"Reed Richter"  wrote
> 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?
>
The old word for science is "natural philosophy". Natural
philosophy doesn't
deal with the non-natural world.
For instance if someone says "tigers are rare" then ecologists
can count the
population using various techniques. But if someone says "tigers ought to be
preserved" then that is a metaphysical claim. If an Indian peasant retorts
that "tigers are dangerous animals that eat people and should be wiped out"
then the science of ecology has nothing to say. In practise you would be
hard pressed to find an ecologist who agrees with the peasant, but he is not
speaking as an ecologist when he demands action to save the tiger, but as a
political activist.

Now it is obvious that we can discuss in a meaningful manner whether tigers
ought to be preserved or not, and in fact decisions about how much money to
allocate to conservation are made on a regular basis. So it cannot be true
that there is nothing outside the remit of the natural sciences.

However the "supernatural" is a rather different concept to the
"metaphysical". If we understood the laws by which a supernatural force
operates, then it would no longer be supernatural.

What we totally fail to understand is how human will affects the material
world. In current theory there should be no such thing as consciousness or
free will. My desire to respond to your post may be causing this post to
appear, but there is no free will if the desire is itself caused by
something else. We can do as we please, but we cannot please as we please.
However this analysis fails to explain why I have such a strong subjective
impression of being in control of my actions.

Human experimental subjects are easily available, and many experiments have
been done investigating the way people respond to arguments, and similar
things. We are still no nearer to solving the fundamental problem.

Now the "supernatural" often means "something produced by a non-human
intelligence". However the subjects are not easily available for
investigation. We can hear reports of a ghost, but we cannot expect one to
show up on demand so that we can photograph it and measure its temperature
and so on. If we cannot prove whether the normal laws of physics are
violated by the human brain, when humans are so easily available, what
chance have we of showing whether a ghost breaks the normal laws of physics
or not?

However we can quite easily show that the alleged "ghost" is caused by the
moon reflecting in a window, or some other explanation. This brings it
firmly within the remit of the normal laws of optics. We can also show that
phenomena are there which don't fit easily within our current physical
model, like the question about whether tiger "ought to be preserved", or
human free will. Whether ghosts are a similar phenomenon, or just fanciful
stories that shouldn't be taken seriously, is another issue.
---
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