Hmmm . . . I don't recall the two of us having many exchanges which could mean you're smart enough.
[Long Drawn Out Contemplative Sigh] Could it be that easy?!
Since it's a forum you can devote whatever amount of time necessary at your leisure.
The method is like the television show House M.D. Informed people stabbing in the dark for the most likely helpful conclusion. But, since it's geared towards your conclusion rather than mine, it's honesty is primarily up to you. If I see that compromised it'd just be over. Same would apply if you were having an issue with my honesty.
OK, so you aren't suggesting the tests, but want me to do so?
I thought *you* were going to suggest some tests and I was going to either do them or suggest modifications until I agree they would give the information you want.
The goal is to see what you come up with. Honestly and fairly.
What do you mean though, that you don't think the word supernatural has any coherent meaning? That's problematic from the start, don't you think? Especially given your insistence on external. What does that mean? Well, I mean, to what extent?
Well, part of the issue is what it means to be 'natural'. Anything detectable by 'natural means' would, as far as i can tell, be natural by default. That is why, for example, we consider neutrinos to be 'natural'.
So the very notion of 'testing' the supernatural seems to be contrary to the concept. To be testable seems, to me, to mean the tested thing is natural.
So, to move forward, what do you mean by 'supernatural'? How would we test to see if some phenomenon is due to 'supernatural' influences?