5 ms·
> can the scientific method ever support a supernatural explanation? Of course it can, which is to say, it can support an explanation that would be considered
by lisper 3y ago
> can the scientific method ever support a supernatural explanation?
Of course it can, which is to say, it can support an explanation that would be considered "supernatural" by today's standards. If there were evidence of supernatural (by today's standards) phenomena, science could easily incorporate supernatural (by today's standards) explanations for those phenomena. But the word "supernatural" means what it means (today) for a reason. A lot of people have looked for evidence of phenomena beyond the Standard Model and failed to find it. This is not to say that there might not be a breakthrough tomorrow, but I'll give you very, very long odds against.
> as soon as an explanation has genuine predictive power (edit: and is parsimonious), it becomes natural.
Yes, but that's kind of like how any AI technology that actually works is no longer AI. Science can easily incorporate deities, demons, psychic phenomena, Bigfoot (heck, that's just a new species, happens all the time). In fact, all of these things started out as bona fide scientific hypotheses back in their day. The thing that makes them "supernatural" is simply that they are at odds with the current set of data. That could change any time. But the predictive power of current theories means the odds are not with you.
- n4r9 2y agoWhat does "supernatural" mean to you, I wonder? It sounds like you are using it to mean "a supernatural phenomena is one which cannot be explained by the current scientific models". In this case, by definition the scientific method cannot support supernatural explanations. Some people might take "supernatural" to mean "beyond any possible scientific law of nature, full stop". But even here we have that by definition the scientific method cannot support supernatural explanations. I would argue that the vast majority of working scientists are naturalists - they accept something as being scientific only if it can be observed, measured, tested etc... .
- lisper 2y ago> What does "supernatural" mean to you, I wonder? There's a pretty well established definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural > It sounds like you are using it to mean "a supernatural phenomena is one which cannot be explained by the current scientific models". Yes, that's close enough. > In this case, by definition the scientific method cannot support supernatural explanations. Wrong, because in the first case you included the word "current" and in the second you didn't. The reason that the supernatural is what it is today is because no observations require it as an explanation. But that could change at any time. > I would argue that the vast majority of working scientists are naturalists - they accept something as being scientific only if it can be observed, measured, tested etc... . The scientific method is to come up with the best explanation that accounts for all observations [1]. Things that are not observed need not be accounted for. [1] https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introduction-to.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introducti...