Can science deal with the supernatural?

[AgnosticBoy]

Do scientists deal with the supernatural?

ChatGPT response:
"Scientists typically dismiss the supernatural because it lacks empirical evidence and cannot be reliably tested or observed using the scientific method. Science relies on natural explanations and evidence-based reasoning to understand the world, and the supernatural often involves claims that cannot be subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny. While scientists are open to exploring unexplained phenomena, they require empirical evidence and repeatable experiments to consider them as part of the scientific discourse."

That explains how scientists have treated the supernatural, but what I question is if that is a necessary approach? Can scientists deal with supernatural?

Would studying or accepting supernatural events be bad for science?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Can scientists deal with supernatural events?

I say, yes.

One way depends on what the supernatural event involves. We should not assume that all supernatural events are the same. For instance, some supernatural events may be observable, testable, and explainable. It's a big assumption to conclude that all of them aren't explainable, and that is also built on another assumption that supernatural events aren't based on any laws of their own.

Another way involves accepting such phenomenon without understanding them. In some cases, scientists have accepted that certain phenomenon exist while not being able to explain it, like consciousness, and recently, UFOs. Can we blame them for acknowledging their existence when there exists so much evidence for both and there's big interest in having them explained or at least investigated? In the same way, why can't scientists accept the existence of certain supernatural events, while not understanding them? And who knows, maybe things like the resurrection may turn out to be understandable, or the distinction between supernatural and natural might prove to be baseless.


Here's some interesting perspective that I think provides a blueprint to studying the supernatural:

Regarding how scientific research into UFOs is developing...

Judging the nature of these objects (and these seem to be “objects,” as confirmed by the Navy) needs a coherent explanation that should accommodate and connect all the facts of the events. And this is where interdisciplinary scientific investigation is needed.

First, collection of hard data is paramount to establishing any credibility to the explanation of the phenomena. A rigorous scientific analysis is sorely needed, by multiple independent study groups, just as we do for evaluating other scientific discoveries. We, as scientists, cannot hastily dismiss any phenomenon without in-depth examination and then conclude the event itself is unscientific.

Such an approach would certainly not pass the “smell test” in our day-to-day science duties, so these kinds of arguments similarly should not suffice to explain UAP. We must insist on strict agnosticism. We suggest an approach that is purely rational: UAP represent observations that are puzzling and waiting to be explained. Just like any other science discovery.

The transient nature of UAP events, and hence the unpredictability about when and where the next event will happen, is likely one of the main reasons why UAP have not been taken seriously in science circles. But, how can one identify a pattern without systematically collecting the data in the first place? In astronomy, the observations (location and timing) of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), supernovae and gravitational waves are similarly unpredictable. However, we now recognize them as natural phenomena arising from stellar evolution.

How did we develop detailed and complex mathematical models that could explain these natural phenomena? By a concerted effort from scientists around the world, who meticulously collected data from each occurrence of the event and systematically observed them. We still cannot predict when and where such astronomical events will occur in the sky.

Source: Scientific American

 

[William]

Can scientists deal with supernatural events?

I think the first question to ask is "what defines a supernatural event?"

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I think the first question to ask is "what defines a supernatural event?"

Well, I should say that I don't even care much for the word supernatural, but what's important is the phenomena associated with it. Calling it supernatural or natural is fine by me, just as long as we know examples of things that scientists tend to dismiss a priori, like telepathy, ghosts, a resurrection, reincarnation, etc. Even if someone disagrees or doesn't accept the term 'supernatural' they still need to give an answer to those examples, like whether they are real or not.

 

[William]

I think the first question to ask is "what defines a supernatural event?"

Well, I should say that I don't even care much for the word supernatural, but what's important is the phenomena associated with it. Calling it supernatural or natural is fine by me, just as long as we know examples of things that scientists tend to dismiss a priori, like telepathy, ghosts, a resurrection, reincarnation, etc. Even if someone disagrees or doesn't accept the term 'supernatural' they still need to give an answer to those examples, like whether they are real or not.

This is where we disagree. Calling something "supernatural" implies it is not natural and the presumption of immateriality has not be shown to be necessary and has been shown to cause a stumbling-block wherein scientists (physics) find it unnecessary to examine immaterial concepts because of the impossibility imposed on them in being able to do so.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is where we disagree. Calling something "supernatural" implies it is not natural and the presumption of immateriality has not be shown to be necessary and has been shown to cause a stumbling-block wherein scientists (physics) find it unnecessary to examine immaterial concepts because of the impossibility imposed on them in being able to do so.

I don't intend to debate on the supernatural because we'll never get to the real issue.

Here's one way I can rephrase the topic.

Is science equipped to deal with resurrections, reincarnation, telepathy, ghosts, etc? I ask this because in some cases I believe it can deal with such phenomenon, and one reason it doesn't is because of assumptions that it has about it, including that all such events are immaterial or that they can't be rationally understood

 

[William]

Is science equipped to deal with resurrections, reincarnation, telepathy, ghosts, etc? I ask this because in some cases I believe it can deal with such phenomenon, and one reason it doesn't is because of assumptions that it has about it, including that all such events are immaterial or that they can't be rationally understood

The problem with your question which requires fixing is that you are conflating "science" with "scientist's."
Science is a process and as such it does not make assumptions.

If the phenomena mentioned is able to be scientifically examined then there is no reason why scientists shouldn't do so.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Is science equipped to deal with resurrections, reincarnation, telepathy, ghosts, etc? I ask this because in some cases I believe it can deal with such phenomenon, and one reason it doesn't is because of assumptions that it has about it, including that all such events are immaterial or that they can't be rationally understood

The problem with your question which requires fixing is that you are conflating "science" with "scientist's."

Science is a process and as such it does not make assumptions.

If the phenomena mentioned is able to be scientifically examined then there is no reason why scientists shouldn't do so.

On one level, science is about its method and practice. Is anything there built on assumptions, or is there anything showing that it's not equipped to handle the supernatural or extraordinary phenomena from that standpoint?

On another level, we have the actual practice of science, which is where scientists come into play. Then on some level around that, we have the scientific narrative, which we can say is the picture of the world that scientists have based on the application of the scientific method. It's safe to say that many scientists view the world as a form and function of matter (i.e. materialism - a narrow version of it).

I would say that science and/or scientists are equipped to deal with certain types of supernatural events on all those levels of science. Ironically, the last level, the scientific narrative, is where we'd probably get the biggest resistance to allowing any extraordinary phenomenon to come into play, and perhaps that's because scientists may be unwilling to throw out a lot of their theories.

 

[William]

I think it requires from us acknowledgment that material science is not the only form of science and that there are sciences which deal with consciousness/mindfulness where physical science cannot go (unless there was a consistent barrage of such phenomena as you have mentioned) and as such, those scientists involved primarily with physical science are not required by that discipline to engage with any supposed/claimed immaterial event.

In that, it also can be acknowledged that we do not have to take the opinions of materialists re any of those subjects which do not directly fall within the study-range of material science as sound or well thought out answers...meaning such expressions as "we do not exist within a created thing" (and related claims) as anything to go by or believe or otherwise take seriously.