"Supernatural" and Naturalism

[firedragon]

Certainly my ignorance or slowness should not be discounted. And to me it is relevant if I make an erroneous assertion. That is why I ask questions and seek clarification. And I certainly do not want to have my way if I am in the wrong or do not understand completely. That is what I love about RF, to have a platform on which one can present the thoughts and ideas that are rolling around in ones head and subject them to reasoned criticism.

If I assume that the term hypothesis can apply simply to the question or posed problem, and it is incorrect, then I certainly want to be corrected. I, however, can't simply be told that I am wrong. I want to understand why I am wrong and have it explained to me. I suppose that can be quite tedious to others if the correct answer is blatantly obvious.

Brother. The problem is that we just try to take a dictionary meaning for everything and work backwards to change the whole definition. Thats not how its done.

Anyway, as I already said, a hypothesis is something you come up with "after a qualitative study". It is this hypothesis that we generalise to a sample or population later with a quantitative study.

I think I said the same thing earlier so I really dont know what else to say. Not gonna dwell on this.

 

[firedragon]

Is it a fallacious argument to claim that something is true because it is held to be true by a consensus of opinion? Yes or no?

See, you are changing your questions and sentences all the time arbitrarily.

What you are trying to say is that no claim is valid simply because there is a consensus on it. Thats correct.

But to make claims like "the word naturalism is no more considered useful in academia or philosophy" like you did, you need to provide evidence. To not consider a word like that "useless" around the world, it has to be a consensus. If one person in a one country or a forum like this thinks suddenly "its not useful", that is not a valid enough reason to make a faith claim like "it is not considered useful".

Just to repeat I will cut and paste your own statement once more. It was you who spoke of consensus just FYI.

"We are talking about the academic use of word labels and their corresponding definition used by consensus of the members of an academic discipline. And it seems from the small amount of research that I provided, naturalism is no longer considered a useful term in Philosophy."

Please try to address this exact point. Or just leave this post be. Its fine. Again, just to reiterate, your claim was that naturalism is no longer considered a useful term in philosophy, but I am telling you that it is used even this minute.

Rather than going on an infinite regression, why not simply provide evidence to your claim like I asked in this post below linked to??

#263

 

[firedragon]

Are you stating that fallacious arguments can be valid arguments?

I think I am ending this discussion for sure with this.

You just asked if "are you telling me a man is married and is a bachelor".

Cannot engage with this kind of rhetoric for sure.

Cheers.

 

[MikeF]

See, you are changing your questions and sentences all the time arbitrarily.

What you are trying to say is that no claim is valid simply because there is a consensus on it. Thats correct.

But to make claims like "the word naturalism is no more considered useful in academia or philosophy" like you did, you need to provide evidence. To not consider a word like that "useless" around the world, it has to be a consensus. If one person in a one country or a forum like this thinks suddenly "its not useful", that is not a valid enough reason to make a faith claim like "it is not considered useful".

Just to repeat I will cut and paste your own statement once more. It was you who spoke of consensus just FYI.

"We are talking about the academic use of word labels and their corresponding definition used by consensus of the members of an academic discipline. And it seems from the small amount of research that I provided, naturalism is no longer considered a useful term in Philosophy."

Please try to address this exact point. Or just leave this post be. Its fine. Again, just to reiterate, your claim was that naturalism is no longer considered a useful term in philosophy, but I am telling you that it is used even this minute.

Rather than going on an infinite regression, why not simply provide evidence to your claim like I asked in this post below linked to??

#263

I get it. You've lost patience. I was essentially trying to start over and build a common point of reference. To get back to comparing apples to apples, so to speak.

I find it interesting that you've included the highlighted quote from me when my last few posts were to retract that statement and get agreement that we should not use consensus as a criteria for evaluating the value of a label/definition.

My rephrasing and reformulating questions have not been arbitrary, but rather designed to have you make definitive agreement on the point being made. I apologize for the tediousness.

Based on the answers so far, we seem to be in agreement that definitions and their corresponding label can enter a discipline's lexicon when a member creates and shares it.
We agree that any definition and corresponding label can be re-evaluated and and found lacking, and if so, either revised or abandoned.
We agree that an argument in support for, or against, a definition and corresponding label cannot contain a commonly understood fallacious argument.
We lastly agree that just because a definition and corresponding label have been used historically and is currently in use within a discipline, it in no way speaks to whether it is accurate, or whether or not it has become ambiguous.

On that common ground, I retract my earlier statement. On Naturalism, what I should have said is, based on the little research that I did and presented from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Wikipedia, that both sites indicate that there may be problems with this word and how it is defined. That although Naturalism is a word that is widely used, there is some expressed concern as to its value.

Now, we look to Meow Mix 's posts and see that she lists the problem areas, and why they are problems. She has even provided alternate, improved definitions that better convey the intended meaning of Naturalism.

It seems from an Academic/Professional/Technical standpoint, we can see that, despite the continued use of the word Naturalism, there are strong arguments to be made to discontinue using the word Naturalism and replace it with a better alternative.

 

[firedragon]

that both sites indicate that there may be problems with this word and how it is defined. That although Naturalism is a word that is widely used, there is some expressed concern as to its value.

Who "expressed concern as to its value"? Just for curiosities sake.

It seems from an Academic/Professional/Technical standpoint, we can see that, despite the continued use of the word Naturalism, there are strong arguments to be made to discontinue using the word Naturalism and replace it with a better alternative.

Even if you change the word into a brand new made up word its not gonna change anything. Anyway, can you suggest a word to see how it will come through?

 

[rational experiences]

O earth naturally evolved in space.

Human say I don't own natural history of God. Always knew.

Advised by their own words.

Theist greedy false status groups in ownership want trade more greed by invention control by resource knows he is our destroyer.

Always knew he is a human family equal but does not believe in applying elder status family care. Human wisdom.

Theories extra radiation. Reason a human has to eat food and drink water to stay alive. Always knew heavens by causes aged us and caused early age death if you were attacked at the ground by its fallout.

As it damaged bio genetics.

Knew science had caused it by never owning the light constant. It supported life. Burning sacrifice in void.

O God the earth was actively by science forced to release it. Gases burnt fell out. It comes back a second cause and attacks us.

Reason space only owned natural voiding of light not UFO extra radiation caused by science origin change to God earth to practice transmitting machine sciences.

Thesis I attacked God the earth to form the transmitters I never wanted. As his origin theory what naturally already existed got removed. First theory itself.

Practicing science false transmitters eventually destroyed all life on earth. Science knew he did it. Burnt out earth owned sealed cold fusion.

The confession I changed even balances. I burnt even sky evening which was not burning it stopped on day seven. He confessed told everyone he caused it. Yet he never stopped allowing earth conversion in science.

Human reason we count the day ourselves.

Reason natural light constant held voiding heat in vacuum.. vacuum voiding owned by sun for universal cohabitation.

Knew.

Said sun owned control of balances in cosmic space union.

Said a human in instant self presence a human thinking is one body higher in form than a monkey.

As a correct human theist.

In natural self presence. And natural life earth living conditions as a human.

Natural to accept who you are where you are. A human only.

Lots of theists born human babies by human parents pretend they are not a human.

Science the chosen human practice first never did support natural. Want natural or allow natural. They wanted change only.

Said a theory a long story thinking first as theism. Write a formula that says the equals answer = after using fake addition + the cross then minus - was =.

Symbolism is science first. Theism only.

+ - is = changed to leave - minus.

So he imposed + = as the two in addition the cross is equals only. Why he died by his science cross. yet left - one as the answer which was never equals.

The nuclear occult minus one irradiation effect.
And lied. The origin of science lying.

So today says the same the cross is his sciences equals answer. Why he believes in the sacrifice of life allowing occult nuclear science practice.

As theism is human owned expressed.

So we taught evil preaching is our destroyer. Science is the evil preaching.

Why science is evil as he was advised naturally he was wrong and evil as a theist. To think and claim a human spoke on behalf of god.

To lie to be allowed to practice he cons coerced bullies by group status. As against natural group family groups in cult status science historic bullied their ownership against us.

The group bullies then became rich elite as it is a fact of human his story itself the human brother scientist separated self from family and life continuance by his wants.

So we said the brotherhood destroyed life on earth as humans in science. Group men agreement. Why science as a story displaces natural human female life equality.

By a man's reasoning.

Their origin con the cosmic thesis of earths reasoning of its presence. Was always fake as a human in science wrote their confession why it happened.

The natural brother argued said O earth a stone planet was never instant it was evolution cooling in space. Space hence owned mass no argument. Two different bodies equalled presence of mass.

Hence stating cold in theory also was never instant cold as evolution is cooling evolved.

Science today argued in theism human cold instant via snap freeze ice. Lied.

Said cold was the saviour. Instant.

Jesus proof removed earths natural light constant. Went dark. Burning dark. Science caused.

1000 years later day light did not get removed life however was sacrificed again. Jesus returned.

Proving natural changed had caused the sacrifice and it was not science owned. Nor controlled by science a man with machine.

Science however changed natural.

Reason God O earth already owned all reasons why humans are good had to drink water to survive...aged and died.

Science knew natural owned all human reasons from surviving to dying.

As it is theism by humans living upon planet earth as one God. Observing telling truth or lies. By group control.

Human is therefore first in any science status as a natural human. And theism defines if a scientist in theory is having you removed by theory or allowing you to be present healthy and surviving. Natural human equal status always

So I was spiritually consciously taught. Listen to humans using words as secretly they confess if they support natural human life or are removing life in their theory.

When they pretend a human first does not exist as a human.

 

[MikeF]

Who "expressed concern as to its value"? Just for curiosities sake.

Here are some sources that highlight concern with the term ‘Naturalism’. Chiefly, that the use of ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ introduces ambiguity:

“Naturalism is not so much a special system as a point of view or tendency common to a number of philosophical and religious systems; not so much a well-defined set of positive and negative doctrines as an attitude or spirit pervading and influencing many doctrines.
…
But, as the terms nature and natural are themselves used in more than one sense, the term naturalism is also far from having one fixed meaning.”
Dubray, Charles Albert (1911). "Naturalism" . In Herbermann, Charles (ed.). Catholic Encyclopedia. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company.​

Wikipedia:
“On an ontological level, philosophers often treat naturalism as equivalent to materialism. For example, philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. “
The term “naturalism” has no very precise meaning in contemporary philosophy. Its current usage derives from debates in America in the first half of the last century. The self-proclaimed “naturalists” from that period included John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, Sidney Hook and Roy Wood Sellars. These philosophers aimed to ally philosophy more closely with science. They urged that reality is exhausted by nature, containing nothing “supernatural”, and that the scientific method should be used to investigate all areas of reality, including the “human spirit” (Krikorian 1944, Kim 2003).​

"So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”."
Papineau, David, "Naturalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Summer 2021 Edition)>.​

Even if you change the word into a brand new made up word its not gonna change anything. Anyway, can you suggest a word to see how it will come through?

As to a candidate for a replacement to ‘Naturalism’, my search produced ‘Materialism’ and ‘Physicalism’. Below are two sample definitions of Materialism:

Materialism:
As the word itself signifies, Materialism is a philosophical system which regards matter as the only reality in the world, which undertakes to explain every event in the universe as resulting from the conditions and activity of matter, and which thus denies the existence of God and the soul. It is diametrically opposed to Spiritualism and Idealism, which, in so far as they are one-sided and exclusive, declare that everything in the world is spiritual, and that the world and even matter itself are mere conceptions or ideas in the thinking subject.
New Advent, Catholic Encyclopedia CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Materialism​

MATERIALISM is a tradition of thought in which all things that exist are made up of matter in some way. To update this theory it might be restated that all existence is made up of energy in some form. Matter is a form of energy. All things that exist are made of energy, atoms, molecules, forces and other entities that consist of energy. There are no non-physical or non-material existents.
Materialism​

In my reading, for many, Materialism and Physicalism are synonymous. However, in the traditional sense, the use of the term matter can imply mere ordinary matter, an “inert, senseless substance, in which extension, figure, and motion do actually subsist.” This does not capture our greater understanding to include “spacetime, physical energies and forces, and dark matter.” For that reason, Physicalism appears the more concise definition:

Physicalism:
The metaphysical thesis that everything is physical, that there is nothing over and above the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical.
The term ‘physical’ is further defined in two possible ways: [1]The theory-based conception of physicalism proposes that "a property is physical if and only if it either is the sort of property that physical theory tells us about or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property that physical theory tells us about". [2] The object-based conception claims that "a property is physical if and only if: it either is the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents or else is a property which metaphysically (or logically) supervenes on the sort of property required by a complete account of the intrinsic nature of paradigmatic physical objects and their constituents".
Physicalism - Wikipedia​

So my final recommendation is to use the word Physicalism to replace Naturalism. And as a note, I think the word Physicalism was first introduced in the 1930's.

I hope you find this informative.

 

[firedragon]

"So understood, “naturalism” is not a particularly informative term as applied to contemporary philosophers. The great majority of contemporary philosophers would happily accept naturalism as just characterized—that is, they would both reject “supernatural” entities, and allow that science is a possible route (if not necessarily the only one) to important truths about the “human spirit”."

You think this means "expressed concern as to its value"? Not really. Read deeper. This is exactly trying to define what people mean by it. Discussing various ways of expressing synopsises does not mean a philosophical concept is becoming useless. You missed the bus completely.

So my final recommendation is to use the word Physicalism to replace Naturalism.

Hmm. So you think that if someone replaces the word naturalism with physicalism the problem is solved? Alright. Have your way. Physicalism it is.

Still, the philosophy remains in tact. You change it into tablism, it still remains.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Leprechauns are by definition non natural

What definition would that be?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What's with the passive aggression?

It's what he does when cornered.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A supernatural event is just an event that can´t happen according to natural laws.

Aka, an "impossible event".

Since "impossible" in that context literally means "that which the laws of physics do not allow".

And determine the best explanation using common criteria like explanatory power , explanatory scope, parsimony, plausibility, consistency with previous knowledge etc.

So, basically, play a game of elimination and go with the bare assertion you can't eliminate.
Aka, an argument from ignorance.

 

[leroy]

So, basically, play a game of elimination and go with the bare assertion you can't eliminate.
Aka, an argument from ignorance.

what other alternative do you suggest?

how would you tell if something is supernatural?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

what other alternative do you suggest?

For starters: not make stuff up.

how would you tell if something is supernatural?

You'ld have to define it before it we could even begin to formulate how one would recognize if it occured.

 

[leroy]

For starters: not make stuff up.



You'ld have to define it before it we could even begin to formulate how one would recognize if it occured.

I provided a definition.

“any event that contradicts natural laws”

Feel free to share a better definition.

 

[Meow Mix]

I provided a definition.

“any event that contradicts natural laws”

Feel free to share a better definition.

What makes a law "natural?"

For instance, consider ghosts, or @firedragon's favorite (just teasing you here firedragon), leprechauns. They reportedly are capable of doing some things and not capable of doing other things. This is what we'd colloquially call "following laws."

Do they follow "natural" laws? If not, what qualitatively defines the difference between a "natural" law and a "supernatural" one?

 

[MikeF]

Hmm. So you think that if someone replaces the word naturalism with physicalism the problem is solved? Alright. Have your way. Physicalism it is.

Still, the philosophy remains in tact. You change it into tablism, it still remains.

Does the philosophy remain intact? Our understanding of the cosmos has increased dramatically, certainly since the pre-Socratic Naturalist in Western Philosophy, but also since its re-emergence during the Enlightenment. We have gone well beyond seeing nature as the macroscopic surface of the earth, with both an inaccessible hell beneath our feet and heaven just beyond the clouds.

With Physicalism, we not only have a definition that acknowledges our broader understanding of what is physical (spatiotemporal extension and mass-energy), but also an acknowledgement that there are those properties of reality that supervene from the physical, for example, mental states.

I see the purpose of the OP as being a call for us to take a time-out and really think about the words we use, used essentially, in a reflexive manner. In considering the words we use, has a particular definition remained clear and unambiguous over time? What automatic assumptions get added into a conversation with a particular word that may no longer be relevant?

Going back to the OP, is the term ‘supernatural’ a useful term in a modern philosophical discussion? Clearly, in common usage, ‘supernatural’ has its place as a literary term, along with words like fantasy, magic, miracle, or spectral. But is the term still relevant to modern philosophy? What would be the justification? When thinking about reality, we are well beyond the antiquated notion of thinking in terms of nature, seeing reality as all that lies between the soil and the clouds.

We have set Naturalism aside for the more modern and updated definition found in Physicalism. Is there a way to update the term ‘supernatural’ in a corresponding way? If so, what would that more modern definition be? Or if such a term already exists, what is it?

Obviously, for the Physicalist, the term ‘supernatural’ would be retired without replacement. For them, outside of the physical and that which supervenes from the physical, is non-existence.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic human advice.

I am an occultist a human chosen self given status. Self described as a human.

I conjured the supernatural.

I believe in magic.

What law gets broken by scientists?

A seal stone forms sealed by highest opposing body pressure cold empty space.

Highest law that opposed consuming.

Space womb.

Consuming not a law was an activation.

Laws in natural status first.

Observed before first sin of man scientific conversion broke two laws.

Cold fusion and cold space.

Natural laws.

Caused artificial.

His con. But natural changed into it.

Sophist using words as a cunning contrivance maths science.

 

[firedragon]

Obviously, for the Physicalist, the term ‘supernatural’ would be retired without replacement. For them, outside of the physical and that which supervenes from the physical, is non-existence.

Great. So you wanted it to replace naturalism. So replacing a word is your strategy and I said fine. So there is no need to go there again.

Does the philosophy remain intact?

Absolutely. Rather than going for examples from science, can you precisely tell me how the usage changes? Not examples, but the actual usage.

 

[Meow Mix]

I see the purpose of the OP as being a call for us to take a time-out and really think about the words we use, used essentially, in a reflexive manner. In considering the words we use, has a particular definition remained clear and unambiguous over time? What automatic assumptions get added into a conversation with a particular word that may no longer be relevant?

This is exactly the point of the OP, thank you. Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I provided a definition.

“any event that contradicts natural laws”

Feel free to share a better definition.

Why would I have to provide definition for things that YOU are positing to exist?

In any case, see @Meow Mix 's post #295

I don't have anything else to add.