Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It makes me feel better.

That's not a measure of truth.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The scientific method can be applied to anything that's supported by evidence (or would be supported by evidence if it were true).

If supernatural claims aren't subject to empirical investigation, then this would imply that there could be no valid reason to accept them as true.

And, if supernatural claims aren't subjected to empirical investigation, then it would be impossible to have a valid (that is, supported by evidence) basis to accept or reject them as true.

And for the most part, there has not been much empirical investigation; a little, yes, but usually only under very limited circumstance...and with very little result

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's not a measure of truth.

Says you. All cases of truth are normative in the end. I ought to think like you and do like you, when I use the cognitive word "truth". I don't, I end with the emotion of what matters to me in regards to the world and truth is just a part of the emotion of what matters to me.

Yeah, I know, how subjective to say that the world end in what matters to a person. But that is where it ends.
I am skeptic and I have really tried to do rationality, objectivity and all that. And all I have gotten back in the end as the reason for all of it, is that it matters to the person claiming truth matters and truth is this and not that.

Well, it is not like, what most people believe about truth. So here it is:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And, if supernatural claims aren't subjected to empirical investigation, then it would be impossible to have a valid (that is, supported by evidence) basis to accept or reject them as true.

But supernatural claims often are subjected to empirical observation.

And for the most part, there has not been much empirical investigation; a little, yes, but usually only under very limited circumstance...and with very little result

I don't think this is true at all, though I have a broad view on this.

So-called paranormal investigators often have a lot to be desired in their approach, but legitimate science often has things to say about the "supernatural."

For instance, identiying the cause of a disease as a virus implies that the cause isn't, say, some bacterium or a magical hex.

And identifying traits we're born with as the product of genetics and maternal hormones during gestation implies that these traits aren't the product of, say, our past lives or astrological sign.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Says you. All cases of truth are normative in the end. I ought to think like you and do like you, when I use the cognitive word "truth". I don't, I end with the emotion of what matters to me in regards to the world and truth is just a part of the emotion of what matters to me.

So then my view that what you're arguing is nonsense is "true to me."

I am skeptic

You keep saying this, but other things you say suggest otherwise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But supernatural claims often are subjected to empirical observation.


I don't think this is true at all, though I have a broad view on this.

So-called paranormal investigators often have a lot to be desired in their approach, but legitimate science often has things to say about the "supernatural."

For instance, identiying the cause of a disease as a virus implies that the cause isn't, say, some bacterium or a magical hex.

And identifying traits we're born with as the product of genetics and maternal hormones during gestation implies that these traits aren't the product of, say, our past lives or astrological sign.

Yeah, I know - in the end it is the God of the gaps. Well, you can't remove that totally, because science can't answer metaphysics. So for the world as it appears through observation, you can use science. For what it really is as "das Ding an sich", science has no answer for that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So then my view that what you're arguing is nonsense is "true to me."

Yes, of course nonsense is always nonsense to somebody. Just as how you understand truth matters to you, but could be nonsense to me.

You keep saying this, but other things you say suggest otherwise.

Well, strong skepticism is not that common and if you really believe in truth, then you can't get strong skepticism. It makes no sense to you.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

But supernatural claims often are subjected to empirical observation.


I don't think this is true at all, though I have a broad view on this.

So-called paranormal investigators often have a lot to be desired in their approach, but legitimate science often has things to say about the "supernatural."

For instance, identiying the cause of a disease as a virus implies that the cause isn't, say, some bacterium or a magical hex.

And identifying traits we're born with as the product of genetics and maternal hormones during gestation implies that these traits aren't the product of, say, our past lives or astrological sign.

Yes, you're taking a much broader view than I was thinking right then. I was thinking more in terms of testing for some of the paranormal examples that currently get lots of play on TV, such as ghosts/spirits, as I outlined in a post earlier in the thread, or setting up some really controlled large-n and well-instrumented experiments of telepathy, distance viewing and the like.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

This thread was started off from the off topic discussion from another thread. Since the other party did not want to start a new thread, I figured that I would. At the very least, to pull that distraction out of the other thread. But more to expand on the conversation. I intentionally left my opening remarks brief--perhaps a little too brief. I made an effort to leave out my personal opinion to avoid pushing discussion a certain way and to leave others free to express their own thoughts. I think that worked. Many of you brought up ideas that I hadn't yet considered or thought about.

Overall, my view has been expressed by several on here.

1. You could study events that are labeled as supernatural. You could set up legitimate scientific inquiry into astrology. But it would only tell us what is physically available to study.
2. Those events would not be supernatural, but based on physical evidence.
3. Unexplained phenomena are uncharacterized. We have no idea what they are. Most believers in them have pre-conceived notions that cannot be validated.
4. You cannot test what you have no evidence for.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This thread was started off from the off topic discussion from another thread. Since the other party did not want to start a new thread, I figured that I would. At the very least, to pull that distraction out of the other thread. But more to expand on the conversation. I intentionally left my opening remarks brief--perhaps a little too brief. I made an effort to leave out my personal opinion to avoid pushing discussion a certain way and to leave others free to express their own thoughts. I think that worked. Many of you brought up ideas that I hadn't yet considered or thought about.

Overall, my view has been expressed by several on here.

1. You could study events that are labeled as supernatural. You could set up legitimate scientific inquiry into astrology. But it would only tell us what is physically available to study.
2. Those events would not be supernatural, but based on physical evidence.
3. Unexplained phenomena are uncharacterized. We have no idea what they are. Most believers in them have pre-conceived notions that cannot be validated.
4. You cannot test what you have no evidence for.

I would add

5. You cannot have evidence for (or against) what you have not tested for.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would add

5. You cannot have evidence for (or against) what you have not tested for.

And you illustrate the very reason that I limited my own thoughts in the OP.

Yes. That should be added.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Ah. An unfamiliar term. I had to look it up. Already, this thread has taught me something new. Thank you for that.

I believe that @Polymath257 has already alluded to the fact that we do not have a good definition for supernatural and others (@exchemist, @Left Coast) have pointed out the fact that if there is something to test, it would be, by definition, natural. I would say that you agree with that from what I am reading here.

But if there is something physical for us to observe, it could be studied. Beyond that, we can tell each other what we believe without being able to present a sufficient or any scientific argument to back that up.

Yeah, we can try to understand all sorts of things. But there are some things that we cannot readily apply even the scientific method to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, you're taking a much broader view than I was thinking right then. I was thinking more in terms of testing for some of the paranormal examples that currently get lots of play on TV, such as ghosts/spirits, as I outlined in a post earlier in the thread, or setting up some really controlled large-n and well-instrumented experiments of telepathy, distance viewing and the like.

And this is generally not necessary to discount supernatural claims. All that's generally necessary is to ask:

- what's the basis for the claim?
- is some mundane explanation sufficient to explain what's being observed?

Recognizing that a claim is made up or unnecessary isn't an absolute guarantee that the claim is false, but it's enough to justify not taking the claim seriously.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

This is something that I have struggled to articulate in some fathomable way. From what I have seen, most of the people promoting the potential application of science to "ghosts" have a specific definition of ghost in mind. But we have no idea if that definition is applicable to the phenomena alleged to represent the activity or presence of ghosts. Ghost has a definition, but it remains an uncharacterized phenomena as far as I know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I think you have handled the use of ghost as well as I have seen. Observations could be attributed to a phenomenon we call "ghost", but linking that to a classical definition of ghost would be impossible, since there is no evidence to establish that link.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

And this is generally not necessary to discount supernatural claims. All that's generally necessary is to ask:

- what's the basis for the claim?
- is some mundane explanation sufficient to explain what's being observed?

Recognizing that a claim is made up or unnecessary isn't an absolute guarantee that the claim is false, but it's enough to justify not taking the claim seriously.

I disagree: if a claim is testable, then it should be tested, instead of just being rejected because the testable claim is just made up or unnecessary to someone else's thinking, not the person making the claim, because it's prejudging the claim.

If testable claim is carefully tested, the claim can be put to rest...or it might reveal something unknown. That's better in my opinion than rejecting the proposal without demonstration that it should be rejected.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree: if a claim is testable, then it should be tested, instead of just being rejected because the testable claim is just made up or unnecessary to someone else's thinking, not the person making the claim, because it's prejudging the claim.

If testable claim is carefully tested, the claim can be put to rest...or it might reveal something unknown. That's better in my opinion than rejecting the proposal without demonstration that it should be rejected.

The mere fact that someone's wild-*** claims are hypothetically testable doesn't create any obligation on my part to test the ones I happen to come across.

I would need to see some indication that it might be true - some sort of merit - before I could justify testing it.

I have too much self-respect to be beholden to every person who seems like a charlatan or a crank just became I can't prove they are definitely a charlatan or crank. You have to have some standards.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The mere fact that someone's wild-*** claims are hypothetically testable doesn't create any obligation on my part to test the ones I happen to come across.

I would need to see some indication that it might be true - some sort of merit - before I could justify testing it.

I have too much self-respect to be beholden to every person who seems like a charlatan or a crank just became I can't prove they are definitely a charlatan or crank. You have to have some standards.

It is widely recognized that people with wild-*** claims are obligated to provide the evidence and testing that support those claims. I am with you. I have no obligation to support the claims for those others that make them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is widely recognized that people with wild-*** claims are obligated to provide the evidence and testing that support those claims. I am with you. I have no obligation to support the claims for those others that make them.

It's not even that, necessarily.

I test hypotheses - about road safety - for a living and I'm fine with doing that.

... But there are only so many hours in the day and I'm already filling all of them. Why should I set aside the things I'm already doing to test some wild-*** claim?

There's no shortage of hypotheses in my field of expertise that need investigation but show a fair bit of promise and, if true, have the potential to save lives. If I had spare time for hypothesis testing, I'd focus on that stuff, not the claims some YouTuber pulled out of their butt about angels or the "hollow Earth."

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The mere fact that someone's wild-*** claims are hypothetically testable doesn't create any obligation on my part to test the ones I happen to come across.

I would need to see some indication that it might be true - some sort of merit - before I could justify testing it.

I have too much self-respect to be beholden to every person who seems like a charlatan or a crank just became I can't prove they are definitely a charlatan or crank. You have to have some standards.

The fact that you prejudge claims as 'wild-***' suggests that maybe you do need to test some of those claims. Personally, I find the approach you seem to be advancing to be intellectually dishonest and lazy.

In the case of ghosts in the modern reality TV shows, the proponents claim that ghosts are detectable by means that are eminently testable involving electromagnetic effects.

Yes, you can sanctimoniously dismiss the claims because you don't see how they could be true.

But a truly inquisitive mind would say, "You know, I can test this. I can do it in a way that should demonstrate that either I am right and their 'findings' are unfounded, or I am unfounded in my skepticism. I admit that my position could be falsified...but at the same time, I could falsify their assertions."

Sure, no one wants to fund such a study, and no one wants to put their own reputation on the line. But it could be done, and this is what the OP asked:

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 am arguing that some claims of the paranormal could be tested. I think I hear you arguing that although the scientific method COULD be used, there is no reason to even try because you've already decided that there is nothing to any of the claims.

While this may be the way science is usually practiced in our society, it is not the way it SHOULD be practiced, in my opinion.