[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?


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


3.   Is S scientifically testable or falsifiable?

4.   Does or can scientific results or investigation affect the
rationality of belief in S?
---
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 11/25/04 4:26:44 PM