"Reed"  wrote in message
news:co5cu7$25f1$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> 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.

I am not a scientist, but I am a scientifically literate engineer.  I
hope that my responses are useful.  Incidentally, you may be interested
in looking at a paper that appeared in Science back in 1956 or so by
George R. Price entitled "Science and the Supernatural".  It deals with
some of the same issues that you are interested in.

> 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.

Scientists are not particularly interested in this claim.  Their interest
is more likely to focus on a slightly different claim:

(S')  The wizard can repeat the feat at will.

> Some questions:
>
> 1.    Is John's acceptance of S rational based on the reasons he gave?

"Rational" is a technical term in Philosophy, and one which I don't really
understand - it seems to have something to do with whether the reasons
provided are good enough in some sense.  I would call John ignorant, rather
than irrational.  He seems to be unaware of the fact that the media's
credibility is suspect, that such reports are routinely challenged and
frequently debunked, and that the trappings of the wizards performance -
the wand and the puff of smoke - seem to be more plausibly explained as
theatrical props for deception rather than as part of the necessary protocol
for communicating with supernatural forces.

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

S is unreproducible.  However, I don't think that S' is beyond the bounds of
science.  Merely beyond the bounds of the current orthodoxy.

> 3.   Is S scientifically testable or falsifiable?

S' is certainly subject to scientific investigation, though perhaps not to
the standard reductionist research protocols.  And if S' were to become
widely accepted, there would be little reason for disputing S.

> 4.   Does or can scientific results or investigation affect the
> rationality of belief in S?

Certainly scientific investigation of S' is possible, and the results are
likely to bear on the rationality of belief in S.  But this calls into
question the claim that the transmutation was "supernatural".  I am not
sure what the word denotes.

Consider an alternative scenario.  The wizard claims to be in telepathic
communication with intelligent beings on the surface of Saturn.  No claims
of the "supernatural", but his claims do conflict with current scientific
orthodoxy in various ways - telepathy is believed impossible and Saturn is
believed to not have a surface.  Scientific investigation of these claims
is certainly possible, and a conceivable result of the investigation is that
the scientific orthodoxy might have to be revised.

Science fiction writer Arthur Clarke is usually credited with the slogan:
"A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishible from magic".  I
don't think that a wise scientist should be totally incredulous of magic in
this sense.

A distinction should be drawn between "science" the methodology
and "science"
the accumulated body of knowlege and theory.  I am not sure that any phenomenon
can be beyond the bounds of the methodology.  But the body of knowlege should
be considered tentative and subject to revision.  Therefore, I tend to read
"supernatural" as "not yet subject to explanation by the
scientific body of
knowlege".  I am doubtful that any real, reproducible phenomenon could be
"supernatural" in the sense that it is beyond the scientific methodology.
Certainly your hypothetical scenario is not beyond the methodology.
---
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