Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[Dan From Smithville]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

 

[exchemist]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

OK, a couple of comments to get this started:

i) if science were to find a basis for such phenomena, it seems to me they would ipso facto cease to be "supernatural". I think they would then become natural phenomena, awaiting an explanatory hypothesis.

ii) the starting point, surely, would have to be reproducible observations, that could be documented. In the case of ghosts, I believe this has been tried many times, with no success.

 

[Left Coast]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

Depends on one's definition of supernatural.

To scientifically investigate such claims, the phenomena in question would have to be independently observable and measurable. If we're speaking of a claim of some supernatural event that allegedly occurred in the past (say, 2,000 years ago), the evidence for the claim would have to be observable/measurable.

Also, the claim would have to be falsifiable. A claim that can be molded to fit any data set is not scientific.

 

[Nakosis]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

The claims have to be made in a way that can be falsified. IOW disproven.

For example, providing testable evidence to support the claim that ghosts exist. Science would then look for other explanations for the evidence. If there was evidence which could only be explained by the existence of ghosts then that would be pretty convincing.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's put aside the natural/supernatural distinction and ask whether the scientific method could apply to ghosts, pixies, or elves.

The answer is sure: if a collection of phenomena is reproducible, we have something to study. We can then formulate testable hypotheses about why the phenomena occur. And, if we are able to conduct the tests, we can undergo the standard cycle to modify hypotheses to get progressively more accurate answers.

So, suppose that we can reliably record a ghost in a house, using cameras and microphones. We can use that data to study the phenomenon that can be given the name 'ghosts'. We can see when they appear, where the sounds come from, what the optical effects are, etc.

And I could go further. If the typical types of effects attributed to ghosts were verified, it would inspire a revolution in physics (at the very least). Sound waves obey certain laws under our understanding and if the moans and groan don't fit those laws, the laws themselves have to be re-investigated. The same goes for optical effects.

Now, because ghosts would almost certainly involve the violation of conservation of energy (and probably several other laws), we would want to be *very* sure about the effects observed, and those effects must be repeatable and very clear (not just on the margins of the error bars).

So, yes, if these were real phenomena, the scientific method would be able to study them.

But I will go further still: I predict, based on our understanding of physics, that no such phenomena will ever be seen in enough detail to allow verification of them.

 

[sun rise]

This applies directly to the investigations of reincarnation that have taken place in a university setting. Fifty Years of Research | Division of Perceptual Studies

My personal summary is that there's a lot of evidence that birthmarks are correlated to past life memories. But there's no way of excluding alternate theories that explain this. The short way of saying it is "correlation does not prove causality".

Just like string theory, falsifying the theory is not possible at this point. But that does not mean that we won't find a way of doing it some time in the future. After all, the link between smoking and lung cancer was once unprovable, then became a statistical correlation and finally had a biological basis demonstrated.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

Well, on one site written by scientist they claim that by definition science can't investigate the supernatural, because the natural as a definition doesn't cover the supernatural.

 

[February-Saturday]

That was the entire point of anthroposophy, which was a continuation of the "occult sciences." I would say that, generally speaking, what we commonly understand to be supernatural is subject to empirical investigation just like everything else.

Of course, some supernatural claims are unfalsifiable or not repeatable by nature, and those normally cannot be investigated scientifically.

ETA: Oh, and I should probably mention that anthroposophy ended up failing empirical testing, with pseudoscientific fake medical practices and unverifiable claims. But that doesn't mean nobody has tried! These days we have anomalistic psychology and figures like James Randi.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

I highly don't see so. There was a tv show here on that. Ghost Busters (not the movies). I think there needs to be criteria of what supernatural is objectively so it can be studied by all people of scientific discipline. Without knowing what it is whatever they find could be just something scientist can't explain but not so much they'd call it supernatural just a mystery yet solved.

 

[Fool]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

god is natural and super.

love is divine

 

[Quintessence]

i) if science were to find a basis for such phenomena, it seems to me they would ipso facto cease to be "supernatural". I think they would then become natural phenomena, awaiting an explanatory hypothesis.

Yup, this is the core of the problem.

It's not that the "supernatural" or the "magical" doesn't exist (even in the narrow sense of what "exists" means) - it's that these things get stuffed into a different word-package once "science says so" in the minds of humans who follow those narratives. Same applies to gods, come to think of it. Or, in other cases, the questions really are beyond the limitations of what science as a way of knowing is capable of. It can't touch fundamentally metaphysical concepts, for instance, like the soul is in many cultural understandings. In many cases, "supernatural" involves metaphysical concepts. Sure, you could try to study it with science, but that would be like trying to do a watercolor painting with a jackhammer.

 

[Polymath257]

I highly don't see so. There was a tv show here on that. Ghost Busters (not the movies). I think there needs to be criteria of what supernatural is objectively so it can be studied by all people of scientific discipline. Without knowing what it is whatever they find could be just something scientist can't explain but not so much they'd call it supernatural just a mystery yet solved.

This is ultimately the reason I consider the term 'supernatural' to be incoherent.

Either there is a repeatable phenomenon that can be measured, in which case it will (eventually) be considered to be natural. Or, there is no repeatable phenomenon, in which case there is no way to even be sure there *is* a phenomenon.

At best, you can say that there are events we don't understand. But that is true in every subject in science already.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This applies directly to the investigations of reincarnation that have taken place in a university setting. Fifty Years of Research | Division of Perceptual Studies

My personal summary is that there's a lot of evidence that birthmarks are correlated to past life memories. But there's no way of excluding alternate theories that explain this. The short way of saying it is "correlation does not prove causality".

Just like string theory, falsifying the theory is not possible at this point. But that does not mean that we won't find a way of doing it some time in the future. After all, the link between smoking and lung cancer was once unprovable, then became a statistical correlation and finally had a biological basis demonstrated.

I always had a little skepticism on this. Though, it's more believable than the resurrection of christ. I'll take a look. Past Life Memories Research | Psi Encyclopedia

 

[QuestioningMind]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

Science is the study of the natural world. Something supernatural is by definition something outside of nature, so if something is truly supernatural then no, it would be beyond the ability for science to study. If at some point we do in fact find a way to scientifically study ghosts, then that would indicate that ghosts are part of the natural world and therefor are not supernatural.

 

[February-Saturday]

This is ultimately the reason I consider the term 'supernatural' to be incoherent.

Either there is a repeatable phenomenon that can be measured, in which case it will (eventually) be considered to be natural. Or, there is no repeatable phenomenon, in which case there is no way to even be sure there *is* a phenomenon.

At best, you can say that there are events we don't understand. But that is true in every subject in science already.

I don't think that the term "supernatural" is incoherent. I think it tends to imply archaic notions of idealism or dualism, since the term dates to before "natural" gained the rigorous connotations it has today.

Ironically, that means that the supernatural (if it were to exist) would today be considered a subset of natural phenomenon. This is the supernatural that we can have coherent conversations about.

More contemporary definitions of supernatural are often forged in total scientific ignorance by the uneducated, with nonsensical concepts such as being "apart from nature" or "beyond physical laws." I'm not saying those concepts aren't out there. That's just not what the term originally meant, and I doubt that the people using these definitions actually understand the self-refuting implications.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is ultimately the reason I consider the term 'supernatural' to be incoherent.

Either there is a repeatable phenomenon that can be measured, in which case it will (eventually) be considered to be natural. Or, there is no repeatable phenomenon, in which case there is no way to even be sure there *is* a phenomenon.

At best, you can say that there are events we don't understand. But that is true in every subject in science already.

This sentence and its meaning, not its representation, is something, that you understand, yet you can't describe the meaning of this sentence is scientific notation based on scientific measurement.

So this is the limit of your science looking right at you. This connects to the supernatural, because the idea of the supernatural is another way to make sense of the world than science.
And it is a fact, that I can make sense of the world without there being a repeatable phenomenon that can be measured with science. Now I can use science in practical manner to achieve something and that something is limited, but that is just a part of being human.

 

[ChristineM]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

Given the unevidenced nature of the supernatural i don't see how testing and repeatability can even get a foothold.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

Take 2: If you by science mean natural science, then no. If you mean other ways of understanding some elements of the supernatural, then yes, science in the broad sense can be used to understand the supernatural.

But then we get into a "fight" about knowledge and what knowledge is.

 

[Heyo]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

There is no such thing as a supernatural phenomenon. All phenomena are natural. There are phenomena that have a supernatural explanation and some that don't have a natural explanation (yet).

 

[George-ananda]

Recently, in another thread, it has been claimed that the scientific method and modern technology can be used to determine and validate such supernatural phenomena as the resurrection of the dead and ghosts. And with a high degree of certainty. Do you think that science can be applied to find answers about these and other supernatural phenomena?

What would need to be established in advance to carry out a legitimate study of this subject using the scientific method?

Theoretically the scientific method is fine HOWEVER it may be that our physical senses and instruments at this time can not detect the posited planes of nature beyond the known physical.

So we have to wait and call it beyond science's reach to investigate at this time.

Personally, I believe in supernatural phenomena from the quantity, quality and consistency of observational evidence.