudan on that point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I seem to have responded too quickly to the first assertion in the section. I still think it might be a bit to strongly worded though.

I'm not sure why you need to mention both division between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism though. Surely your point can be made only with reference to methodological naturalism? It seems to be the only one you need.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Why not? It's a commonly made distinction. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. And, at times, a significant one. I just don't see why it is relevant in this case. In terms of the supernatural, and how science deals with it, the result is the same whether your perspective is methodological or philosophical. Or I may be missing something.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I would still say that there is a distinction between the two, but it is not as strong or clear-cut as statements from the NAS would have it. Methodological naturalism is useless when it comes to untestable metaphysical ideas such as Last Thursdayism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I still can't get over how silly this is: Then your statement: 'But I disagree with the assertion that evidence of the thing being real would mean it isn't supernatural' is incomprehensible.

If evidence came along that there was an irreducible mind, then I would still call such a mind supernatural. I wouldn't suddenly call it natural! Meanwhile, Bob apparently would suddenly call such a thing natural. So you can see that I dissagree with how to use the word. I use a different definition for "supernatural", as I've been saying all along.

How difficult is this to grasp? Brianpansky (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ceasing to be supernatural

In this rev, each paragraph of the introduction ended with a similar assertion:

• "...they do not conform to a naturalistic worldview."
• "if these events could be demonstrated ... they would cease to be 'supernatural' and could be investigated by science."
• "[with] evidence ... they would leave the realm of the supernatural and enter the world of the mundane."
• "Were it possible to demonstrate ... then the explanation would cease to be supernatural."
• "if they could [be demonstrated] they would leave the realm of the supernatural."

While that kind of repetitiousness is an effective way to make a message memorable, in this context it seems a bit heavy-handed. I've rearranged the intro to put most of that in the first paragraph, with a footnoted coda in the last one. It flows better that way, to my eyes, at least.

I also restored the Abbey quote, with a link to who he was. It seems apropos and harmless, but I'm not married to it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I did rather beat that point to death and beyond. (Though it's a desire which seems to be coming back.)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I preserved most of the pummeling intact in the first paragraph. I'd rather see the article turn into not so much of a polemic as an exploration. One way to condense all four points of the mission might be, "Bullshit and trickery exist, and here is what they look like, so you don't get fooled." This article still could use plenty of "and here is what it looks like." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit too much like an encyclopaedia article at the moment. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

"...many traditional religious/supernatural beliefs are on the wane..."

I believe that there is a global study that confirms this, but I'd have to root around for it. I've just fact-tagged it for now. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had meant to work on that. In fact I started to but then found that the situation globally is a tad complex. Europe, the US and the rest of the world are not necessarily going in the same direction at the same speed.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Early societies

I accept that the word "primitive" may have been badly used in the following cut sentence."Subsequently primitive societies regularly gave supernatural explanations to virtually any natural event for which they had no readily-available naturalistic explanation."

But it is my impression that pre-enlightenment or classical societies sought supernatural explanations for events for which they had no rational explanation. Is this in dispute? In Europe at least there where whole armies of gods and goddesses making it rain or bringing the Sun, weren't here?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For one we have no way of discerning the particular content of Paleolithic religions. Two, this idea is challenged by Pascal Boyer in Religion Explained. See chapter one, pp. 15-18. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've skimmed that. Let's talk about Greek and Roman societies - the classical ones I mentioned. Would you agree that they had various pantheons of gods who were responsible for various things including the weather, the seasons and volcanoes?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Boyer doesn't dispute that. He is arguing against religion as a general explanatory schema. Also, see on p. 12 Evans-Pritchard's account of the incident with the Zande. They accept a naturalistic explanation, what they see as the how of the collapse of the hut (the termites). But what they are interested in is the why, which is explained by supernatural means (witchcraft). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Boyer strikes me as excessively pedantic and hair-splitty. That example with the termites doesn't really refute that religion provides explanations, even if you bothered to distinguish the how's and why's. In the particular example, the villagers knew termites collapsed the hut, but had an additional explanation for how the hut collapsed with the inauspicious timing that it did (e.g. malice). He spends a lot of time pointing out that culture and religion doesn't go through a conscious and scholarly process of critical thought and scientific inquiry, but we knew that already. That's obviously not what is meant by "religion provides explanations." He talks too much and says very little.--24.107.7.208 (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)