Does Science/Statistics Prove a Supernatural Intervention?

[painted wolf]

I'm an engineer, not a scientific researcher in the field of paranormal science.

So, what stops paranormal researchers from doing this?

Even if I proposed an experiment of hypothesis how would I go about testing it?

That is part of the job of science... you don't get to declare a hypothesis as possible without at least a hint of a plan to test it?

And even if I had the means, would I actually care enough to do it or would anyone even care about the results?

Hell yes! You would fundamentally change human experience with such a discovery!

Why is it pseudoscience always whines that they would actually do science and get evidence... "but they won't let us" or "they have a conspiracy against us"?

wa:do

 

[brbubba]

Hell yes! You would fundamentally change human experience with such a discovery!

Why is it pseudoscience always whines that they would actually do science and get evidence... "but they won't let us" or "they have a conspiracy against us"?

wa:do

I think you would find that my results would never be accepted. As immortalflame pointed out, the standard for criteria is too diverse. I'd get half the people claiming it to be a breakthrough and half claiming it to be psuedoscience. Also don't be so quick to think life altering discoveries here. All I'm trying to prove is supernatural, not necessarily life after death.

Also no one has really responded to something like the random number generator experiments as an example of the paranormal.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why though? If all I am proving is the supernatural why isn't the cup flying across the room sufficient?

Because what does a cup flying across the room have to do with the supernatural? There are millions of other possible explanations, almost all of which are more reasonable and easily evidenced. You have to clearly demonstrate that the mug flew across the room as a result of supernatural entities.

That's what I am talking about, your burden of proof is an insurmountable obstacle!

No, your idea of proof is simply too low if you think a mug flying across the room is sufficient proof of supernatural entities. Is the theory of evolution accepted purely on the back of the fact that certain animals look the same? No. It's accepted because of the mountain of evidence all pointing to a singular conclusion, and the fact that science has explained that evidence and used evolution theory to make repeated successful predictions.

This is the level of evidence required for all science. Your criteria comes nowhere near it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think you would find that my results would never be accepted.

Why not present them and find out?

As immortalflame pointed out, the standard for criteria is too diverse.

As always, it's never the fault of people making the extraordinary claim. It's everybody else's because "waaah, your standard of evidence is too high". Sorry, but the standard we use is the scientific standard, and science is the best and most reliable means of determining what is fact and what is fiction.

I'd get half the people claiming it to be a breakthrough and half claiming it to be psuedoscience. Also don't be so quick to think life altering discoveries here. All I'm trying to prove is supernatural, not necessarily life after death.

And the discovery that the supernatural exists - and can be tested for or demonstrated - is not a life-altering discovery? We have scientists in Belgium working right now to try and recreate a single particle of largely theoretical matter using a giant multi-billion dollar underground machine designed to replicate the big the bang, and you think the discovery of an entire other facet of existence wouldn't be big news?

Also no one has really responded to something like the random number generator experiments as an example of the paranormal.

Probably because they're not.

 

[Skeptisch]

I think you would find that my results would never be accepted.

As mentioned before, brbubba, you hopefully are just having fun with the reasonable people exchanging posts with you. But if you are not and you seriously and honestly think there could be ghosts among us, then you would be an interesting example of how miserably science has failed in promoting the laws of nature (physics).

“It seems to me that the biggest challenge we face is to evolve a language that couples the cold-eyed skepticism and rigor of science with a sense of community, a sense of belonging that religion provides. We have to make it matter what is true. If instead we say that what really matters is to have faith, what really matters is to believe, we'll never get there. It’s not enough to have forty minutes of science in the daily school program, because science shouldn't be compartmentalized that way. Science is a way of looking at absolutely everything.”
Ann Druyan

 

[brbubba]

Because what does a cup flying across the room have to do with the supernatural? There are millions of other possible explanations, almost all of which are more reasonable and easily evidenced. You have to clearly demonstrate that the mug flew across the room as a result of supernatural entities.


No, your idea of proof is simply too low if you think a mug flying across the room is sufficient proof of supernatural entities. Is the theory of evolution accepted purely on the back of the fact that certain animals look the same? No. It's accepted because of the mountain of evidence all pointing to a singular conclusion, and the fact that science has explained that evidence and used evolution theory to make repeated successful predictions.

This is the level of evidence required for all science. Your criteria comes nowhere near it.

As typical you are assuming more than what is stated. In the case of a mug flying across the room you could prove supernatural if all other reasonable natural causes were ruled out, hence the definition of the word. But again, this isn't enough for you.

As mentioned before, brbubba, you hopefully are just having fun with the reasonable people exchanging posts with you. But if you are not and you seriously and honestly think there could be ghosts among us, then you would be an interesting example of how miserably science has failed in promoting the laws of nature (physics).

“It seems to me that the biggest challenge we face is to evolve a language that couples the cold-eyed skepticism and rigor of science with a sense of community, a sense of belonging that religion provides. We have to make it matter what is true. If instead we say that what really matters is to have faith, what really matters is to believe, we'll never get there. It’s not enough to have forty minutes of science in the daily school program, because science shouldn't be compartmentalized that way. Science is a way of looking at absolutely everything.”
Ann Druyan

My grasp of science is quite firm, but I'm open to possibilities that science can't completely rule out. Take aliens, extraterrestrial life forms, for instance. Today probability makes the assumption that life must exist somewhere in the universe besides earth, but it's still a debated subject. Now take that 100 years ago and what kind of reception would that garner?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As typical you are assuming more than what is stated. In the case of a mug flying across the room you could prove supernatural if all other reasonable natural causes were ruled out, hence the definition of the word. But again, this isn't enough for you.

Like I said, there could be millions of "possible" explanations for a cup flying across a room. Trying to "rule out" every single one of them would be a complete waste of time, and nearly impossible. This is why deductive reasoning is not commonly used in science - because the amount of "possible" explanations for any known phenomena are almost incalculable.

Also, you're putting words in my mouth.

My grasp of science is quite firm, but I'm open to possibilities that science can't completely rule out. Take aliens, extraterrestrial life forms, for instance. Today probability makes the assumption that life must exist somewhere in the universe besides earth, but it's still a debated subject. Now take that 100 years ago and what kind of reception would that garner?

And where's the comparison between aliens and the supernatural? Science also can't "completely rule out" fairies, elves, Hogwarts or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If told you I saw a mug fly across the room and it was proof of fairies, would you be "open minded" to that assertion as well?

Being open to possibilities is fine. The problem is that you're not just open to them, you've repeatedly asserted that the supernatural exists - and that the only reason we don't accept it is because our standards of evidence are too high. This is where you cross the line from just spouting hypothetically to actually needing evidence of your claims. If all you can do is say "well, we might find evidence in the future - be open minded!" then your case is hardly strong.

 

[brbubba]

Like I said, there could be millions of "possible" explanations for a cup flying across a room. Trying to "rule out" every single one of them would be a complete waste of time, and nearly impossible. This is why deductive reasoning is not commonly used in science - because the amount of "possible" explanations for any known phenomena are almost incalculable.

Also, you're putting words in my mouth.

Do tell, what "words" am I putting in your mouth?

If you actually break it down, there aren't millions of scientific explanations for why a cup would fly across the room.

And where's the comparison between aliens and the supernatural? Science also can't "completely rule out" fairies, elves, Hogwarts or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If told you I saw a mug fly across the room and it was proof of fairies, would you be "open minded" to that assertion as well?

Being open to possibilities is fine. The problem is that you're not just open to them, you've repeatedly asserted that the supernatural exists - and that the only reason we don't accept it is because our standards of evidence are too high. This is where you cross the line from just spouting hypothetically to actually needing evidence of your claims. If all you can do is say "well, we might find evidence in the future - be open minded!" then your case is hardly strong.

Fairies would be supernatural.

No, your standards of evidence are too high. And I'm already assuming my case is very weak because we don't have the "evidence" as it were to reference.

Let me ask you this, do you think aliens exist? Do you think dark matter exists? And every other variation....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do tell, what "words" am I putting in your mouth?

You said that, by my standard, if you ruled out every other possibility I still would not accept it as proof. I've never said anything like that.

If you actually break it down, there aren't millions of scientific explanations for why a cup would fly across the room.

If you're going to throw in "the supernatural" as a possible explanation, then I'm afraid you also have to throw open the door to any other "possible" but equally unlikely explanation. For example, fairies, aliens, invisible unicorns, a gravity shift, the cup suddenly gaining sentience, etc.

Fairies would be supernatural.

So, you admit that fairies are a possible explanation for the cup as well?

No, your standards of evidence are too high. And I'm already assuming my case is very weak because we don't have the "evidence" as it were to reference.

My standards of evidence are no different to the standards of evidence required in any scientific field. All I require is demonstrable, repeatable evidence that all lends itself to a singular conclusion. This is not an unreasonable requirement - provided that what you're attempting to prove is actually true.

Let me ask you this, do you think aliens exist? Do you think dark matter exists? And every other variation....

I have no idea if aliens exist. And yes, dark matter likely does exist, we just don't yet know exactly what it is.

 

[brbubba]

You said that, by my standard, if you ruled out every other possibility I still would not accept it as proof. I've never said anything like that.

Well if you think there would be infinite possibilities then clearly I could never rule out every possibility

If you're going to throw in "the supernatural" as a possible explanation, then I'm afraid you also have to throw open the door to any other "possible" but equally unlikely explanation. For example, fairies, aliens, invisible unicorns, a gravity shift, the cup suddenly gaining sentience, etc.

Actually I don't because I'm just trying to prove the supernatural, remember. All of those options would qualify as supernatural IMO.

So, you admit that fairies are a possible explanation for the cup as well?

Of course they are! I'm just trying to prove supernatural here. Trying to prove a ghost would be a virtual impossibility.

I have no idea if aliens exist. And yes, dark matter likely does exist, we just don't yet know exactly what it is.

Isn't dark matter supernatural??? You can hypothesize it all you want, but without actual proof it's only slightly more credible than my ghosts.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well if you think there would be infinite possibilities then clearly I could never rule out every possibility

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said "infinite".

Also, we were talking hypothetically.

Actually I don't because I'm just trying to prove the supernatural, remember. All of those options would qualify as supernatural IMO.

Not if science finds them to have a natural cause.

Of course they are! I'm just trying to prove supernatural here. Trying to prove a ghost would be a virtual impossibility.

But proving an entire secondary facet of existence would be far easier?

Isn't dark matter supernatural??? You can hypothesize it all you want, but without actual proof it's only slightly more credible than my ghosts.

No, dark matter is not supernatural. It is largely hypothetical, but we have tested for it and have evidence of it's existence. We just don't yet have a workable theory to explain it's existence, or if the evidence is the result of a misunderstanding about how the laws of gravity work in deep space.

Whatever dictionary you're getting your definition of "supernatural" from, throw it out.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I'm curious what everyone thinks of this.
...So since the odds for our individual existence are effectively zero, does that mean that other, potentially supernatural, forces were acting on our behalf???

No, it only means that you assumed the result we see to be a desired and sole target of a process that started long ago.

What do you think for example would happen to your calculation if you just used the chance that "any couple" could produce "any baby" that survives long enough to mate with a new husband/wife?

Or to say it in other words.... chances that mankind dies (taking no global catastrophes or infertility due to industrialization into account) are actually 0.

 

[brbubba]

Again, putting words in my mouth. I never said "infinite".

Also, we were talking hypothetically.

Effectively the same thing, in both cases you could never hope to test all the possibilities.

This entire thread is hypothetical, so what does it matter?

Not if science finds them to have a natural cause.

But proving an entire secondary facet of existence would be far easier?

No, dark matter is not supernatural. It is largely hypothetical, but we have tested for it and have evidence of it's existence. We just don't yet have a workable theory to explain it's existence, or if the evidence is the result of a misunderstanding about how the laws of gravity work in deep space.

Whatever dictionary you're getting your definition of "supernatural" from, throw it out.

not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material

departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

Wikipedia
The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to being above or beyond what one holds to be natural. In the case of one who has strong scientific and atheist beliefs, the supernatural is anything unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.[1]

It's pretty clear that you are working off an erroneous definition of the supernatural.

 

[painted wolf]

I think you would find that my results would never be accepted.

I think such self-defeatist attitude is the reason no science ever gets done.

As immortalflame pointed out, the standard for criteria is too diverse.

Then narrow them down. To be scientific you need a standard to begin with.

I'd get half the people claiming it to be a breakthrough and half claiming it to be psuedoscience.

Then adhere to the definition of science and you will avoid this.

Also don't be so quick to think life altering discoveries here. All I'm trying to prove is supernatural, not necessarily life after death.

I said nothing about life after death. Any finding that demonstrates the supernatural will fundamentally alter human existence.

Also no one has really responded to something like the random number generator experiments as an example of the paranormal.

Do you have a source for them... so that the methods can be examined? I seem to have missed that post.

wa:do

 

[brbubba]

I think such self-defeatist attitude is the reason no science ever gets done.

Then narrow them down. To be scientific you need a standard to begin with.

I said nothing about life after death. Any finding that demonstrates the supernatural will fundamentally alter human existence.

Do you have a source for them... so that the methods can be examined? I seem to have missed that post.

wa:do

Interesting piece on science and the supernatural. http://www.naturalism.org/Can Scien...views- Final Author's Copy (Fishman 2007).pdf

The author basically states that he thinks the supernatural can be tested for. One of the items he states is the laws of probability, claiming that any supernatural event only needs to be proven probable as opposed to definitive. It's a long read, haven't gotten through it all yet.

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Global Consciousness Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PEAR found a slight, but statistically significant, effect on random number generators. The Global Consciousness Project is a different test using PEAR as it's foundation for further research.

 

[painted wolf]

PEAR also has significant issues with it's methodology... such as it's controls on common coin use. (coins are not always weighted precisely for example)
There are also issues with what they consider "statistically significant" 2-3 events out of 10,000 is hardly confidence building... indeed it seems unlikely to outside a reasonable margin of error.

In this case the issue isn't with the evidence... but with the rigor with which it was gathered.
(a common problem in scientific studies, you have to be extremely careful to reduce bias and ensure clean data).

I don't know enough about GCP... but the wiki lists some criticisms that are something that need to be seriously addressed. Predictions can't be declared after the event.

wa:do

*edit... it would be interesting to see a truly scientifically rigorous testing of these ideas.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Effectively the same thing, in both cases you could never hope to test all the possibilities.

This entire thread is hypothetical, so what does it matter?

I am not going to go around in circles with you on this.

It's pretty clear that you are working off an erroneous definition of the supernatural.

Says the guy who posts singular definitions to prove his point. At least I used three separate definitions. If "the supernatural" simply meant "something we don't yet know or understand" then there wouldn't be an argument, but it does not just mean that. What's more, you have repeatedly asserted that there is evidence of ghosts, which fits into the common definition of the supernatural. Stop playing semantical word games - you already know exactly what the definition of supernatural is, and you already know exactly which definition I am using. Stop changing the definition.

 

[brbubba]

Says the guy who posts singular definitions to prove his point. At least I used three separate definitions. If "the supernatural" simply meant "something we don't yet know or understand" then there wouldn't be an argument, but it does not just mean that. What's more, you have repeatedly asserted that there is evidence of ghosts, which fits into the common definition of the supernatural. Stop playing semantical word games - you already know exactly what the definition of supernatural is, and you already know exactly which definition I am using. Stop changing the definition.

I am asserting that the supernatural exists, not necessarily ghosts. This topic just degraded to ghosts.

I may have said there is evidence of something ghostly in nature, but I realize/believe that trying to prove the existence of ghosts is beyond the current capabilities of science.

From the get go you are the one saying the supernatural means ghosts, I have just been using ghosts as an example of the supernatural. I'm not changing the definition of anything, my definition of supernatural is the same since post one. Yes, one of the definitions of supernatural could mean ghostly phenomenon, but that's not what I am trying to assert here because of my statement above.

If you need any further clarification of supernatural I suggest you reference the word root origin.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I may have said there is evidence of something ghostly in nature, but I realize/believe that trying to prove the existence of ghosts is beyond the current capabilities of science.

From the get go you are the one saying the supernatural means ghosts, I have just been using ghosts as an example of the supernatural. I'm not changing the definition of anything, my definition of supernatural is the same since post one. Yes, one of the definitions of supernatural could mean ghostly phenomenon, but that's not what I am trying to assert here because of my statement above.

If you need any further clarification of supernatural I suggest you reference the word root origin.

And what would that achieve? You do realize that the root or origin of a word in no way affects the modern usage and meaning of a word, right?

 

[brbubba]

And what would that achieve? You do realize that the root or origin of a word in no way affects the modern usage and meaning of a word, right?

The current definition is similar to the root origin. If you choose to cherry pick ghosts out of the definition as the primary meaning, then there isn't much I can do to help you.