Thanks for upvote :-)
Why? It's simple. Because supernatural means something which is not based in evidence and science. Supernatural means something which does not fit with laws of nature. Something which appers beyond laws of nature. Scientific research and scientific theories are based upon laws of nature.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Here's the problem: You insist that I can only know things via science. I love science. It's made my life immeasurably better.
I have no objection to it!
But, you insist that the ONLY way to know something is via science. That's the part that's not true.
I know lots of things without applying science.
Even 99.9% of the things I know derived from science, I didn't actually use science to know.
I listened to someone I consider credible and decided to believe her. Possibly because she applied the scientific method and had a decent peer review but more probably because of her reputation as a credible eyewitness and how other people I respect (with better knowledge of the subject than me) reacted to her claims.
Admit it. You didn't really use the scientific method to know 99% of what you know. Your mother told you.
:P
As you said:
Perfect. So, the rest of reality is outside the reach of science. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it means that it is beyond the reach of science.
So if a space alien shows up using technology that human science has never encountered and we only get a one time look at its affects before the alien flys away, science will find itself in the exact same place it is with the Bible: lots of credible observations from eyewitnesses but nothing it can test and repeat.
Poor helpless scientists. They have to throw the evidence away because they can't make more of it.
Other less crippled people might say - hey, there's a hint of something new here! Perhaps a variation of quantum entanglement or time dilation or gravitational lensing! - Lets do some thought experiments!
Maybe in time, one of them will devise a rigorous, repeatable experiment because of those thought experiments.
But the pure "scientists" won't. They've already labeled the accounts as "supernatural" and moved on.
That's an arbitrary distinction.
How does science know what is "natural"?
By your definition WiFi is supernatural in 1776.
Just because science cannot explain something yet, it does not mean that it may not have a chance to be explained in the future.
Anyway, your question is a bit nonsensical. Natural is what fits with current scientific theories regarding laws of nature. Making supernatural claims means believing in things which have no basis in what science has discovered about laws of nature. There is a big difference about being futurist and believer of supernatural. Futurism is about creating ideas and hypothesis about future, which are based on conclusions arriving from scientific understandings regarding the reality. Supernatural is about creating ideas about reality which have no support in scientific understandigns and do not fit to scientific theories. Science deals with probablilities and evidence. Concept of god does not fit with any scientific theory and believers of god are incapable of satisfying burden of proof. Concept/belief of god is as as valid and probable as concept/belief of pink, flying unicorn eating unborn babies during Equinox. Just, becasue some concept is generated in someone's head, does not mean that it must have reflection in natural world.
Please watch the video about open-mindedness.
And check up these if you can. They aren't very long:
"Scientific Method Made Easy"
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhb0ej_the-scientific-method-made-easy_tech
"Scientific Literacy"
"Can We Trust Scientists"
"Why Don't Scientists Fear Hell?"
"Here's the problem: You insist that I can only know things via science. I love science. It's made my life immeasurably better.
I have no objection to it!
But, you insist that the ONLY way to know something is via science. That's the part that's not true.
I know lots of things without applying science.
Even 99.9% of the things I know derived from science, I didn't actually use science to know.
I listened to someone I consider credible and decided to believe her. Possibly because she applied the scientific method and had a decent peer review but more probably because of her reputation as a credible eyewitness and how other people I respect (with better knowledge of the subject than me) reacted to her claims.
Admit it. You didn't really use the scientific method to know 99% of what you know. Your mother told you.
:P"
My response is. Everything you know is an experience coming from mixture of random or deterministic events, like these things which what your mother told you. Also, just becasue your mother told you something does nto mean it is factual. To verify if what your mother told you is factual, you need some method of coherent verification, some point of reference. Such point of reference is scientific method. IT its currently the most valid method of verification, which humanity has created so far.
Ayway, regarding illusion of free will, intuition and knowledge, please watch this presentation by neuroscientist Sam Harris.
Unfortunately Harris is a moron who doesn't understand pretty much anything outside of his narrow field of expertise, and Free Will is a philosophical, not a scientific concept. Added together, what we get from Harris is a Dunning-Kruger bordering on Creutzfeldt-Jakob.
Even worse, he interprets Libet and Haynes to disprove free will when neither does, and that in a most unsophisticated "scientistist" sense of the term.
Free will does not exist. It is man made concept, which shows nothing else but arrogance of human kind to think that they are inseparable of environmental influence. Everything in Universe, including thought is directly influenced and shaped by environment and cannot exist out of this influence.
Same as concept of consciousness and awareness is nothing more but very complex, advanced cognitive function in the brain. If your brain gets badly damaged, you can lose this ability.
Also Harris, in this video did not say that free will is a scientific concept. He actually defends and proves that it is not, and proves that it is nothing more but illusion. Nothing more but false philosophical concept.
"nothing more but very complex, advanced cognitive function in the brain"
Which does not make consciousness any less real. What else would you expect, an imp sitting in the cortex?
That free will is a man made concept (which concept is not man made?) doesn't mean that it does not represent a definable and possibly existing thing (not necessarily material: a process or a function is also a "thing"). Harris' problem is different here: he is philosophically so inept that he's not even able to pose a serious question about free will, yet he thinks that he's demolished the entire notion.
As I said, a Dunning-Kruger bordering on Creutzfeldt-Jakob.
(can't reply in place because of depth, replying here)