Reed Richter wrote:
> > Josh I would like to get your approval for the following response
to my query:
> >
> Thank you all for taking the time to respond to my query.  In fact I
agree
> with you all, and find your responses remarkably clear and
reasonable.  (In
> contrast see the responses I got to the same query in the
talk.origins
> forum:
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c33ee2308
> 2acbb0b?tvc=1&scrollSave=&
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/c33ee230
> 82acbb0b?tvc=1&scrollSave=&> )
>
> So I take it we all agree that in principle, scientific investigation
can
> defeat a supernatural claim.  But what about the more difficult claim
that
> scientific investigation can possibly support a supernatural claim?

[snip]

> And suppose 50 years of testing still produce results in apparent
> violation of natural law. At some point can't we at least say that
all this
> empirical evidence gathered by science AT LEAST raises somewhat the
> probability that something supernatural really exists? Sure it's
POSSIBLE
> that some alien is simply toying with us to make us think the
supernatural
> exists, but without a shred of independent evidence to support this
> hypothesis it simply becomes an irrational ad hoc defense of
naturalism.
> I don't think we have to ban discussion of the supernatural a priori.
I'm a
> hardcore atheist and naturalist precisely because such evidence,
after
> centuries of assiduously searching for it, in any systematic sense
doesn't
> exist. My advice to those of us campaigning against creationism and
other
> paranormal nonsense is: "it's the evidence, stupid."

This is an eminently reasonable position.  I always like Bertrand
Russell's example of what would scientifically convince him of the
supernatural -- a pulsar light years away that answered his questions
in real time in Morse code.

I think the reason that some people come off as somewhat dogmatic about
methodological naturalism is that in human affairs there is, and has
been for a long time, a continued stream of falsified or wildly
unsupported claims, and the gullibility of humans seems to be endless.
While in some extraordinary hypothetical situations you can imagine a
supernatural event being confirmed, in practice these claims always
turn out be flim-flam when testable.  When you get into the realm of
things not directly testable (say, fairies and IPUs), then you have the
problem of an infinite number of such hypothetical, undetectable
beasts, and an infinite number of ad hoc hypotheses to explain why they
can't be directly found, and scientists would never get anywhere if
they stopped to open-mindedly discuss them each time they popped up.

(I hasten to add that the origin of the universe is a special case --
the natural laws involved are perhaps permanently obscure if they exist
at all.  What "supernatural" vs. "natural" even means
becomes obscure.
So I have no problem with taking a leap of faith there.)
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/12/04 9:43:01 PM