Nov 08 2010
Ghost Hunting Science vs Pseudoscience
I was recently pointed to a conversation taking place in the Northern Iowan – a student newspaper of the University of Northern Iowa. The debate is about whether ghost-hunting is science or pseudoscience. The first salvo was apparently fired by Michael Dippold, who took the skeptical position. There is also a response by Peter Allen, defending the science of paranormal investigation. I hope these two students won’t mind me jumping in and taking them to school a bit.
Michael does a decent job of spelling out the skeptical position, but I think he misses (or at least insufficiently emphasizes) a critical point, and not surprisingly Peter completely misses this vital point. If I had to point to one aspect of so-called ghost hunting that marks it as pseudoscience it is this – they don’t carry out any actual hypothesis testing. Michael comes closest to this point with this statement:
Here is the problem with what they are doing: it’s not science. There’s not a single shred of evidence to suggest that ghosts exist, or that they can be identified by cold spots. Why are ghosts cold? Why do they never seem to show up in visible light, but infrared cameras always find them? Why can you never hear them speaking, but finding them in garbled audio (what they call electronic voice phenomenon or EVP) is absurdly common? The answer is that it’s easier to find whatever you’re looking for in distorted or unclear video and sound. This is a profession that thrives on false positives.
What Michael is describing here is the fact that ghost hunting, as practiced, is nothing more than anomaly hunting – searching for things that seem unusual or out-of-place and then declaring such anomalies evidence of the paranormal. But there is no reason, a-priori, to assume that a cold spot is evidence of anything paranormal or ghosts in particular. Michael does tend to mix two points here, which are worth clarifying (as Peter perpetuates the confusion in his response).
Ghost hunters can be criticized for at least two distinct methodological flaws. The first is that they are primarily engaged in anomaly hunting, not hypothesis testing. The second is that they are engaged is sloppy anomaly hunting. Michael mainly refers to the second criticism. The problem of not putting this clearly into context is it allows defenders of the paranormal essentially to argue that they are engaging in precise and rigorous anomaly hunting and therefore what they are doing is science. Peter does this, writing:
Furthermore, as a student who has done extensive reading on the differences between science and pseudoscience, I can say with absolute certainty that there is nothing that precludes the use of the scientific method in studying the paranormal. By definition, pseudoscience is said to be “easy to recognize because it violates the basic criteria of science … systematic empiricism, public verification, and solvability.” Is there a systematic way to observe supposed paranormal locations? Yes. Over time have there been theories developed in regards to the paranormal that can be tested, replicated and verified by others? Yes.
Peter confuses “systematic empiricism” with “systematic observation” – and that is the nub of the problem with ghost hunting as science. Making measurements, using fancy equipment, following a systematic protocol of observation – these are all nice, and may be necessary for certain kinds of scientific investigation, but they are not sufficient to qualify an activity as science. Even the best-case scenario of ghost hunters, those who follow rigorous methodology, are still just doing fancy anomaly hunting, not science.
Peter does not reference or mention one ghost-hunting study in which actual empiricism and hypothesis testing was employed. To my knowledge, such studies do not exist. He heads in that direction with his last sentence regarding proposing and testing theories, but then he sort of takes it back in the next paragraph:
Is it possible to prove the conclusions made regarding paranormal energies? No, but in fact one can never say anything is “proven” in science. What can be said, however, is that there is a growing accumulation of data to support them.
This is a confusing paragraph. No one is asking for metaphysical proof, just scientific evidence. Peter then demonstrates the “observation vs hypothesis testing” confusion, equating gathering data with science. What he essentially outlines, unwittingly, is the pseudoscientific process of ghost hunting (remember, pseudoscience superficially resembles science, but lacks key components). Ghost hunters put forward “theories” (really hypotheses) and make observations. That’s it. But they never close the circle – using observations or experiments in order to test those hypotheses, in a way that can potentially falsify them.
For example, they find a cold spot in an allegedly haunted house, and they prematurely declare the cold spot an anomaly. This is sloppy anomaly hunting. They generally don’t use their equipment properly, do not adequately gather baseline data, and they use no control for comparison. But even if they do precise anomaly hunting, and document an actual cold spot, all they do with that observation is spin what would be called a hand-waving ad hoc “just-so” story about what is causing the cold spot. (In other words, they just make shit up.) Weaving a paranormal “explanation” for the cold spot does not make it a scientific theory. Even calling it a theory indicates a lack of understanding of this point. At best such explanations are hypotheses. Now the hardest part of science comes into play – figure out a practical way to test that hypothesis. That is the most critical, and often the most difficult, step in the process – and it appears to be completely missing from the ghost hunters’ repertoire.
Peter goes on to write:
Electronic Voice Phenomena can be very clear; characterizing it as a “low” threshold is entirely dependent on the standards that are placed upon it. If a so-called ghost hunter labels an inaudible murmur as evidence of a paranormal energy, then most people would agree that is a very low standard, but when credible researchers record very clear audio of words being spoken when it is known for a fact that no human could have possibly produced it, that is fairly solid evidence.
Again he is making the argument that really good anomaly hunting is science. He also uses the “credible” fallacy – credible researchers still make mistakes, calling them credible does not answer the criticism. Also, he assumes that “very clear audio” must mean “paranormal energy” or some such. But why? I think he is underestimating the effect of audio paradolia – the brain’s ability to match a speech pattern to random noise. But that aside, he is begging the question when he writes “known for a fact that no human could have possibly produced it.” How is that known, exactly? Have all other sources of the audio truly been ruled out? More importantly – how can we design an experiment to test whether or not a human produced the audio? How many other alternate hypotheses can we generate, and how can we test them?
Michael sounds like a good young skeptic, and I hope he continues to work on his craft. Fortunately for him and other young skeptics, there is now a vast online skeptical literature to help hone one’s critical thinking skills. Peter sounds like he is genuinely interested in the science of the paranormal, but remains confused on some critical points. Hopefully he will also see this as a learning opportunity as well.
45 Responses to “Ghost Hunting Science vs Pseudoscience”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nicely done, Dr Novella. I do so like the way you go straight to the nub of the pseudoscientist’s error with, dare I say, almost surgical precision.
For me this is a timely post as I am very much looking forward to hearing Hayley Stevens’ talk about ghost hunting tomorrow at Oxford Skeptics in the Pub. http://oxford.skepticsinthepub.org/
I’m into lockpicking as a hobby and for one reason or another, a few sites that sell lockpicking supplies; also sell “ghost hunting” equipment. If you have any theories on why lockpicking and ghost hunting would be correlated at all, please share. One of the more amusing things I’ve seen in a while was on one such ghost hunter site. the site, ghostmart.com, had a book section. Among their selection of ghost hunting books that are available to purchase through their site…is Flim Flam by none other than James Randi. The site is apparently unaware of who James Randi is and what he does best.
Huh, I don’t recall any fun skeptical debates the year I spent in Cedar Falls at UNI, but I think it’s great that they are having the debate in the school paper where others can participate.
The question, as always, becomes what evidence would convince you of paranormal activity. I’m not sure. Even if I witnessed a strange phenomenon and tried to rule out other possibilities I couldn’t help but wonder if there was an alternate explanation I missed before accepting the paranormal claim. I would be interested in Steve’s or others thoughts on that.
Dr. Steve: I’m thrilled that this topic is getting such scrutiny lately. I’ve spent the past year researching the “scientificity” of amateur research and investigation groups and am finalizing a thesis project this month. My focus was on how these groups use “science” in words, images and suggestion in their activities – how they portray science to the public. Apparently they do it well enough to convince people who aren’t well-versed in science. Considering the American public has such low rates of science literacy, they are doing a fine job of fooling lots of people with their sciencey-ness.
I see problems with the general use of the terms “scientific method” and “pseudoscience”. First, the scientific method is so general – general enough for anyone to be able to say they are using it. But no one method guarantees truth. (I’d love if you could talk about this on SGU sometime.) I think nonscientists who wish to sound credible love using this term because it can cover systematic nonsense data collection and shit-they-make-up. What I found interesting in my research is that when I contacted some very “scientific” groups about exactly what was scientific about their methods, they totally back-pedaled! They admitted that weren’t scientists, nothing that they did would be acceptable to the scientific community and they seemed to have a good sense that what they do was not in league with quality scientific research.
Here’s where I think they fail: they are not steeped in the scientific ethos. Science as a privileged way of knowing is based on not just this general ‘scientific method’ but a culture of norms and ideals. (See Robert K. Merton for these norms – communalism, universalism, disinterestedness and skepticism. Notice that pro-paranormal investigators fail miserably at all these.)
In relation to pseudoscience, this discussion is more about process. I highly suggest anyone interested in pseudoscience examine the whole “demarcation problem” (Thomas Gieryn). It’s enlightening. But, in short, a pseudoscientific process can be identified by a list of characteristics such as:
1. Lax rules for data collection and experiments;
2. Lack of adequate environmental or experimental controls;
3. The methods of research or evidence collection are conceptually unsound or flawed. Or, no research or active inquiry is being conducted;
4. Unconventional, defective or baseless procedures including collection of soft data such as anecdotes and subjective feelings;
5. Use of special pleading to explain validity of results or shifting of the burden of proof.
The more characteristics attributable to the activity, the better chance it is not going to be accepted as science. It’s obvious that we see ghost hunting meeting all 5 of those. I prefer to call their methods “sham inquiry” (see http://idoubtit.wordpress.com/category/sham-inquiry/ for more info, references and examples) because they have presupposed an answer they wish to get to and it’s not real inquiry at all.
I’ll conclude here by saying, I think this is a serious problem regarding science and the public. The public appears to be buying into this as genuine science. More and more people are forming and joining these groups (there are WELL over 1000 in the U.S. alone, I couldn’t count them all) and the TV shows capture millions of eyeballs each week. We need critical responses more than ever!
CT – ask and ye shall receive: http://theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=138
Steve, I think your breakdown is spot on, but there is a third fallacy that comes into play, the argument from authority. In this case the authority is the ghost hunting show themselves. People who are trying to copy the ghost hunting they see on TV may not even realize that there is no a priori scientific plausibility because if that is the case, why would ghost hunters look for cold spots.
Steve, regarding your post from 2007, “Science and Supernaturalism” (I’d comment on that article, but comments are closed), it seems to me that the arguments you make are germane to the recent debate between PZ and, among others, Jerry Coyne about whether there is any amount of evidence that would lead them to accept a god or supernatural being.
PZ rejects the notion of the supernatural a priori saying “any evidence of a deity will be natural, repeatable, measurable, and even observable…properties which god is exempted from by the believers’ own definitions, so there can be no evidence for it.” http://bit.ly/dwCzrH
While Coyne says “…I would indeed believe—provisionally—in gods or supernatural forces if I encountered certain types of evidence” http://bit.ly/ca9UuT
In your 2007 post, you say, “[the notion of falsifying the non-supernatural] is saying that if we encounter a phenomenon that is far beyond our current capability to explain, then that phenomenon must be supernatural and therefore falsifies the naturalistic assumption. Rather, all we can really say is that we cannot currently explain the phenomenon.” http://bit.ly/dDtQjg
So, my question, is – is it accurate to say that you would more agree with PZ that you could not be convinced of the existence of a supernatural phenomenon? Or have I mis-interpreted your position?
The problem is the word supernatural is meaningless. Say that harry potter was real and he could fly a broom in a quidditch match. Obviously, since his broom flying is possible, there must be some way in which it works. The fact that this phenomena is reproducible implies that there is some cause and effect mechanism which is part of nature. It is only supernatural in the sense that it defies our everyday intuitions.
It’s not so much that I could not be convinced, that there is no theoretical way to demonstrate the supernatural. As I wrote – how would you distinguish a deity from a very advanced alien technology. Actually, not so advanced – just enough to hack your brain.
Steve,
Richard Carrier has addressed this problem in defining and testing the supernatural here. He discusses the problem of distinguishing supernatural forces from really advanced technology:
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
What an old-fashioned, Popperian view of science. Science in practice is a messy process that resembles your description of what these paranormal researchers are doing much more than a “textbook” description of empiricism and hypothesis-testing. And I’m no ghost enthusiast.
I tend to view the word “supernatural” much as I view the phrase “alternative medicine”. By and large, it seems to be mostly a word to describe things whose promoters either are disinterested or unable to properly study, yet promote anyway. It’s a form of special pleading, in other words, rather than a genuinely separate category.
I tend to feel that everything which can in any meaningful sense be said to exist has to be testable scientifically. That doesn’t mean we *can* test it at present. For instance, that it was not possible to detect neutrinos a century ago does not mean they didn’t exist. Of course, technology is only half of the problem; science is not merely about being methodical, it’s about *asking questions* methodically. Ghost hunters and alien hunters and such are usually not asking questions. They are seeking answers, which is subtly but crucially different. In science, your results cannot be understood except in terms of the question you were asking, and that means that the quality of the question is crucial to the validity of your conclusions.
I believe in God. The problem with scientifically testing the existence of a deity is mostly a lack of specificity. Which God? You can’t generically disprove a deity. However, you *can* test specific miraculous or divine claims. The same is true of ghost hunting. You’ll never disprove the existence of ghosts; you can’t prove a negative, and the category is pretty vague, anyway. But you can test specific claims about ghosts. This is not something ghost hunters generally do. Rather than testing their claim, they seek evidence in favor of their claim. This makes it impossible for them to ever determine whether or not their claim was false, because they are specifically not seeking contrary evidence. If you are attempting to hunt ghosts by looking for cold spots (for instance), then a lack of cold spots tells you nothing, while presence of a cold spot can be taken as evidence for the claim. This doesn’t test whether cold spots indicate ghosts. It merely tests whether or not there are cold spots. It is simply assumed that the cold spots are actually anomalous.
That’s the biggest problem with the anomaly hunters. They don’t seek the normal, and consequently cannot reliably determine when something is abnormal.
Calli,
You can scientifically test some of what most people would call supernatural. Imagine if we lived in the Harry Potter universe and people were able to invoke certain words or thoughts and they would systematically results in the Universe responding to said words and thoughts. Creating things like light out of nothing, levitating objects, fireballs, etc. We can test and document said supernatural system.
What PZ Myers claims and Steve might be claiming is that a sophisticated technology may be at work here that we don’t know. However, we don’t know of said technology and in science we work from the explanation that best (and parsimoniously) explains the phenomena in question given the available relevant information. Richard Carrier offers a good response to this as well:
“In the case of Harry Potter’s magic, for example, it would be absurdly unreasonable to claim there is an undiscovered machine behind it all. Yes, there could be. But we would have no reason to believe there was. When we’ve conducted a detailed investigation and all we have left that actually carries substantial predictive success is a supernatural hypothesis, then science has established the latter as well as it could any other theory. Science can therefore prove the supernatural. It just needs damned good evidence. And yet like all science, even this conclusion would be revisable, if we discovered new evidence of a natural cause after all. But it would be irrational to hold out for that evidence. This would be as irrational as holding out for evidence of sky faeries rather than accepting the conclusions of aerodynamics.
By analogy, it is always possible that there is a gigantic machine inside the earth that is changing the course of photons approaching the earth, fooling us into thinking the earth revolves around the sun. In this way the heliocentric theory could actually be false. But no scientist would claim we have not proven heliocentrism merely because of possibilities like this. Yet if a scientist will not tolerate such objections to heliocentrism, he cannot tolerate methodologically identical objections to any supernatural hypothesis that is as well established as heliocentrism. Therefore, this is not a valid objection to allowing supernatural hypotheses into science.”
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
Umm even in harry potter land there is really nothing “supernatural” everything they do from flying to polymorphing is repeatable, observable and testable, therefor its natural. “magic” is just another law of nature in their world.
Supernatural could really only be applied to something that doesn’t exist.
First, you’re using a definition of “supernatural” as not testable (which is an epistemic distinction). What most people mean by supernatural is a metaphysical distinction. Second, the machine that exists in the center of the Earth that gives us the illusion of heliocentrism is (metaphysically) natural, but presently untestable. As is Russell’s teapot. There are a number of natural concepts that are untestable, and may always be untestable, but wouldn’t be classified as supernatural. I recommend you read Carrier’s entire post on the topic, as he explains why it is bad philosophy to describe the supernatural using an epistemic distinction, like not testable.
To wet your appetite the following examples are given in the post:
“The underlying mechanics of quantum phenomena might be physically beyond all observation and therefore untestable, but no one would then conclude that quantum mechanics is supernatural. Just because I can’t look inside a box does not make its contents supernatural.
Conversely, if I suddenly acquired the Force of the Jedi and could predict the future, control minds, move objects and defy the laws of physics, all merely by an act of will, ordinary people everywhere would call this a supernatural power, yet it would be entirely testable. Scientists could record and measure the nature and extent of my powers and confirm them well within the requirements of peer review.”
And this definition for supernatural:
“I argue “naturalism” means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, “supernaturalism” means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.”
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html
MKandefer, you appear to be quoting something you have written under another name so that you can, in effect, appeal to your own authority. Which would have to be the only thing that definition could possibly have going for it.
Cwfong,
First, even if so this wouldn’t make the argument unsound and to suggest so is a distraction from the main point. Second, I don’t know what sloppy method you employ to determine when someone is quoting themselves under a pseudonym in order to appeal to their own authority, but add one more false positive to your evaluation of its performance. My user name is very similar to my real life name, Michael Kandefer. I am not Richard Carrier.
MKandefer
Could you perhaps quote me a “supernatural hypothesis” for something? Anything even.
Things like “god created the universe” or “the blur in the photograph is a ghost” don’t qualify because neither ghosts nor gods are defined in anything except fiction.
MKandefer, my method was to note that you have quoted Carrier effusively, who coincidentally is a guy who self-publised a book that he then wrote the endorsements for. And while that in itself didn’t make your argument unsound, it was the unsoundness of the argument to begin with that suggested you and Carrier have more than a lot in common.
That depends on what you are asking for. If you’re asking for a hypothesis for a presently observed phenomena that explains the phenomena using a supernatural explanation that is more probable than a natural one, I can’t as I (provisionally) hold to metaphysical naturalism and think that any explanations that utilize supernatural entities are improbable. If you are just asking for a hypothetical example of a supernatural hypothesis I gave several previously, but they would include things like:
- Jedi force powers (as in a non-physical force responds mind-like to the thoughts of particular individuals)
- Ghosts (as in non-physical minds cause phenomena to happen)
- Faith healing (as in a deity’s mind responding to the wishes of those that believe in it to heal the sick)
Minds are definitely not defined in just fiction. We have a number of properties we attribute to minds, such as they have beliefs and desires and they can act on these. If the most probable explanation for a phenomena is that a mind is at work, but we can’t physically observe or infer a physical cause for the source of this mind, then a supernatural explanation may (provisionally) be the best one.
I don’t think science pre-supposes metaphysical naturalism, I think that is an inference we make due to the success in explaining phenomena naturally and the lack of success when it comes to supernatural explanations. If supernatural phenomena existed I think they could be observed (or inferred) and tested using scientific methods. Ergo, to claim that “the supernatural =def untestable” is incorrect.
For a better take on this topic see:
“Can Science Test Supernatural Worldviews?”
YONATAN I. FISHMAN, PHD
http://www.naturalism.org/science.htm#fishman
It describes the implications of the recent Dover trial on ID and why the rationale used for supporting the science over ID may actually favor ID proponents claims that science is dogmatic.
I’m not sure what unsoundness in the original argument you are talking about. The only criticism you have made you have now retracted as a bad criticism. What from the post do you disagree with?
Though irrelevant, I’m curious which of Carrier’s several books did he write that he then wrote the endorsements for? Where?
http://marklolson.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sidney-harris-cartoon-a-miracle-occurs-here.gif
Using a mystery to explain a mystery is not a hypothesis.
I’m not a huge fan of star wars but I love scifi so I have read many of the books and seen the movies. “the force” is not a good example to use. It may be treated by many in the starwars universe as something supernatural but it is a science, they know what causes it and it follows strict rules.
“-Ghosts (as in non-physical minds cause phenomena to happen)”
Define non-physical.
- Faith healing (as in a deity’s mind responding to the wishes of those that believe in it to heal the sick)
Define the deity, without referring to fiction or itself.
I may be misreading what your saying but I got the impression that the mind controlling something outside of itself qualifies as supernatural to you. I’m guessing devices that read brainwaves to control them are disqualified?
Science does not rule out the supernatural, anything that can be measured and observed, either directly or indirectly, is included in science.
The reason science excludes things like ghosts or magic or “godditit” is because it adds nothing to science, they are undefined terms they mean nothing outside of fiction just like “the force”.
MKandefer, I have retracted nothing. Your “argument from Carrier” was unsound regardless of Carrier’s self endorsement of his book (or books). And using a shill for endorsement (as well as subsequent promotional efforts) is perhaps the most common form of self-endorsement – especially in the self publishing trade.
And I noted that your (i.e., Carrier’s) following definition of supernatural was unsound:
‘And this definition for supernatural:
“I argue “naturalism” means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence. Therefore, “supernaturalism” means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.”’
The fallacy of the missing middle, just to start with.
And do you really want me to expose the shenanigans of the self publishing trade by using your pal Carrier as an example?
Halfdead said,
“I’m not a huge fan of star wars but I love scifi so I have read many of the books and seen the movies. “the force” is not a good example to use. It may be treated by many in the starwars universe as something supernatural but it is a science, they know what causes it and it follows strict rules.”
This is the point. The things that we would treat as supernatural are testable. So, to use testability as a criterion for what is supernatural is incorrect. I’m not making the claim that science cannot study the supernatural, I’m defending the claim that if it exists, it could.
“Define non-physical.”
A mental thing that can’t be reduced to non-mental things. See above.
“Define the deity, without referring to fiction or itself.”
A mental entity that can’t be reduced to non-mental things that is immortal and may have other capabilities as well.
“I may be misreading what your saying but I got the impression that the mind controlling something outside of itself qualifies as supernatural to you. I’m guessing devices that read brainwaves to control them are disqualified?”
No. A mind that is not reducible to non-mental qualifies as supernatural. A device that reads brainwaves is not even a mental entity.
“Science does not rule out the supernatural, anything that can be measured and observed, either directly or indirectly, is included in science.”
Thank you for agreeing with what I’ve been saying.
“The reason science excludes things like ghosts or magic or “godditit” is because it adds nothing to science, they are undefined terms they mean nothing outside of fiction just like “the force”.”
I agree for the most part. I wouldn’t go so far as to say undefined, just not rigorously so in many cases.
Cwfong,
“MKandefer, I have retracted nothing. Your “argument from Carrier” was unsound regardless of Carrier’s self endorsement of his book (or books). And using a shill for endorsement (as well as subsequent promotional efforts) is perhaps the most common form of self-endorsement – especially in the self publishing trade.”
So, I’m a shill now? What have I recommended you buy? All of the sources I’ve cited are freely available. If I’m a shill, I’m not making much from it. .
You acknowledged that your criticism that I may be a Carrier sockpuppet does not refute (demonstrate unsoundness) of the argument. I took this as a retraction. Are you now going back to the position that this is a good way of demonstrating unsoundness in an argument? If so, I assure you it is not, and many sources on informal fallacies will back that up.
“The fallacy of the missing middle, just to start with.”
False dilemma? I don’t see one. Can you provide the middle that’s missing?
“And do you really want me to expose the shenanigans of the self publishing trade by using your pal Carrier as an example?”
Yes, I would like you to provide evidence for your claims. He is also not my pal, I have not met him, and I only infrequently read his blog and found this post on the supernatural convincing that science can study the supernatural, if it existed. I read Neurologica much more frequently and find much of what Steve writes persuasive, perhaps that makes Steve and me best of buddies? Steve call me I want to shill for you too!
You keep referring to fiction in order to make points.
“A mental entity that can’t be reduced to non-mental things that is immortal and may have other capabilities as well.”
Define Mental entity.
What your saying to me here is basically “something I made up”
Even thoughts are physical, we know what they are and what causes them and even if we didn’t it wouldn’t make them supernatural.
Your Idea of something mental seems to come from a comic book.
The first law of meta-physics.
Nothing unreal exists.
Kiri-kin-tha
Halfdead,
Are you going to eat dinner tomorrow? An honest answer to this question is referring to a “fiction” (or not depending on your view of spacetime). We make references to “fiction” all the time. The process of making a scientific hypothesis and testing is basically an exercise in counteractual reasoning. So, if you’re talking about discussing things that may not be the case, guilty. However, this is still useful if we are going to make claims like: “Science cannot test the supernatural”, or “Science can test the supernatural.”
“Define Mental entity”
Something that exhibits properties of mind (e.g., beliefs, desires, intentions)
“What your saying to me here is basically “something I made up””
If by made up you mean after careful analysis of what it means to be a mind, yes.
“Even thoughts are physical, we know what they are and what causes them and even if we didn’t it wouldn’t make them supernatural.”
First, we know human thoughts are physical because we have correlated our thoughts with brain activity. This does not entail that all thoughts are products of the physical. We have properties that we attribute to the mental (e.g., beliefs, desires, intentions) that do not necessitate that the mental processes be a product of the physical. It’s possible that there are mental processes that exist independent of non-mental causes.
If our mental processes were not reducible to non-mental things (i.e., brains) and substance dualism were true. Then yes, I’d say our minds are supernatural.
“Your Idea of something mental seems to come from a comic book.”
The BDI model is not a product of comic books.
MKandefer: Missing middle is not the same as false dilemma, which goes to show that you have little understanding of the role that inference plays in every form of logic.
Can I provide the middle that’s missing in your aborted syllogism, you ask? Not one that would tie your premise to your conclusion – assuming that was your intention.
Can you explain what the missing middle is, since if you are not talking about excluded middle/false dilemma, I’m at a loss?
“If our mental processes were not reducible to non-mental things (i.e., brains) and substance dualism were true. Then yes, I’d say our minds are supernatural.”
If we are just dreaming of what might be, thats fine. But looking for answers when you haven’t even come up with the question is pointless.
You must define the question before any answer can be forthcoming.
Even your definition of supernatural doesn’t really make sense.
besides any of that, why bother? There is no phenomena that requires us to find a supernatural explanation. Looking for answers to unexplained anomalies, in the supernatural is like digging a hole in your yard to figure out how to fix your car. You might find a missing part but its pretty unlikely.
Halfdead,
I thought the question was clear. “Can the supernatural, if it existed, be studied by science?”
That is the question that spurred this line of discussion.
“Even your definition of supernatural doesn’t really make sense.”
It is not mine, but it is the best attempt at one that wasn’t merely a claim that the supernatural is “that which is not natural” that I’ve seen. It offers a positive claim and also useful definitions for the phenomena most people would agree are supernatural (i.e., ghosts, deities, magic, psychic powers). If you have a better definition, I’m open to them.
“besides any of that, why bother? There is no phenomena that requires us to find a supernatural explanation. Looking for answers to unexplained anomalies, in the supernatural is like digging a hole in your yard to figure out how to fix your car. You might find a missing part but its pretty unlikely.”
If we don’t know what would qualify as supernatural, or the properties of it, we cannot adequately address the question restated at the top. Why is it important? A bunch of ID proponents claim that science is dogmatically opposed to their position, that their position is actually true, but science adheres to “a priori” assumptions that prevent us from discovering the truth of the matter. People that define the supernatural as untestable by science actually support this position, and undermine the position of scientists that claim that science is equipped to determine the truth of supernatural claims, it’s just that supernatural claims don’t measure up, and the science shows this.
It’s the difference between claiming we know that there are no fairies in the garden due to science finding that the best explanation for the garden rules them out and claiming we know there are no fairies in the garden because science is defined in such a way that it will not find them even if they exist.
MKandefer:
Missing middle depends on the nature of the structure. If you leave out the minor premise of a syllogism, you have no way of predicting that the structure will maintain the integrity you have asserted for it.
Ok, I see. I’ve never heard this called the “missing middle”, just a “hidden premise”. Anyway, this should do it for you:
P1) “naturalism” means, in the simplest terms, that every mental thing is entirely caused by fundamentally nonmental things, and is entirely dependent on nonmental things for its existence.
P2) Supernatrualism is a mutually exclusive with naturalism.*
C) “supernaturalism” means that at least some mental things cannot be reduced to nonmental things.
I don’t think this hidden premise (P2) is that controversial. I would think that instead it is P1 that is contentious. Which I would agree. It at least captures part of naturalism, but might be too exclusive of other things.
MKandefer: You have now left off the “therefor” at (C) and thus have made no argument at all if your intent was for P1 and P2 to support C as a conclusive inference.
If you want to add that P1 is contentious, then the inference would be that so is C.
See we are like two ships passing in the night. If something exists in any meaningful way (it has an actual effect on the world). Be it an undefined energy being of vast knowledge and power, or some unknown source for faint voice like sounds from static. The simple fact that it exists makes it natural.
Supernatural is a word of fiction used for ghosts goblins zombies and vampires, while I love these stories and do read many of them, they are called supernatural because they do not exist. If someone could provide enough evidence to show that one does exist or did once exist It would no longer be supernatural.
Tell me though, if fairies in the garden really existed how would it be possible for science to blind itself to them? I ask because I have heard this claim before and it doesn’t make sense to me.
Science isn’t defining itself to exclude anything science is a tool to examine the world and it works. Its not a failing of science that it can’t examine things that don’t exist.
I don’t see why removing “therefore” and placing it as a conclusion matters, “therefore” is synonymous with given the previous this conclusion follows. In the above it does. Perhaps you are confused about some of the terminology?
I would agree with that the conclusion is contentious, most debates over definitions are.
“The simple fact that it exists makes it natural.”
Then why even have a metaphysical category for natural and supernatural? These are useless terms, we might as well just say “exists”. However, I don’t think most people mean when they say they believe in the supernatural, they believe in things that don’t exist. What they mean is they believe in something that is beyond “nature” in some way, and they typically mean something that has mind-like properties; like beliefs, desires and intentions.
I don’t disagree with you that the supernatural doesn’t exist, what I disagree with you on is claiming that the necessary and sufficient properties for calling something natural is that it exists.
Halfdead,
So if it were the case that there were a mental entity irreducible to non-mental things (like brains, atoms, etc.) that answered prayers you would call this “natural”?
“Then why even have a metaphysical category for natural and supernatural? ”
Because people WANT to believe in fiction. I gotta tell you I would love it if I got to be a “ghost” and go explore the universe after I died. But as with most things in reality, we do not get what we want.
“So if it were the case that there were a mental entity irreducible to non-mental things (like brains, atoms, etc.) that answered prayers you would call this “natural”?”
Is it natural for us to live at the bottom of an ocean of air in the middle of a mostly empty universe so large we can’t really even imagine its size or complexity? A universe with more stars than there are grains of sand on any beach. On a planet powered by a ball of fire in the sky and an ocean of liquid metal and radioactive material at its core. Hurtling through space at speeds I cant even imagine held in place to its surface by a force I can’t explain even though it spins so fast I should be flung off like a tick off a dogs back? Protected by radiation from said ball of fire by an invisible forcefield millions of miles across in a solar system filled with object hurtling at ballistic speeds in complex orbits that one day might smash the entire planet to bits.
A flat earth on the back of a giant turtle with a benevolent sky wizard looking out for me would be a tad bit more comfortable, now that you mention it.
MKandefer: If you are using deductive reasoning, as it appears was Carrier’s intent, even if not yours, then it would (or should) not have been his intent to come to a contentious conclusion.
“If you are using deductive reasoning, as it appears was Carrier’s intent, even if not yours, then it would (or should) not have been his intent to come to a contentious conclusion.”
It probably was not his intent, I’m just acknowledging which premise I find the least likely to be true. Though find his examples to be convincing.
Halfdead said,
“Because people WANT to believe in fiction. I gotta tell you I would love it if I got to be a “ghost” and go explore the universe after I died. But as with most things in reality, we do not get what we want.”
I’m confused. Your claim is that when people use the term “supernatural” they mean the thing they are talking about doesn’t exist. My response was, then why even have a separate term that offers no additional meaning than the term “exists”?
I think ghost hunters really believe ghosts exist and that these ghosts are supernatural. I think people really believe that God exists and is supernatural. What do they mean by this term “supernatural”? That these things don’t exist doesn’t mean that the term doesn’t denote a concept that has properties. You allege that this concept has only one property, that it doesn’t exist. I think you’re wrong.
When people that believe that ghosts or gods exist and allege that they are supernatural, what do they mean? I think they are at least ascribing mental states to disembodied things to attribute causation to an observed phenomena as an explanation for that phenomena (e.g., the door shut without anybody closing it, it was a ghost).
Since you didn’t actually answer the question, I’ll ask again:
So if it were the case that there were a mental entity irreducible to non-mental things (like brains, atoms, etc.) that answered prayers you would call this “natural”?
“So if it were the case that there were a mental entity irreducible to non-mental things (like brains, atoms, etc.) that answered prayers you would call this “natural”?”
You seem to be asking me if something were to exist would I consider it natural, yes I would. but your question if you actually look at it is meaningless. Name one thing that is “mental” yet non-physical. in the context your using it I’m not sure I even understand what you mean by “mental entity” the only context either of us have for a “mental entity” is fiction.
Ask a ghost hunter to tell you what a “ghost” is. They will refer back to a fiction or something indefinable. Whats a ghost made of? how does it interact with matter? where does it get its energy and what kind of energy is it? its an undefined term you might as well replace the word “Ghost’ with “Smurf” for all the real meaning it has.
If it cannot be expressed mathematically it is pseudoscience.