Can the scientific method be applied to study supernatural phenomena?

[Dan From Smithville]

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).

I would say that we do not know of any objective evidence supporting or denying the existence of the supernatural and the only phenomena we can say anything about is the natural. We may find that many phenomena claimed as supernatural are just that (claimed and really natural) as we learn more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I believe in God, but I do not consider that science is a means to determine that God exists. I do not mix my belief into questions and answers about the natural world. I do not claim that God has blighted your corn. I look for things in the corn that can be observed and tested to make determinations about your crop failure.

I am having difficulty following your thoughts here. Sometimes I want to say that you think we can know nothing about anything and that what we have is some sort of existence on the surface of an illusion. That would be well beyond the scope of my questions here.

Fair enough.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am going to take a walk in the natural world and enjoy the beauty of nature before it becomes too hot. I will chat with you all later.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fair enough.

Don't get me wrong. I am interested in what you have to say. I just do not understand it. Not all of it anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Don't get me wrong. I am interested in what you have to say. I just do not understand it. Not all of it anyway.

Well, I think I do get it.
Here it is in short:
For the law of non-contradiction as psychological: "No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be."
Sometimes it is hard to understand how somebody can understand something so differently, that it seems to amount to a contradiction.

Some aspects of science doesn't make sense to me, but I do accept that they can make sense to others.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry, but that's not objective consideration, when you allow personal belief or preconception dictate your decision.

What makes you think personal beliefs or preconceptions influenced my decision? That might be your preconceptions about me. Actually I was a materialist-atheist at the start of this thinking how could anything not physical be real. Well I now believe in planes of reality not directly detectable by the physical senses or instruments.

Beliefs, like personal opinion, are always subjective in nature, not objective.

There's truth in that and the quality of our beliefs are affected by how honest we remain to objectivity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well, I think I do get it.
Here it is in short:
For the law of non-contradiction as psychological: "No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be."
Sometimes it is hard to understand how somebody can understand something so differently, that it seems to amount to a contradiction.

Some aspects of science doesn't make sense to me, but I do accept that they can make sense to others.

Regards
Mikkel

I am not sure that we are looking at contradictions here. What has been claimed is that what someone believes can be studied using the scientific method. That is different than the possibility of studying the unexplained. The unexplained does not default to being belief-based or beyond nature.

Believers can be studied. Bumps in the night can be studied. But can science show us that bumps in the night are the spirits of the dead? Can it show us that we have a spirit or soul? Can it be used as a method to demonstrate the existence of a deity or a specific deity?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not sure that we are looking at contradictions here. What has been claimed is that what someone believes can be studied using the scientific method. That is different than the possibility of studying the unexplained. The unexplained does not default to being belief-based or beyond nature.

Believers can be studied. Bumps in the night can be studied. But can science show us that bumps in the night are the spirits of the dead? Can it show us that we have a spirit or soul? Can it be used as a method to demonstrate the existence of a deity or a specific deity?

I am not sure that we are looking at contradictions here. What has been claimed is that what someone believes can be studied using the scientific method. That is different than the possibility of studying the unexplained. The unexplained does not default to being belief-based or beyond nature.

Believers can be studied. Bumps in the night can be studied. But can science show us that bumps in the night are the spirits of the dead? Can it show us that we have a spirit or soul? Can it be used as a method to demonstrate the existence of a deity or a specific deity?

No, you are right.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you are right.

I appreciate that. I hope you are right.

 

[Secret Chief]

I doubt we can make the first determination at all, but I agree with the second in regards to the physical world we live in.

Why not the first?

 

[gnostic]

There's truth in that and the quality of our beliefs are affected by how honest we remain to objectivity.

I am not saying that there are no truth to subjective thinking, George, only that when you say “I believe in”, this is “subjective”...like what I highlighted below in bold...it’s not “objective”:

What makes you think personal beliefs or preconceptions influenced my decision? That might be your preconceptions about me. Actually I was a materialist-atheist at the start of this thinking how could anything not physical be real. Well I now believe in planes of reality not directly detectable by the physical senses or instruments.

And the bold part, where you “...not directly detectable by the physical senses”, is only partially true. Your “physical senses” can be either objective or subjective, and that’s dependent upon if you have something independent that verify what you see, hear, feel or smell, like the “or instruments”.

Objective is all about verification.

If you have something independent that can verify what you have observed or heard or felt, than your physical senses of that phenomena can be considered “objective”.

Let’s say this morning, you get out of bed, and it is cold, and estimate temperature to between 6 to 8 degrees Celsius, from your other experiences in the morning. That guess is subjective.

But if look at the thermometer in your room or check your phone apps that give local temperature of where you lived, and it say 7.6 degrees C, then and only then your guess is considered objective.

Like I said, how you think, can be objective or subjective, but objectivity come verification from other sources other just your personal opinion.

I am not denying that subjective thinking or believing can be true. It can be. But if you want facts, then there have to evidence to support whatever you believe. Evidence can provide the levels of objectivity to what you think about or what you believe in.

 

[Heyo]

I would say that we do not know of any objective evidence supporting or denying the existence of the supernatural and the only phenomena we can say anything about is the natural. We may find that many phenomena claimed as supernatural are just that (claimed and really natural) as we learn more.

I agree. As I said earlier in the other OP, some overconfident scientists had to learn that that phenomena they denied to exist where shown to be real and by that same demonstration the supernaturalists had to learn that their claimed phenomenon was natural.
The existence of a single phenomenon can never be proof of the supernatural. The existence of several phenomena conclusive with a theory of the supernatural and exclusive to a theory of the supernatural, could.

 

[George-ananda]

I am not saying that there are no truth to subjective thinking, George, only that when you say “I believe in”, this is “subjective”...like what I highlighted below in bold...it’s not “objective”:



And the bold part, where you “...not directly detectable by the physical senses”, is only partially true. Your “physical senses” can be either objective or subjective, and that’s dependent upon if you have something independent that verify what you see, hear, feel or smell, like the “or instruments”.

Objective is all about verification.

If you have something independent that can verify what you have observed or heard or felt, than your physical senses of that phenomena can be considered “objective”.

Let’s say this morning, you get out of bed, and it is cold, and estimate temperature to between 6 to 8 degrees Celsius, from your other experiences in the morning. That guess is subjective.

But if look at the thermometer in your room or check your phone apps that give local temperature of where you lived, and it say 7.6 degrees C, then and only then your guess is considered objective.

Like I said, how you think, can be objective or subjective, but objectivity come verification from other sources other just your personal opinion.

I am not denying that subjective thinking or believing can be true. It can be. But if you want facts, then there have to evidence to support whatever you believe. Evidence can provide the levels of objectivity to what you think about or what you believe in.

When I say 'I believe ' I am saying that after all things are considered as objectively as I can consider them, then this is what I think is likely the case. That's what is done in a murder trial for example where objective proof is not available; all things from all sides are considered and the strongest we can conclude is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's the best I, a jury or anyone can do.

With the paranormal and spiritual I can just work with what I have and I feel there is quite a bit out there and enough to say I believe certain things beyond reasonable doubt.

I think it impoverishes the intellect to say I only accept what science can objectively prove given the evidence I've seen for a grander universe than current science can reach.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why not the first?

It may be true that there is no such thing as the supernatural, but if we cannot determine that it exists, by the same token, we cannot determine it does not exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am reading through this all. If I have not responded, it is only because I am slow and some I want to understand what people have posted before I respond.

 

[gnostic]

When I say 'I believe ' I am saying that after all things are considered as objectively as I can consider them, then this is what I think is likely the case. That's what is done in a murder trial for example where objective proof is not available; all things from all sides are considered and the strongest we can conclude is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's the best I, a jury or anyone can do.

With the paranormal and spiritual I can just work with what I have and I feel there is quite a bit out there and enough to say I believe certain things beyond reasonable doubt.

I think it impoverishes the intellect to say I only accept what science can objectively prove given the evidence I've seen for a grander universe than current science can reach.

But without verification, regardless if it is science or non-science, then you really cannot say you are being objective in this.

Take Harry Houdini for example, he is no scientist, and yet in his days, he exposed many frauds, people who claim to communicate with ghosts, people who can read minds or have other psychic or supernatural phenomena.

As an illusionist, he was able to uncover deceptions, WITHOUT EVER using science at all.

Science is merely one way to obtain truth. But there are non-scientific methods that get the jobs done.

 

[Native]

But without verification, regardless if it is science or non-science, then you really cannot say you are being objective in this.

"Veryfication" depends on whether two ore more persons observe the same object/phenomena and call it the same. When it comes to "supernatural experiences" it too demands both or all persons to have experienced the same. This is the main problem in this OP. Individuals who don´t have "supernatural experiences" are not able to determine such.

Take Harry Houdini for example, he is no scientist, and yet in his days, he exposed many frauds, people who claim to communicate with ghosts, people who can read minds or have other psychic or supernatural phenomena.
As an illusionist, he was able to uncover deceptions, WITHOUT EVER using science at all.

Well, if he did that without using science, this doesn´t really count as evidences, does it?

Science is merely one way to obtain truth. But there are non-scientific methods that get the jobs done.

Examples, please

 

[Secret Chief]

It may be true that there is no such thing as the supernatural, but if we cannot determine that it exists, by the same token, we cannot determine it does not exist.

Perhaps it's a difference of opinion on the meaning of "natural." I consider the sum total of everything that constitutes the universe (or multiverse) - ie space, time, matter, energy, dark matter, cake etc etc - to be "natural." There is nothing left outside of "natural." Supernatural is just a term used by some people who are actually just referring to what we cannot explain or understand yet (if ever) but wish to believe it is something to do with what scientists call Woo.

 

[Native]

Supernatural is just a term used by some people who are actually just referring to what we cannot explain or understand yet (if ever) but wish to believe it is something to do with what scientists call Woo.

Agreed and as such, there are much in modern cosmological science which is Woo.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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?

If science can examine such things then what happened is no longer supernatural. But since people use the term "supernatural" and "miracle" for something we do not know the cause of, maybe we will find the cause through more advanced scientific tools? We do not know.