Can the supernatural be explained?

[SquiishyBuns]

I think the supernatural is something that can be explained through magik.

[stealthmongoose]

The supernatural can often be observed or tested within a frame of reference.

James Randi, Penn/Teller, QualiaSoup, and others often test the validity of supernatural claims or hoaxes by the use of candid experiments.

If you wish for a more official or government-centric way of approaching supernatural claims skeptically, you may want to check out the Center for Inquiry

It's normal to have a healthy amount of doubt about anything, but the supernatural has proven time and time again to be a dismissible possibility, especially when these claims have been proven false time and time again.

[Hexatonic Scale]

stealthmongoose

The supernatural can often be observed or tested within a frame of reference.

James Randi, Penn/Teller, QualiaSoup, and others often test the validity of supernatural claims or hoaxes by the use of candid experiments.

If you wish for a more official or government-centric way of approaching supernatural claims skeptically, you may want to check out the Center for Inquiry

It's normal to have a healthy amount of doubt about anything, but the supernatural has proven time and time again to be a dismissible possibility, especially when these claims have been proven false time and time again.

One of the things is, for things like "magic", it's easy to dismiss people who use it as the events simply being coincidence. (A person trying to do magic for some end, and that end comes about. Was it coincidence, and magic or not it would have happened? Did it speed it along?)

Whatever it is, coincidence or actual supernatural workings, it seems to be too fickle to be tested via experimentation.

Perhaps a more pure intention is required? That is, in an experiment there's often this desire by the person being tested to "prove" it, and perhaps that becomes more important than the point of it, and so the magic they're trying, which may work for them on many other occasions, fails.

Or it could be coincidence. I certainly couldn't back it up, really, either way.

[stealthmongoose]

Hexatonic Scale

stealthmongoose

The supernatural can often be observed or tested within a frame of reference.

James Randi, Penn/Teller, QualiaSoup, and others often test the validity of supernatural claims or hoaxes by the use of candid experiments.

If you wish for a more official or government-centric way of approaching supernatural claims skeptically, you may want to check out the Center for Inquiry

It's normal to have a healthy amount of doubt about anything, but the supernatural has proven time and time again to be a dismissible possibility, especially when these claims have been proven false time and time again.

One of the things is, for things like "magic", it's easy to dismiss people who use it as the events simply being coincidence. (A person trying to do magic for some end, and that end comes about. Was it coincidence, and magic or not it would have happened? Did it speed it along?)

Whatever it is, coincidence or actual supernatural workings, it seems to be too fickle to be tested via experimentation.

Perhaps a more pure intention is required? That is, in an experiment there's often this desire by the person being tested to "prove" it, and perhaps that becomes more important than the point of it, and so the magic they're trying, which may work for them on many other occasions, fails.

Or it could be coincidence. I certainly couldn't back it up, really, either way.

If you can document an instance in reality where one's intention has influenced the results of an experiment in a way that is not explainable through other variables, you may have a case on your hands.

The issue here is that your appeal to cognitive bias on the part of the experimenters (like James Randi when it comes to dousing rods, for example) ends when you realize that dousing rods are a proven hoax BECAUSE of various tests and not the opinion of the person applying the test.

Tl;DR: It's proven wrong because of the experiment itself, not the opinion of the one carrying out the test.

[Hexatonic Scale]

stealthmongoose

Hexatonic Scale

stealthmongoose

The supernatural can often be observed or tested within a frame of reference.

James Randi, Penn/Teller, QualiaSoup, and others often test the validity of supernatural claims or hoaxes by the use of candid experiments.

If you wish for a more official or government-centric way of approaching supernatural claims skeptically, you may want to check out the Center for Inquiry

It's normal to have a healthy amount of doubt about anything, but the supernatural has proven time and time again to be a dismissible possibility, especially when these claims have been proven false time and time again.

One of the things is, for things like "magic", it's easy to dismiss people who use it as the events simply being coincidence. (A person trying to do magic for some end, and that end comes about. Was it coincidence, and magic or not it would have happened? Did it speed it along?)

Whatever it is, coincidence or actual supernatural workings, it seems to be too fickle to be tested via experimentation.

Perhaps a more pure intention is required? That is, in an experiment there's often this desire by the person being tested to "prove" it, and perhaps that becomes more important than the point of it, and so the magic they're trying, which may work for them on many other occasions, fails.

Or it could be coincidence. I certainly couldn't back it up, really, either way.

If you can document an instance in reality where one's intention has influenced the results of an experiment in a way that is not explainable through other variables, you may have a case on your hands.

The issue here is that your appeal to cognitive bias on the part of the experimenters (like James Randi when it comes to dousing rods, for example) ends when you realize that dousing rods are a proven hoax BECAUSE of various tests and not the opinion of the person applying the test.

Tl;DR: It's proven wrong because of the experiment itself, not the opinion of the one carrying out the test.

There isn't an appeal because I'm not making an argument for or against magic, but am rather stating that just because something is non-falsifiable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I mean my statement was, magic probably can't be tested (ie: non-falsifiable) and then you said dousing rods are a hoax. Maybe, but do people ever report them as working?

That's my whole schtick, right? Some things can't be proven.

And I'll add the obligatory lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

[stealthmongoose]

Hexatonic Scale

stealthmongoose

Hexatonic Scale

stealthmongoose

The supernatural can often be observed or tested within a frame of reference.

James Randi, Penn/Teller, QualiaSoup, and others often test the validity of supernatural claims or hoaxes by the use of candid experiments.

If you wish for a more official or government-centric way of approaching supernatural claims skeptically, you may want to check out the Center for Inquiry

It's normal to have a healthy amount of doubt about anything, but the supernatural has proven time and time again to be a dismissible possibility, especially when these claims have been proven false time and time again.

One of the things is, for things like "magic", it's easy to dismiss people who use it as the events simply being coincidence. (A person trying to do magic for some end, and that end comes about. Was it coincidence, and magic or not it would have happened? Did it speed it along?)

Whatever it is, coincidence or actual supernatural workings, it seems to be too fickle to be tested via experimentation.

Perhaps a more pure intention is required? That is, in an experiment there's often this desire by the person being tested to "prove" it, and perhaps that becomes more important than the point of it, and so the magic they're trying, which may work for them on many other occasions, fails.

Or it could be coincidence. I certainly couldn't back it up, really, either way.

If you can document an instance in reality where one's intention has influenced the results of an experiment in a way that is not explainable through other variables, you may have a case on your hands.

The issue here is that your appeal to cognitive bias on the part of the experimenters (like James Randi when it comes to dousing rods, for example) ends when you realize that dousing rods are a proven hoax BECAUSE of various tests and not the opinion of the person applying the test.

Tl;DR: It's proven wrong because of the experiment itself, not the opinion of the one carrying out the test.

There isn't an appeal because I'm not making an argument for or against magic, but am rather stating that just because something is non-falsifiable doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I mean my statement was, magic probably can't be tested (ie: non-falsifiable) and then you said dousing rods are a hoax. Maybe, but do people ever report them as working?

That's my whole schtick, right? Some things can't be proven.

And I'll add the obligatory lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.

Answering your points in the order you raised them.


1. That is an appeal because your first red sentence that I've highlighted for you. When you choose to retract that statement, it will cease to be an appeal to cognitive bias. What you're saying is that the end result of an experiment involving magic is hinged sometimes upon an individual's desire to prove it. I'm asking you to provide evidence of one time in all of history when it has actually happened this way. You have failed to do that. The burden of proof is on you. It's non-falsifiability is irrelevant when it has already been proven false in every instance it has been proposed. Be it faith healing, aura readers, psychics, sorcerers, etc

2. Where are you getting the reasoning that magic cannot be tested? You're proposing a quality not found in reality to a force that you deem possible of existing based on nothing but your own opinion. Experiments, on the other hand, have proven time and time again that willing or otherwise, anyone pretending to practice magic has been found to be a hoaxter of some kind. This is despite people like you and, to a greater extent, the fans and followers of these superstitions who mistakenly assert that magic is an untestable force that should be given the same degree of respect as demonstrable truths. So yes, there are people who think dousing rods work, and experiments have debunked them just like most superstitions. The denial of this and an appeal to 'anything's possible' just doesn't fly when you're talking about a world that relies on natural forces. I.E. Reality.

3. Your "whole schtick" doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. Magic has no more basis in reality than other superstitions, and the burden of proof is on magic to manifest itself or be exposed as fanciful fiction.

4. See 3

[Its A Crystal]

IVovacane

Flemmes Felares

Everything can be explained. Things are only labeled as supernatural when people do not have the knowledge to understand why.

How can everything be explained if people cant explain it?

Because the inability to explain something is indicative of ones unintelligence, not the subjects inexplicability.

[NAGATO UZUMAKl]

The Daario Naharis

IVovacane

Flemmes Felares

Everything can be explained. Things are only labeled as supernatural when people do not have the knowledge to understand why.

How can everything be explained if people cant explain it?

Because the inability to explain something is indicative of ones unintelligence, not the subjects inexplicability.

Wut.

[Its A Crystal]

IVovacane

The Daario Naharis

IVovacane

Flemmes Felares

Everything can be explained. Things are only labeled as supernatural when people do not have the knowledge to understand why.

How can everything be explained if people cant explain it?

Because the inability to explain something is indicative of ones unintelligence, not the subjects inexplicability.

Wut.

If I cannot explain lightning, this does not mean there is some supernatural force that creates lightning. It simply means that I lack the intellectual capacity to explain lightning.

[NAGATO UZUMAKl]

The Daario Naharis

IVovacane

The Daario Naharis

IVovacane

Flemmes Felares

Everything can be explained. Things are only labeled as supernatural when people do not have the knowledge to understand why.

How can everything be explained if people cant explain it?

Because the inability to explain something is indicative of ones unintelligence, not the subjects inexplicability.

Wut.

If I cannot explain lightning, this does not mean there is some supernatural force that creates lightning. It simply means that I lack the intellectual capacity to explain lightning.

you coulda just say that

[Hexatonic Scale]

stealthmongoose

Answering your points in the order you raised them.

1. That is an appeal because your first red sentence that I've highlighted for you. When you choose to retract that statement, it will cease to be an appeal to cognitive bias. What you're saying is that the end result of an experiment involving magic is hinged sometimes upon an individual's desire to prove it. I'm asking you to provide evidence of one time in all of history when it has actually happened this way. You have failed to do that. The burden of proof is on you. It's non-falsifiability is irrelevant when it has already been proven false in every instance it has been proposed. Be it faith healing, aura readers, psychics, sorcerers, etc

2. Where are you getting the reasoning that magic cannot be tested? You're proposing a quality not found in reality to a force that you deem possible of existing based on nothing but your own opinion. Experiments, on the other hand, have proven time and time again that willing or otherwise, anyone pretending to practice magic has been found to be a hoaxter of some kind. This is despite people like you and, to a greater extent, the fans and followers of these superstitions who mistakenly assert that magic is an untestable force that should be given the same degree of respect as demonstrable truths. So yes, there are people who think dousing rods work, and experiments have debunked them just like most superstitions. The denial of this and an appeal to 'anything's possible' just doesn't fly when you're talking about a world that relies on natural forces. I.E. Reality.

3. Your "whole schtick" doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. Magic has no more basis in reality than other superstitions, and the burden of proof is on magic to manifest itself or be exposed as fanciful fiction.

4. See 3

ScienceBlogs

A falsifiable claim is one for which there is some observation (or set of observations) we could make that would show us that the claim is false. If we did make this observation, essentially we’d have to conclude either that the claim in question was false, or that our observation was a bad one. Trying to hold on to both the truth of the claim and the goodness of the observation would saddle us with a mind-blowing contradiction. ref

ie: A non-falsifiable claim is one for which there is no observation (or set of observations) we could make that would show us that the claim is false.

I could respond to your points, but is there actually any reason to? You keep telling me to falsify points I declare as non-falsifiable ideas, and then you make assertions that they actually are falsifiable and are, in fact, false.

You keep arguing that objective reality is the only important or "real" one, and yet studies have proven that reality is based on perception.

Yes, peer reviewed journal.