The Paranormal

[Scorpio]

Hoaxers do not shake my beleif in the possibility of the paranormal/supernatural. Hoaxes are perpetrated in mainstream science also.

[Batman]

Well there is always the old saying that the Devil's greatest deception was convincing people he didn't exist.

The old cure for demon possession was an exorcism.

Today thanks to science we use epilepsy medication instead.

The greatest deception is a man in a dress convincing people magic exists.

If someone complains about seeing hearing demons we can also stop those demons dead with 300mg of Chloropromazine.

[Batman]

Hoaxers do not shake my beleif in the possibility of the paranormal/supernatural. Hoaxes are perpetrated in mainstream science also.

Any hoax in science is eventually busted by the scientific method.

Any hoax in supernaturalism is not exposed by the 'supernatural method' but is by the scientific method.

[kensei]

Any hoax in science is eventually busted by the scientific method.

Any hoax in supernaturalism is not exposed by the 'supernatural method' but is by the scientific method.

As far as I'm concerned there is no "supernatural method" because my simplest definition of science would be "the study of everything," and this would have to include the supernatural. But I also think "supernatural" is sort of a subset of the topic of this thread, "paranormal." Supernatural means literally outside the known laws of nature. Paranormal might just mean something like "a normal we're not used to."

[Chris]

Supernatural means literally outside the known laws of nature.

But obviously the scientific method can be used to study phenomena outside the laws of nature, as currently accepted. If it couldn't, the laws of nature would never change.

[Robert]

"Foul smells are often associated with paranormal activity. I have heard accounts of bodily decay,excrement and such things; but i suppose anything is possible."

I think we here enter the realms of modern art.

[Scorpio]

Any hoax in science is eventually busted by the scientific method.

Any hoax in supernaturalism is not exposed by the 'supernatural method' but is by the scientific method.

I am familiar with scientific method, Batman; but i have no idea what ' Supernatural method ' is.

[Batman]

my simplest definition of science would be "the study of everything," and this would have to include the supernatural. But I also think "supernatural" is sort of a subset of the topic of this thread, "paranormal." Supernatural means literally outside the known laws of nature. Paranormal might just mean something like "a normal we're not used to."

Science is the applied philosophy of explaining empirical facts using the scientific method of experimentation. Science accepts there are non-empirical states such as subjectivity in psychology, mathematics is not empirical and other philosophies that are non-empirical. So Science isn't the study of everything. It is strictly empirical.

The supernatural is not a subset of empiricism or science. The supernatural by its own definition means beyond nature, i.e - nature is insufficient to explain the supernatural. That you need something in addition to this. Its an super-empirical claim and therefore can never be a scientific topic or subset of it. It must stand alone as an entirely different type of philosophy.

The clash comes when supernatural claims try to explain things supernaturally, when the scientific explanation does it better by just using natural mechanisms instead of 'magic' basically.

There is a vast history of supernatural claims that have since been explained by science. When Benjamin Franklyn was able to catch Thor's wrath with his lightening conductor it changed many people's view of the weather being supernatural.

I have listened to and read countless supernatural claims and not one, not one single one, has ever had evidence equal to or better than the scientific method.

Don't you think if the supernatural was real that the evidence for it would be overwhelming by this stage?

[Batman]

I am familiar with scientific method, Batman; but i have no idea what ' Supernatural method ' is.

Basically what I mean is that the hoaxes in science when exposed by science (as its the only method that can do this) are often then "claimed" by supernaturalists as a case for supernaturalism. It is simply illogical to go from science exposes hoaxes to the supernatural being real because of it. All we can say is that science has exposed many claims including supernatural and scientific ones.

While the supernatural can never be addressed by science because its non-empirical, many supernatural claims can be addressed by science where there is an empirical explaination. Hence why we have a history of supernaturalism being replaced by natural explanations (science).

[Scorpio]

Not all scientific research is experimental. An experiment is conducted in a laboratory if it is not to be beset by unidentified variables. A laboratory is simply not appropriate for much research. I am more interested in naturalistic observational studies.
A difference between paranormal ( phenomena outside of the accepted paradigm ) and ' Supernatural' should be made. paranormal research data is often given a supernatural explanation causing problems with the validity of that research in the minds of the scientific community.

[Batman]

Not all scientific research is experimental. An experiment is conducted in a laboratory if it is not to be beset by unidentified variables. A laboratory is simply not appropriate for much research. I am more interested in naturalistic observational studies.
A difference between paranormal ( phenomena outside of the accepted paradigm ) and ' Supernatural' should be made. paranormal research data is often given a supernatural explanation causing problems with the validity of that research in the minds of the scientific community.

While I don't agree with your view of what an experiment is and how observation is used, notice that you said science needs a laboratory or else it is beset by unidentified variables... But then say that observation in the field naturally is more interesting for you after claiming such a method is beset by unidentified variable.

Scientific experiments on observation methods demonstrate how human error is abundant.

[Scorpio]

While I don't agree with your view of what an experiment is and how observation is used, notice that you said science needs a laboratory or else it is beset by unidentified variables... But then say that observation in the field naturally is more interesting for you after claiming such a method is beset by unidentified variable.

Scientific experiments on observation methods demonstrate how human error is abundant.

I said that experimental studies outside of the lab are beset by confounding variables, so that is why a non experimental observational study should be used in natural environment. Paranormal research at the site of paranormal activity is my favoured study. Lab experiments including Zenner cards and such things are less interesting

[Batman]

I said that experimental studies outside of the lab are beset by confounding variables, so that is why a non experimental observational study should be used in natural environment. Paranormal research at the site of paranormal activity is my favoured study. Lab experiments including Zenner cards and such things are less interesting

The scientific experiment is not restricted to a 'lab' basically and is also done in the field. They can even be done by a man with a telescope observing space. The 'lab' is simply one tool used by the experimenter like the tool of mathematics. So wherever you go you have to prove that what you are doing can't be done by a scientific experiment also.

Secondly we already have a history of scientific experiments on human observation and we have found we are absolutely shockingly bad at it. That is why science uses tools to measure things rather than just observation. We may observe the data from the tool but in most cases a well calibrated tool beats human observation hands down tenfold.

Have you ever read the experiments about a guy in a ape suit running into a lecture hall doing something and the lecturer asking people to write down what they saw and in 6 months times asks them again what they saw. The power of observation is bested by the scientific method every time.

[Scorpio]

Yes, the experiment was called ' Gorrillas in our Midst '.
By observational study i mean a study utilising equipment to measure a range of variables over time which can be used for statistical analysis, not just asking people to remember stuff.

[Batman]

Her methodology has been heavily critized.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall#Criticism

I think this is a fair critic of why this type of observation is fundamentally flawed.

There are way better approaches in ethology but use experiments.