Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[leroy]

No, that’s not what I am saying at all.

They are still sources, whether it today or 2000 years from now.

What I am saying is that the further in time from the actual event, the less accurate and reliable are the sources.

It is better to have sources that are contemporary.

Why couldn’t Jesus’ closest disciples write gospels that a year or two or even 5 years after Jesus left him?

Why wait for 30+ years when there are supposedly so many witnesses of Jesus’ teaching and miracles?

We have completely different birth stories about Jesus in 2 different gospels. The only things they have in common, is that Mary was the mother and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

In Matthew’s Mary and Joseph we’re living in Bethlehem, not in Nazareth, in Galilee in Luke’s version; Nazareth was never mentioned until after they left Egypt.

And Jesus was born in a home, according to Matthew’s, not in Luke’s in a stranger’s manger or stable/barn because no rooms were available.

And who were there when Jesus was resurrected, all the gospels say Mary Magdalene was there, but in different gospels, she was alone, or with one woman or two, and her companions have different names.

And in the Bethany episode, Matk’s and Matthew’s say they had supper at the one of Simon and the unnamed woman who anointed Jesus’ head with perfume. But in John’s, it was Lazarus who was their host, not Simon, and Lazarus’ sister, Mary Magdalene who anointed Jesus’ feet.

The inconsistencies and contradictions in the details found in these 4 gospels demonstrated my points the unreliability of non-contemporary works.

The more years that separate the writing from the event, the less reliable it become.

We no longer have the original gospels, but they were originally written anonymously. The names Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were only ascribed to these gospels by the 2nd century church. So we really don’t even know who the real authors were. And not all the Pauline epistles were written by Paul.

I am confused.....for example... Would you say that sources that we have are "good enough" to stablish with high degree of cernatiny that Jesus s died on the cross

 

[George-ananda]

HonestJoe was talking about evidence, you responded talking about proof.

They are not the same thing to any mathematicians and scientists.

Proofs are all about making mathematical statements, like equations, formulas, constants, variables and numbers.

And I gave a list (bullet points) of proofs used in maths and physics - equations and constants - those are proofs, not evidence.

Evidence is something that you can observe, test, measure, compare.

I gave some examples of what evidence, with blood tests and various scanners used in medicine, to diagnose health issues. The x-ray images of broken bones; that’s evidence. The data of your blood sugar or cholesterol, are evidence of the levels if you require treatments or not.

Science rely on evidence, not on proofs, to determine what is scientific model (eg theory, which are tested and verified hypothesis) and what isn’t.

Is that better?

Do you understand now?

It is better to use the right terms in science, to avoid confusion. That’s what I am saying.

Eyewitness evidence is evidence in the legal courts and the court of our own common sense.

I understand science does not work well with personal experiences. But I am not doing science but common sense considering.

Got it?

 

[gnostic]

Eyewitness evidence is evidence in the legal courts and the court of our own common sense.

I understand science does not work well with personal experiences. But I am not doing science but common sense considering.

Got it?

No, I got it.

But, George, science isn't a court system. And we are not discussing court of law, legal proceeding, etc.

Laws have their own terminology and definition to each terms, science have their own.

And since this thread is "Can the scientific method be applied to study of supernatural phenomena?", then the Scientific Method isn't a legal process.

So use EVIDENCE, not PROOF when you are posting here.

As to eyewitness, if anyone going to use scientific method to find out if supernatural phenomena exist, then testimonies that cannot be tested, is utterly useless.

 

[George-ananda]

No, I got it.

But, George, science isn't a court system. And we are not discussing court of law, legal proceeding, etc.

What part of 'But I am not doing science but common sense considering.' made you think I'm trying to do science?

And since this thread is "Can the scientific method be applied to study of supernatural phenomena?",

And my answer to the question was on page 1 of this thread:

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.

 

[joelr]

Well I'll again quoted respected parapsychologist Dean Radin:



“After a century of increasingly sophisticated investigations and more than a thousand controlled studies with combined odds against chance of 10 to the 104th power to 1, there is now strong evidence that psi phenomena exist. While this is an impressive statistic, all it means is that the outcomes of these experiments are definitely not due to coincidence. We’ve considered other common explanations like selective reporting and variations in experimental quality, and while those factors do moderate the overall results, there can be no little doubt that overall something interesting is going on. It seems increasingly likely that as physics continues to redefine our understanding of the fabric of reality, a theoretical outlook for a rational explanation for psi will eventually be established

Ok so confirmation hasn't happened yet. I am familiar with Radin and in my New Age phase followed his work.
Science all works the same, supernatural doesn't get a pass. Experiments need separate teams all doing the same experiment. You cannot just rely on one team who has been accused of bending stats.
They could be entirely correct. Or pandering to people who pay their bills through book sales. I dunno?
But the Higgs boson had to wait for multiple teams and peer-review of all the data by multiple teams and this is no exception.
If I remember correctly this quote was something I read back in the day around 2008 when I was investigating this stuff.

Ok, there you touch on several subjects that are cherry-picked, tangential to this conversation and presented with a skeptic slant but those items are not the subject of this thread.

My main point is that the so-called 'supernatural phenomena' exists beyond reasonable doubt and that almost all of it can not be studied with the scientific method at this time as the supernatural is not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments.

As evidence I called on anecdotal, experimental and investigative evidence to support my position. By anecdotal I mean the millions/billions of nameless individuals alleging experiences with the supernatural/paranormal. With the quantity, quality and consistency of this evidence I believe the likelihood that all can be explained as 'being mistaken' has essentially approached zero in my estimation. Hence I say I believe 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Again, to stay on track my answer to the OP question is that although I believe the supernatural/paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt it can not be much studied with the physical senses and instruments of today's science.

Well yes LOA, mediums and channelers I think are frauds. LOA at least is 100% because they all claim physics proves it to be true and it's the biggest section of new age. But I did cherry-pick them. You simply said that the supernatural side is more trustworthy than skeptics so I picked the one's that are easily shown to be fraud. Those 3 are a massive industry, much bigger than skeptic media.

Dean Radin and William Tiller are not like those, I can see they are seemingly much more legit and science based.
Anecdotal is too sketchy. How many Big Foot sightings have there been? Alien abductions? Pick something you don't believe in and investigate it and see how often it's reported.
As I studied the ufo field I started to learn people's capacity to tell tall tales is enormous. Off the scale.
Radin and Tiller have work that is still pending but the vast bulk of research done by the military on remote viewing and other studies on prayer, random number generators and other ESP hasn't had good results.
Have you at least looked at some of the wiki pages of big players like Ingo Swann, Russell Targ, Project Stargate and simply Remote Viewing? Wiki isn't a skeptic site it just gives the basic facts and conclusions and it isn't great. This seems like experimentally none of this worked?
Ingo Swann - Wikipedia
Russell Targ - Wikipedia
Stargate Project - Wikipedia
Remote viewing - Wikipedia

There can be energies beyond our detection, sure. But the straightforward abilities like telepathy and the like do not need special energy detection to confirm. I read Lynn Mctaggarts book The Field and was hopeful that progress was being made but then I read a debunking that looked at the studies she used and explained that the results were not conclusive. So it's like darn, who is bending the truth and who isn't? This goes back to having multiple teams finding the same results.

Like Dr Emoto who proved consciousness can change water molecules. Happy thoughts produce these nice looking structures. Wrote a NY Times bestseller. Then - fraud. There are riches there for the taking.
It's never going to stop. So we have to have a process of confirmation.

 

[joelr]

I am confused.....for example... Would you say that sources that we have are "good enough" to stablish with high degree of cernatiny that Jesus s died on the cross

We have no degree of certainty about that, or some degree depending on what you mean.

Besides what he already mentioned the synoptic problem shows a high degree of verbatim Greek copied into other gospels from Mark which is now considered to be the likely source of the others.
They are also written in a highly mythic literary style and closely follow other mystery religions dying/rising savior who also forgives sins, underwent a passion, baptism and so on. At least 6 who pre-dates Jesus.
(sources on that here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890)

Then there are no mentions about Jesus anywhere else. Pliny and a few others of the 2nd century mentioned the religion and that the leader was Christos - and Tacitus called it "superstition".

So the evidence suggests that it's possible there was a religious teacher named Jesus who was crucified, and was then later mythicized into a demigod and a new Jewish mystery religion. But it's also possible the entire character was myth which Carrier believes evidence shows 3 to 1 in favor of myth.

This is the main debate in the historicity field - historicity vs mythicism. Bart Ehrman is in favor of historicity.

But the point about the original gospels is true, the first canon was the Marcionite canon which we know nothing of. All destroyed. Could have been similar or much more Gnostic?

 

[George-ananda]

Ok so confirmation hasn't happened yet. I am familiar with Radin and in my New Age phase followed his work.
Science all works the same, supernatural doesn't get a pass. Experiments need separate teams all doing the same experiment.

Radin is doing a meta-analysis and as he said in his video includes data from dozens of labs over five continents.

You cannot just rely on one team who has been accused of bending stats.
They could be entirely correct. Or pandering to people who pay their bills through book sales. I dunno?
But the Higgs boson had to wait for multiple teams and peer-review of all the data by multiple teams and this is no exception.
If I remember correctly this quote was something I read back in the day around 2008 when I was investigating this stuff.




Well yes LOA, mediums and channelers I think are frauds. LOA at least is 100% because they all claim physics proves it to be true and it's the biggest section of new age. But I did cherry-pick them. You simply said that the supernatural side is more trustworthy than skeptics so I picked the one's that are easily shown to be fraud. Those 3 are a massive industry, much bigger than skeptic media.

Dean Radin and William Tiller are not like those, I can see they are seemingly much more legit and science based.
Anecdotal is too sketchy. How many Big Foot sightings have there been? Alien abductions? Pick something you don't believe in and investigate it and see how often it's reported.
As I studied the ufo field I started to learn people's capacity to tell tall tales is enormous. Off the scale.
Radin and Tiller have work that is still pending but the vast bulk of research done by the military on remote viewing and other studies on prayer, random number generators and other ESP hasn't had good results.
Have you at least looked at some of the wiki pages of big players like Ingo Swann, Russell Targ, Project Stargate and simply Remote Viewing? Wiki isn't a skeptic site it just gives the basic facts and conclusions and it isn't great. This seems like experimentally none of this worked?
Ingo Swann - Wikipedia
Russell Targ - Wikipedia
Stargate Project - Wikipedia
Remote viewing - Wikipedia

There can be energies beyond our detection, sure. But the straightforward abilities like telepathy and the like do not need special energy detection to confirm. I read Lynn Mctaggarts book The Field and was hopeful that progress was being made but then I read a debunking that looked at the studies she used and explained that the results were not conclusive. So it's like darn, who is bending the truth and who isn't? This goes back to having multiple teams finding the same results.

Like Dr Emoto who proved consciousness can change water molecules. Happy thoughts produce these nice looking structures. Wrote a NY Times bestseller. Then - fraud. There are riches there for the taking.
It's never going to stop. So we have to have a process of confirmation.

You are cherry-picking conclusions. There are always two sides to all those things you want to suggest a negative conclusion towards. Each one can be their own thread but here you present a rambling collection not really relevant to this thread and too much to comment upon.

Wikipedia is without objective value since the heavy editing by guerilla skeptics wishing to present one side of the story. For whatrever reason I feel you have a disposition towards biased skeptical material. I like balance myself. As for me, I'll take someone like Radin's integrity over the biased arch-skeptics.

 

[HonestJoe]

What part of 'But I am not doing science but common sense considering.' made you think I'm trying to do science?

This is the core point though. You don't have to be trying to do science to be following scientific method. It is something we all do instinctively all the time. When you're crossing the road and working out if there is a big enough gap in the traffic, that is science. When you sniff the milk to see if it's gone off, that is science. When you add more water to the sauce because it's too think, that is science. And when you hear someone describe an unexplained event and propose a potential cause, that is science.

Now we'll make lots of mistakes when doing it casually and without thinking, which is why formal scientific process has so many checks and balances, but at the core principle, it's still all science.

 

[leroy]

We have no degree of certainty about that, or some degree depending on what you mean.

Besides what he already mentioned the synoptic problem shows a high degree of verbatim Greek copied into other gospels from Mark which is now considered to be the likely source of the others.
They are also written in a highly mythic literary style and closely follow other mystery religions dying/rising savior who also forgives sins, underwent a passion, baptism and so on. At least 6 who pre-dates Jesus.
(sources on that here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/13890)

Then there are no mentions about Jesus anywhere else. Pliny and a few others of the 2nd century mentioned the religion and that the leader was Christos - and Tacitus called it "superstition".

So the evidence suggests that it's possible there was a religious teacher named Jesus who was crucified, and was then later mythicized into a demigod and a new Jewish mystery religion. But it's also possible the entire character was myth which Carrier believes evidence shows 3 to 1 in favor of myth.

This is the main debate in the historicity field - historicity vs mythicism. Bart Ehrman is in favor of historicity.

But the point about the original gospels is true, the first canon was the Marcionite canon which we know nothing of. All destroyed. Could have been similar or much more Gnostic?

Ok those comments are probably relevant for another thread. The question is “assuming you have good testimonies and good sources” would it be possible to establish a supernatural/ paranormal event? Like ghosts, resurrection, crystal balls that predict the future etc.

With good sources and good testimonies* I mean “realistically good” the same kind of sources that you would use in a court law or to establish any historical fact form ancient history.

 

[leroy]

N
And since this thread is "Can the scientific method be applied to study of supernatural phenomena?", .

I find it ironic, because the scientific method depends largely on testimonies, when you read a scientific paper describing an experiment; you are trusting the testimony of scientists and trusting that they are not lying and inventing stuff. .

So your alteratives are ether:

1 reject science and only trust in the experiments that you yourself performed

Or

2 Admit that you where wrong and accept that “good testimonies” are good sources of knowledge

 

[George-ananda]

This is the core point though. You don't have to be trying to do science to be following scientific method. It is something we all do instinctively all the time. When you're crossing the road and working out if there is a big enough gap in the traffic, that is science. When you sniff the milk to see if it's gone off, that is science. When you add more water to the sauce because it's too think, that is science. And when you hear someone describe an unexplained event and propose a potential cause, that is science.

Now we'll make lots of mistakes when doing it casually and without thinking, which is why formal scientific process has so many checks and balances, but at the core principle, it's still all science.

Then, is what I call common sense reasoning judging reasonableness over a body of related things not a kind of science?

And why should that not include considering the credibility of theories that are not applicable to testing under the scientific method. Observations and theorizing.

 

[Hawkins]

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?

Not likely. Science is about how experiments are established by humans to verify or validate a repeatable truth. We however cannot travel outside a limited 3D sphere to establish experiments. We (well our science) can only have a small reachable sphere inside which we only know 5% matters to have our science established. We can't possibly know how many such spheres exist and in which way (say can they overlap?) and what matters are stored inside.

Even inside our own observable sphere, I strongly feel that quantum physics actually beats us instead of being mastered by us.

 

[leroy]

Not likely. Science is about how experiments are established by humans to verify or validate a repeatable truth. We however cannot travel outside a limited 3D sphere to establish experiments. We (well our science) can only have a small reachable sphere inside which we only know 5% matters to have our science established. We can't possibly know how many such spheres exist and in which way (say can they overlap?) and what matters are stored inside.

Even inside our own observable sphere, I strongly feel that quantum physics actually beats us instead of being mastered by us.

If I told you (and scientists) that there is a Ghost in my House that can walk through doors, talk and say BOOOOOO……….what would prevent you to apply the scientific method to ether validate or falsify my claims?

You can show scientifically whether if I am lying or not, with a “lie detector” you can use camaras to show that I am not imagining stuff, etc.

 

[HonestJoe]

Then, is what I call common sense reasoning judging reasonableness over a body of related things not a kind of science?

And why should that not include considering the credibility of theories that are not applicable to testing under the scientific method. Observations and theorizing.

That can certainly be considered informal scientific process yes. That doesn't mean you can legitimately leap to definitive conclusions based upon them. It doesn't matter how you're assessing it, second-hand anecdotal reports are always going to be limited in how much they can fully inform a conclusion on their own.

 

[George-ananda]

That can certainly be considered informal scientific process yes. That doesn't mean you can legitimately leap to definitive conclusions based upon them. It doesn't matter how you're assessing it, second-hand anecdotal reports are always going to be limited in how much they can fully inform a conclusion on their own.

Let me add in addition to anecdotal paranormal evidence is the occult sciences of Vedic and Theosophical traditions using psychic/clairvoyant insight. These occult scientists as in Vedic Science present an astoundingly detailed worldview that can not be studied by the physical senses and instruments.

 

[gnostic]

Ok those comments are probably relevant for another thread. The question is “assuming you have good testimonies and good sources” would it be possible to establish a supernatural/ paranormal event? Like ghosts, resurrection, crystal balls that predict the future etc.

With good sources and good testimonies* I mean “realistically good” the same kind of sources that you would use in a court law or to establish any historical fact form ancient history.

Sorry, but you are still making speculations - made-up scenario that have never happened.

Can you give any example, where the court of law and the judges and jury, in our generations (so at least the 20th and 21st centuries), have accepted testimonies on any supernatural phenomena as facts?

There have never been good source, unless you talking about fictions, and in ancient literature in religious myths.

 

[HonestJoe]

Let me add in addition to anecdotal paranormal evidence is the occult sciences of Vedic and Theosophical traditions using psychic/clairvoyant insight. These occult scientists as in Vedic Science present an astoundingly detailed worldview that can not be studied by the physical senses and instruments.

If their evidence can't be accessed by anyone else, that is anecdotal too. What stops evidence being anecdotal is the ability of anyone else to independently replicate the same methodology and get the same results.

Again, I'm not dismissing anecdotal evidence out of hand, just recognising that it's use is fundamentally limited by literal definition.

 

[Hawkins]

lie detector

A lie detector is not something falsifiable. It works for a large portion of humans. However, some will trigger the detector even when telling the truth and some will not even lies.

If it works 100% then the law courts will use it. It is not used, not because the laws don't want the criminals to be caught. It's not used because its reliability is not 100% and cannot be accepted to be part of the judgment process.

That said. In reality, how many truths you ever got in touch with, and out of which how many times you have to use a detector? You are living in dreams. Humans in majority never rely on a detector to get to a truth. They rely on testimonies from other humans without using a detector. They use faith instead. This is the reality, detector is your delusion.

 

[gnostic]

If I told you (and scientists) that there is a Ghost in my House that can walk through doors, talk and say BOOOOOO……….what would prevent you to apply the scientific method to ether validate or falsify my claims?

You can show scientifically whether if I am lying or not, with a “lie detector” you can use camaras to show that I am not imagining stuff, etc.

There have never been a real case of ghosts, Leroy.

Just claims that have never been verified, because whenever someone go to investigate they will find nothing but stories.

Don’t you people have already try setting up cameras, audio recorders and other equipment to capture spirit encounters on films or tapes?

They have tried such methods for decades, and found either nothing or they discovered the claims were fraudulent.

Parapsychology is study of all supernatural and paranormal phenomena, that included the investigation of ghosts, that began in the late 19th century. They found no evidence, right up to this day, but they persisted trying to validate something that are unfalsifiable.

And since all those decades, lot of false claims and frauds were uncovered, not only from the claimants, but from these so-called “investigators”, who would “doctored” test results and data.

Parapsychology is deemed to be pseudoscience.

In your example, you are making up scenario when you wrote “If I told you...Booo...”, blah, blah, blah. You want someone to test an imaginary scenario. What would be the point of testing something if it never happened anyway?

You keep repeating this same silly scenario, over and over and over again...

If I told you (and scientists) that there is a Ghost in my House that can walk through doors, talk and say BOOOOOO……….what would prevent you to apply the scientific method to ether validate or falsify my claims?

...asking the same pointless questions as if you are going to get a different answer - answer that you want.

Why repeat this absurdity?

 

[George-ananda]

If their evidence can't be accessed by anyone else, that is anecdotal too. What stops evidence being anecdotal is the ability of anyone else to independently replicate the same methodology and get the same results.

Again, I'm not dismissing anecdotal evidence out of hand, just recognising that it's use is fundamentally limited by literal definition.

Well, we are actually kind of in agreement after all. I realize the value and imperfection of anecdotal evidence in my considerations.

Science doesn't work well with anecdotal evidence except as cause for suggesting theories for scientific consideration.

You feel denigrated by my use of the term 'scientism' to describe your arguments and I feel denigrated when you downplay other wisdom traditions as 'faith', 'made-up', 'huckster filled'. etc..

That's where I see us standing,