glaucon1{at}mac.com (Reed) wrote in news:co5cu7$25f1$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org:

> 
> [moderator's note: I've discussed this with Reed, and despite his
> obvious interest in applying this to the creation/evolution tussle,
> I've decided to allow this post so long as followups remain on
> topic and don't explicitly deal with creationism - we're talking
> here about, I guess, the nature of disproof and evidence. Have
> at it. - JAH]
> 
> I am a philosopher writing a paper on science and the supernatural.  I
> am interested in how the scientists of this group would respond to the
> following hypothetical case, and answer the proposed questions.
> 
> Suppose your friend John shows you a film that depicts a man with a
> wand standing behind a table with, we are told, a large piece of lead
> on top of the table.  We watch as the man waves the wand over the
> lead, muttering incantations, touches the lead creating a flash of
> smoke and voilą, when the smoke clears we see a shining lump of (we
> are told) gold, approximately the same size and shape as the lead. 
> The man then informs the audience that what we just witnessed is not
> some cheap trick, but a genuine act of the supernatural - calling upon
> forces beyond what can be explained by science, from outside our
> natural reality. He claims that we just witnessed is nothing less than
> the supernatural transmutation of lead into pure gold. Moreover, the
> wizard is prepared to repeat this feat before any group of scientists
> and skeptics.
>  
> Now John is inclined to believe that the magician's claim is true. 
> When asked why, he says:  Well we know there are more things on heaven
> and earth than can be explained by science.  The media routinely
> reports on the unexplained and supernatural.  The wizard is prepared
> to defend his claim. The film appears to be genuine, and having no
> particular reason to disbelieve the magician's claim, he is inclined
> to take the film as prima facie evidence in favor of the supernatural.
>  
> Consider the claim:
>  
> (S)  The wizard in the film supernaturally transmuted the lead into
> gold.
>  
> Some questions:
>  
> 1.    Is John's acceptance of S rational based on the reasons he gave?

Depends on whether you consider naivete to be rational, and how important 
the S is to John. Is it rational to give your bank account number, PIN 
number, user name and password to a website contained in an e-mail 
purporting to be from your bank that claims they need to verify the 
information? But yet we routinely give credence to claims based on little 
evidence, if the information has little value to us - it is simply not 
worth our time (as individuals) to deeply investigate plausible claims 
that do not affect us. If the wizard told John that he had a hamburger 
for lunch on Thursday, and produced a picture showing the wizard at 
Mcdonald's, would it be rational for John to insist on having an expert 
check the photograph to verify the date before he believed the wizard?

 
> 2.   In what sense is S unscientific or "beyond the bounds" of
> science?

S would only be beyond the bounds of science if the wizard gets run over 
by a bus the next day and the tape gets eaten by a dog, so that there is 
never a chance to test the claim or examine the evidence for it. Even 
then S would remain a datum - but one that is unlikely to be of any 
scientific use.

 
> 3.   Is S scientifically testable or falsifiable?

Whether the wizard can repeatably transmute lead into gold is testable. 
The wizard, the lead and the gold are all natural, so the transmutation 
is natural. It may not be explainable, but does that make it 
"supernatural"? Obviously if one can provide an explanation (which is 
what science is about) then the transmutation is clearly not 
"supernatural". But does our inability to come up with an explanation of 
the big bang make that "supernatural"? 
 
> 4.   Does or can scientific results or investigation affect the
> rationality of belief in S?

Of course it can. If the wizard repeats his demonstration in a carefully 
controlled experiment and an outside observer shows that it is a trick 
and reveals how the trick is done, continued belief in S would be 
irrational, even though it is possible that the filmed transmutation is 
genuine and the wizard subsequently lost the ability and resorted to a 
hoax in desperation.  If the wizard repeats his demonstration numerous 
times in different settings with strict controls, belief in S would be 
eminently rational save only the question of "supernaturality".


Yours,

Bill Morse
---
ž RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2į’* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/27/04 5:58:43 AM