sinequanon:

Yes. Richard Dawkins. He was formerly Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, and in that capacity wrote a number of books in which you will find references to things being supernatural.

First you will have to address what Krayola declined to address specifically, and explain what you mean by "supernatural in the scientific sense."

I believe that he sees them as ideas that conflict with current scientific thinking.

He advocates that such ideas have no place for discussion in science classes.

He says that there is a 99.99999999% chance that God does not exist, so the existence of God should not be discussed in the science class.

He also doesn't like the idea of intelligent design and suggests that its merits and demerits should not be investigated in the science class.

viaro:

k[/b]eep [b]i[/b]t [b]s[/b]imple [b]stupid

sinequanon:



Calm down, please. I chose a definition for you, from the selection you gave, because you declined to do so yourself. You said any definition would do for you. Now, please run with it and be bold and explicit instead of hinting darkly about some murder or other. 

You will recall that I worded my definition differently.

sinequanon:

"Unexplainable" is in your definition. You confidently asked me to choose one for you out of your list. Now you have to make sense of it.

sinequanon:

IMO, there is something awry with your interpretation. You seem to suggest that there is a possibility that something unexplainable has a residual chance of being explained.

Furthermore, could you please give an example of an objective explanation that is not "through science"?

viaro:

The whole point is this: "Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?" Dawkins, as we know, has no credible study on the supernatural that you have been able to exemplify. His arguments against the 'supernatural' is not science, and he makes such arguments as an atheist rather. I hope you are not trying ever so hard to gull the public between the two? Now, if you know of any works of Dawkins on the 'supernatural' that he has conducted and published as a professional scientist (not as an atheist) in a scientific journal with scientific results for the scientific community, could you sinequanon show us clear examples of such? That would be far much helpful than going round and saying nothing in this regard thus far.

Does he say that as an atheist or as a scientist?

sinequanon:

We can continue to discuss once you have retracted and agreed to refrain from this sort of language.

Krayola:

You definition was, IMO, begging the question, BIG TIME!!! you claim supernatural only exists relative to science, and then offer a definition, one that does not occur in any dictionary I can find, that defines supernatural directly as a "function" of science.

I don't know what you take us for here, but please stop it. [size=16pt]PLEASE!![/size]

Abeg o. Thank you my broda. help me to ask him well well o. E be like say some people think say we no go school.

viaro:

Please provide us with some notable examples, and then oblige us as well (if you may) of any scientific work about the supernatural that he has conducted in his capacity as a scientist, not as an atheist. Thank you.

I would first like to respect Krayola's simple statement so that I do not risk putting words in his mouth. Now do kindly attend to my request in precisely as you find it written in that portion of my quote there. I find it more than strangely out of this world that you would be asking me to do this assignment for you whereas you have been sounding far too confident that Dawkins has scientific work on the 'supernatural'. That, indeed, is simply a mechanical evasion of some sorts to the simple request I made.

Science, as you may well know, my gentle sir, is not predicated on "ideas that conflict with current scientific thinking". Dawkins' personal take on what he has not scientifically studied is not science - I hope that is quite simple enough to understand?

You have ended up destroying your own argument. The whole point is this: "Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?" Dawkins, as we know, has no credible study on the supernatural that you have been able to exemplify. His arguments against the 'supernatural' is not science, and he makes such arguments as an atheist rather. I hope you are not trying ever so hard to gull the public between the two? Now, if you know of any works of Dawkins on the 'supernatural' that he has conducted and published as a professional scientist (not as an atheist) in a scientific journal with scientific results for the scientific community, could you sinequanon show us clear examples of such? That would be far much helpful than going round and saying nothing in this regard thus far.

Does he say that as an atheist or as a scientist?

I am not here about intelligent design - that could also be argued outside of the ambit of religion, an example being systemics. Let's do the KISS here (k[/b]eep [b]i[/b]t [b]s[/b]imple [b]stupid) and not begin to draw upon unnecessary illations at this point. I would like for you to attend on the point above, thanks.

Krayola:


My phone is ringing because someone is calling me. Can u check my caller ID and see who it is, please?  

I know my car is in the driveway because i'm looking at it and I can see it there. Look . . . can you see it too?


I think those 2 statements could be verified by simple observation, and not necessarily thru a systematic study requiring experiments, collection and analysis of data, etc  (scientific method).

Farmer Franco is concerned about his prize cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned that when his dairyman tells him that Daisy is in the field, happily grazing, he says he needs to know for certain. He doesn't want merely to have a 99 percent probability that Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is safe.
Farmer Franco goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognizes as his favorite cow. He goes back to the dairy and tells his friend that he knows Daisy is in the field.
Yet, at this point, does Farmer Franco really know it?
The dairyman says he will check too, and goes to the field. There he finds Daisy, having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. He also spots a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.
Daisy is in the field, as Farmer Franco thought.
But was he right to say that he knew she was?
The philosopher, Martin Cohen, who described this scenario originally [1], says that in this case the farmer:
believed the cow was safe;
had evidence that this was so (his belief was justified);
and it was true that his cow was safe.
However, we might still feel that the farmer did not really know it. Herein lies the core of the problem of 'knowledge as justified true belief'.

Pastor AIO:

I think that the problem here stems back to the title of the thread and the OP (or rather the opening posts).  It suggests that there are 2 things, science and religion which may either by fundamentally the same or may fundamentally differ from each other in a ways that can be compared.  

Even if the OP thinks that there is no difference fundamentally that still leaves the idea that they are comparable in a manner that is unjustified.  

For example, I could be a business man and I could employ a marketing consultant.  Someone could then ask what is the fundamental difference between marketing and business?  It would be wrong to say that they are different things because business uses a lot of marketing, some businesses are even 99 percent marketing.  But then it would be wrong to say that they are fundamentally the same thing.

So it is with Science and Religion.  Their purposes are different.  Religion seeks fulfillment in life while Science merely seeks knowledge.  Science can be applied to helping Religion find it's goal.

This whole matter is very messy because both science and religion have often been tampered with by social engineers using it to press various political agendas.  Eg like the Eugenics projects of the Nazis, on science.  And the myriad times religion and other ideologies are used for social organisation.

Herein lies the core of the problem of 'knowledge as justified true belief'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

viaro:

Please provide us with some notable examples, and then oblige us as well (if you may) of any scientific work about the supernatural that he has conducted in his capacity as a scientist, not as an atheist. Thank you.

viaro:
You have ended up destroying your own argument. The whole point is this: "Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?" Dawkins, as we know, has no credible study on the supernatural that you have been able to exemplify.

sinequanon:

"notable" is your get out clause, is it?

As for the capacity in which Dawkins made his assertions, that is also too vague.

Any peer reviewed scientific paper that mentions the word supernatural should suffice, no?
If not, please state why not.

Mentioning the term "supernatural" does not imply studying the supernatural.

You are even wider from the mark, because my point is that, once scientists have identified something as supernatural, they would eliminate it from their studies. So, asking me to find "a credible (another get-out-of-jail-term) study on the supernatural" shows that you have missed the point.

Krayola: I do not know of scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession or whateva. Like I said, science, IMO, does not give a rat's behind about the "supernatural".

sinequanon: I can recommend you some Richard Dawkins.

viaro: Please pay some attention to the very statement in Krayola's which you highlighted - it may be vital here if one might reiterate it simply thus - Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists? Does Richard Dawkins actually believe that what he calls tooth fairies, flying spaghetti monster and the like are "supernatural" in a scientific sense -  does he refer to such things in his reports or profession?

How does he explain the 'supernatural' in his 'science' as to be part of his vocation as a scientist?

viaro:

The whole point is this: "Do you sinequanon know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?" Dawkins, as we know, has no credible study on the supernatural that you have been able to exemplify. His arguments against the 'supernatural' is not science, and he makes such arguments as an atheist rather. I hope you are not trying ever so hard to gull the public between the two? Now, if you know of any works of Dawkins on the 'supernatural' that he has conducted and published as a professional scientist (not as an atheist) in a scientific journal with scientific results for the scientific community, could you sinequanon show us clear examples of such? That would be far much helpful than going round and saying nothing in this regard thus far.

Does he say that as an atheist or as a scientist?

Krayola:

haha. I'm calm o. Me I juss dey play.  

You definition was, IMO, begging the question, BIG TIME!!! you claim supernatural only exists relative to science, and then offer a definition, one that does not occur in any dictionary I can find,,

Krayola:
that defines supernatural directly as a "function" of science. I don't know what you take us for here, but please stop it. PLEASE!! Science has little to nothing to do with the origin or use of the concept of the supernatural. The concept of the supernatural, IMO, more likely has to do with the concept of the divine. . . . Belief In God's and  other non- physical agents being able to affect/alter events, or natural phenomena. Hence the existence of rituals and appeasement of deities LONG LONG before science came around. There was, IMO, obviously already a clear distinction between the mundane and the sacred, the seen order and a believed unseen order, the natural and the supernatural.

Krayola:
As long as you acknowledge that the definition you gave is YOUR definition, and does not denote the word "supernatural", your definition is fine with me as long as it is used in expressing what YOUR OWN PERSONAL opinion is. . . an opinion you are entitled to have. But that your definition is IMO, not valid outside of your opinion.

Krayola:
I try not to make "absolutist" statements. SO even though I don't believe in the supernatural, I don't dismiss the possibility of the supernatural. Even though I don't believe the unexplainable can be explained, I wont dismiss the possibility of the unexplainable being explained. . .as silly as that sounds.

Krayola:
The definition was from a dictionary. It isn't identical, or even similar, to the one you gave. There may be a definition out there that describes supernatural as a "function" of science, but I have not seen it.

Krayola:
I'm debating an absolute assertion that you made in refuting an argument from another poster. That the concept of the "supernatural" ONLY exists relative to science. That is what we are trying to make sense of here. What the dictionary says is pretty clear.

viaro:
Pardon me, sinequanon. .  but it does not seem that you have a grip on what you're arguing. For one, I would agree with you that a "mention" of the term 'supernatural' does not equate a scientific study; but there again, you had tried to use the direct opposite to save your position. Dude, it just doesn't make any sense and that is unacceptable by any means. So please show which of these two helps your position and we shall deal further, yes?

sinequanon:

A premise cannot beg the question. It IS the premise.

This is a philosophical discussion. It goes beyond and queries dictionary definitions, especially internet ones! Note that philosophers do not rely on dictionary definitions.

viaro: How does he explain the 'supernatural' in his 'science' as to be part of his vocation as a scientist?

I think the term "supernatural" is used with respect to the science of the day, however 'primitive'. I believe phenomena can change classification from supernatural to natural as a result of changes in that science. Lightning may have once been a supernatural phenomenon. In Western cultures, at least, it no longer is considered to be so. Yet lightning itself has not changed. All that has changed is its status with respect to the scientific body of knowledge of the day.

Name something that is supernatural that is amenable to science.

If you cannot, then do you accept that there is an association? Is that association a coincidence?

I understand what you are saying. I did not intend to be absolute. Everything is opinion, imo, and I only wanted to invite the poster to put forward his own opinion on the issue. That way we clarify our viewpoints and can identify simply where our differences of opinion lie. Then we can agree to disagree, all shake hands, and go home.  

sinequanon:

You have lost the context and are going down a blind alley.

The 'contention' is whether the notion of "supernatural" is defined relative to science -- a function of science as Krayola succinctly put it. It is not about whether scientists study the supernatural.

Scientists shunning "supernatural" phenomena is more relevant to demonstrating a dichotomy.

viaro:

That is not true. Rather, I see you're evading the simple questions being put to you and are further excusing them away.

When Krayola said that he did not know of scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession, you recommended Richard Dawkins - and on that particular note, I asked you to attest to that by furnishing us with scientific examples, not atheistic arguments. Have you done so? No. Why?

viaro:
Which for me says that Dawkins has no scientific study on the 'supernatural', and you should not have tried to "recommend" him in reference to the part of Krayola's statement that you highlighted earlier.

sinequanon:

Because the examples I can think off are buried in youtube videos and I would have to sit through hours of video to timestamp the reference.

I offered to provide an alternative example, instead. You declined to accept one.

You have changed "mentioning 'supernatural' in the course of his scientific profession" to "doing a scientific study."

You also refused to accept an alternative example of "scientists calling things 'supernatural' in their reports or profession," after I offered to find a scientific paper that mentions "supernatural."

Then you blame me for not answering your question!

Krayola:

like a mo- fo.

viaro:

I could be that patient, trust me. If you had rather said so, I would have understood you - but instead you started making insinuations of 'get out clause' clause and 'get-out-of-jail' term. .  what was that all about?

viaro:
Besides, I was not the one who made mention of a specific case (Richard Dawkins), and even after several times requesting that you furnish us examples of the particular case you made, you evaded that request forever and then now come back with "an alternative example", no? I'm just curious that it seems to me you're making assertions here and there but not actually helping us understand you at all.

viaro:
I don't think so. If I did decline where you offered an alternative, please remind me. However, you seemed to have shifted grounds far too many times and calling for 'definitions' here and there and not actually holding this discussion on the ground.

viaro:
Did I? That may well be, if by "mentioning" you are referring to "calling" - which I quoted from the part you had highlighted in Krayola's statement. Be that as it may, that did not go unqualified - for anyone can see that Krayola's statement was well qualified by scientists in "their reports or profession". That was why I had hoped you would oblige examples as to the Richard Dawkins you mentioned - and went on to articulate my query particularly in reference to science, not atheism. I just wanted to see what in Dawkins you were so confident about in this regard that you thought we were all oblivious of.

Are you not the same person that actually rejected that same suggestion by saying: "Mentioning the term "supernatural" does not imply studying the supernatural"?? I agreed with you on the premise that we're dealing here with SCIENCE, not mere 'mention', and that connotes the fact that we're seeking your examples of scientific study of the supernatural where such studies are scientific within the scientific community. Are we going to see such examples of scientific studies. . . or we're going to be marking time on the same spot - because you have none to show??

Pastor AIO:

When was the first use to the word supernatural? Was it before the modern scientific era? If it was, then surely it's meaning cannot be defined by what modern science says it is, or by what it cannot explain.

Pastor AIO:
Oh yeah, and there is an ideology called Naturalism which says that the Natural is all that exists. If a scientist were a naturalist then he would say that all phenomena should be made subject to scientific study as it is all natural and there is nothing that is beyond the scope of science.

sinequanon:

Because, even if I had spent a few hours digging up Dawkins examples, why would you agree he is speaking as a scientist as oppose to an atheist?

Even if I point out that he is speaking on a science forum, you would still ask for an explicit statement.

So, I found your request unreasonable from that standpoint, too, because it is unlikely that a scientist speaking on a science forum is going to explicitly state that he is speaking as a scientist.

There was a possibility that you would have come across the popular Dawkins case too, and agreed with me. If you had asked for cases with evidence provided, I would have chosen something else. When I later suggested this, you rejected the offer.

I offered to find a scientific paper that mentions "supernatural."

Do you (sinequanon) know any scientists calling things "supernatural" in their reports or profession as scientists?

Does Richard Dawkins actually believe that what he calls tooth fairies, flying spaghetti monster and the like are "supernatural" in a scientific sense

-  does he refer to such things in his reports or profession?

Now, if you know of any works of Dawkins on the 'supernatural' that he has conducted and published as a professional scientist (not as an atheist) in a scientific journal with scientific results for the scientific community, could you (sinequanon) show us clear examples of such?

sinequanon:
As for your vague accusation of me shifting ground, may I suggest that you bat back the few required definitions efficiently so that the "discussion on the ground" can actually proceed in a meaningful way, instead of complaining that the ground is shifting.

I have explained the issue with the Dawkins case caused by your retrospective request for a reference.

sinequanon:

OK, I think you have started to go round in circles, viaro. Perhaps you are trying to answer a question with some other title.

I prefer you read back carefully, than I repeat myself.

Otherwise, I am happy to agree to disagree with you at this point.

sinequanon:
A scientific paper IS "by scientists in their reports or profession," so this qualification is consistent with my offer to find a scientific paper that mentions (calls something) supernatural.

viaro:

I am still waiting for your simple answers showing examples of Dawkins' scientific works with scientific results published in scientific journals for the scientific community. If you have none, please apologise to Krayola for trying to gull the public and for wasting his time - I can do without an apology for wasting mine or yours.

viaro:

. . .that is to say, please give us Dawkins' scientific meaning in his scientific study of the term supernatural in a scientific paper published in a scientific journal for the scientific community?

I see no such "connotation." I was pointing out that substituting the term "studying" for "mentioning" was one of your red herrings. Once again, you are making assumptions, leading to problems in communication.