Logic and the Paranormal

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is beyond reasonable doubt that phenomenon exists that cannot be explained by any known phenomenon accepted by science.

... why not offer three or four examples that are "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Ya, and each one good for a 100 post debate by the hard-core Skeptics. Been there, man.

So, each of these phenomena that are supernatural beyond a reasonable doubt had enough reasonable doubt to produce 100 post debates. Brilliant. :biglaugh:

 

[Koldo]

I was thinking how almost everyone I know can tell one or two or more stories from their life that are seemingly paranormal sounding. But it seems like at least half of the people on RF don’t believe in anything paranormal.

Events happen spontaneously and we can debate each event forever as to whether it involved the supernatural or not. But the position of the non-believer of the paranormal must be that ALL alleged seemingly paranormal events are non-supernatural. When there’s been untold thousands/millions reported and unreported stories in the course of the existence of the human species; the chance that all are false becomes astronomically slim when I consider the quality of so many I’ve heard (the proverbial drop in the ocean I’ve heard).

Logic tells me the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

Does this make sense or do you disagree?

Edit: For this discussion: Paranormal/Supernatural = things that do not fit into the materialist worldview.

Materialist (I don't know if the perfect word exists)= Those that think alleged paranormal events can ultimately be explained away by known phenomena.

Considering there are scientific discoveries still happening to this day, I think it is reasonable to say that some events will only be properly explained by science in the future. And some might not even be properly explained at all.

However, i don't think this is sufficient to accept supernatural explanations for any of these events. Something more would be necessary,

 

[George-ananda]

I tend to head towards the type that think that much of paranormal activities can be associated to hallucinations and the like.

For this discussion your use of the word 'much' (and not 'all') is significant.

 

[George-ananda]

Let me fix it up to you:

"It is, to me, beyond reasonable doubt that phenomenon exists that cannot be explained by any known phenomenon accepted by science."

Done.

Fine fix up.

But from your previous comment it sounds like you agree with me

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

For this discussion your use of the word 'much' (and not 'all') is significant.

I'm not one to speak in absolutes.

I'd rather say IDK, rather than generalize.

But like I said that much of them can be associated to hallucinating. The rest can possibly be due to natural occurrences tha twe are unaware of.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Logic tells me the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

For this discussion your use of the word 'much' (and not 'all') is significant.

You speak of logic but appeal to argument from ignorance. :clap

 

[vtunie]

Binary operations on platonic ideals are a strange foundation stone for so-called empirical truth, but there you have it: logicism and scientism!

Myth.

 

[Erebus]

I have a couple of problems with the OP, the first of which is what can we actually call supernatural? To say that unexplained = supernatural doesn't really cut it. How eels reproduce is largely unexplained (unless I'm seriously behind here, it's not something I read up on a great deal ) but you could hardly consider it supernatural.
Likewise saying the supernatural = something that doesn't fit into a materialist point of view doesn't really work. It relies on a lack of physical knowledge about a subject to apply and essentially this view of the supernatural eventually becomes the same as the previous one; supernatural = unexplained.
To me "supernatural" is a largely arbitrary word which describes things that follow a certain theme. Ghosts, werewolves, magic and so on are typically classed as supernatural. The thing is, you can have a fair crack at explaining them in a way that fits in neatly with a materialist view. All sorts of electrical malfunctions and weather conditions can create a haunted house. Lycanthropy may be exceedingly rare but it's not unheard of, the same goes for feral children. Finally blessings and curses can largely be explained as placebo/nocebo (granted there is some ambiguity in the two terms when applied to anthropology rather than medicine).

My other problem is the idea of non-believers simply discarding the supernatural. Some people certainly do, there are plenty of wikipedia scientists around who will believe something only if it sounds scientific. However it's not fair to lump people together like that. I've spoken with plenty of people who don't believe ghosts et al exist, but who will quite happily give their views on how they might appear to exist. I've already given some examples of mundane explanations for apparently supernatural phenomena and there are lots of people who feel that these explanations are more than adequate.
Now I myself don't quite agree with this view as to me it can quite easily become a comfort blanket. We know very little about our universe and easy explanations often strike me as presumptuous. However, that's not to say they don't have merit. If a haunted house can be explained as being the result of faulty wiring I'm quite happy to concede that there never were ghosts there to begin with. Sometimes the simplest answer really is the best one.

Now for my final quibble, any discussion of the supernatural will eventually become a game of semantics and contrasting worldviews. Placebo to one person is magic to another and so on. I kind of get what you're driving at with your OP, but I feel that you need to really try and get to grips with how different perspectives can clash. RF may have its fair share of Wikipedia Scientists and they are often a vocal group, but that doesn't mean they're the only people in the "non-believer" camp.

 

[George-ananda]

So, each of these phenomena that are supernatural beyond a reasonable doubt had enough reasonable doubt to produce 100 post debates. Brilliant. :biglaugh:

So you couldn't grasp my logic Mr. Sarcasm.

It was an argument from numbers not specific cases.

 

[idav]

Logic tells me the paranormal exists beyond reasonable doubt.

There is reasonable doubt that paranormal does not exist because every time we go searching for it we continue to find more materialistic explanations which I have no doubt will continue to be the case.

 

[George-ananda]

There is reasonable doubt that paranormal does not exist because every time we go searching for it we continue to find more materialistic explanations which I have no doubt will continue to be the case.

We might not be in disagreement if you're saying that science will come to accept new phenomena that will explain some of these cases.

I'm arguing against those who believe currently accepted phenomena can explain all these stories.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

We might not be in disagreement if you're saying that science will come to accept new phenomena that will explain some of these cases.

I'm arguing against those who believe currently accepted phenomena can explain all these stories.

For which you will provide no examples.

 

[idav]

We might not be in disagreement if you're saying that science will come to accept new phenomena that will explain some of these cases.

I'm arguing against those who believe currently accepted phenomena can explain all these stories.

I'm saying that the trend is that gaps will be filled with knowledge and that supernatural is just a place holder for what we will later explain naturally.

The knowledge we currently have can explain the phenomena without having to resort to gaps in knowledge and having gaps doesn't mean it can't be explained.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Barbara Forrest's article referenced above"

• Methodological naturalism does not disallow the logical possibility that the supernatural exists. To assert categorically that there is no dimension that transcends the natural order is to assert that human cognitive capabilities are sufficient to survey the whole of what there is; such a claim would amount to epistemological arrogance. But neither does methodological naturalism allow that logical possibility is sufficient warrant for the attribution of existence. At least the naturalist position is well established with respect to the kind of cognitive capabilities we do have. The supernaturalist, on the other hand, makes an assertion for which there is no epistemological justification when claiming that humans can know in any sense other than the natural one.

• Saying that the supernatural is a logical possibility, then, is not saying very much. It is logically possible that I can go to the window, jump out, and fly to the next building. But there are no conclusive reasons to believe that I can do this and many good reasons to believe that I cannot. An existential claim to which one wishes to commit epistemically must be more than a mere logical possibility. If one is concerned with the justification of belief in terms of truth and falsity rather than with pragmatic justification, such commitment must be accompanied by some positive evidence which points to the truth of supernatural belief. There must be empirical evidence for any claim with existential import, and any area of human thought, including religion, in which existential claims are made is subject to the criteria by which existential claims are tested. Consequently, claims about the supernatural are logically possible, but their status as existential possibilities remains problematic.

• For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." Since its inception, methodological naturalism has consistently chipped away at the plausibility of the existential claims made by supernaturalism by providing increasingly successful explanations of aspects of the world which religion has historically sought to explain, e.g., human origins. The threat faced by supernaturalism is not the threat of logical disproof, but the fact of having its explanations supplanted by scientific ones.

• The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation. And the expansion of scientific knowledge has been and remains an epistemological threat to any claims which have been fashioned independently (or in defiance) of such knowledge. We are confronted with an asymptotic decrease in the existential possibility of the supernatural to the point at which it is wholly negligible.

 

[Straw Dog]

Hey Jay!

Thanks for sharing that article. It has some really interesting insights.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm saying that the trend is that gaps will be filled with knowledge and that supernatural is just a place holder for what we will later explain naturally.

The knowledge we currently have can explain the phenomena without having to resort to gaps in knowledge and having gaps doesn't mean it can't be explained.

In the bigger picture here's what I believe.

There is ultimately no such thing as the paranormal or supernatural. It's just that science has an incomplete understanding of all that is natural.

Even things, like souls, astral planes may someday be part of science.

I just use the terms supernatural/paranormal in the OP to describe phenomena that can't be explained by anything currently accepted by mainstream science.

 

[George-ananda]

I have a couple of problems with the OP, the first of which is what can we actually call supernatural? To say that unexplained = supernatural doesn't really cut it. How eels reproduce is largely unexplained (unless I'm seriously behind here, it's not something I read up on a great deal ) but you could hardly consider it supernatural.
Likewise saying the supernatural = something that doesn't fit into a materialist point of view doesn't really work. It relies on a lack of physical knowledge about a subject to apply and essentially this view of the supernatural eventually becomes the same as the previous one; supernatural = unexplained.
To me "supernatural" is a largely arbitrary word which describes things that follow a certain theme. Ghosts, werewolves, magic and so on are typically classed as supernatural. The thing is, you can have a fair crack at explaining them in a way that fits in neatly with a materialist view. All sorts of electrical malfunctions and weather conditions can create a haunted house. Lycanthropy may be exceedingly rare but it's not unheard of, the same goes for feral children. Finally blessings and curses can largely be explained as placebo/nocebo (granted there is some ambiguity in the two terms when applied to anthropology rather than medicine).

My other problem is the idea of non-believers simply discarding the supernatural. Some people certainly do, there are plenty of wikipedia scientists around who will believe something only if it sounds scientific. However it's not fair to lump people together like that. I've spoken with plenty of people who don't believe ghosts et al exist, but who will quite happily give their views on how they might appear to exist. I've already given some examples of mundane explanations for apparently supernatural phenomena and there are lots of people who feel that these explanations are more than adequate.
Now I myself don't quite agree with this view as to me it can quite easily become a comfort blanket. We know very little about our universe and easy explanations often strike me as presumptuous. However, that's not to say they don't have merit. If a haunted house can be explained as being the result of faulty wiring I'm quite happy to concede that there never were ghosts there to begin with. Sometimes the simplest answer really is the best one.

Now for my final quibble, any discussion of the supernatural will eventually become a game of semantics and contrasting worldviews. Placebo to one person is magic to another and so on. I kind of get what you're driving at with your OP, but I feel that you need to really try and get to grips with how different perspectives can clash. RF may have its fair share of Wikipedia Scientists and they are often a vocal group, but that doesn't mean they're the only people in the "non-believer" camp.

Thanks for responding. Good points. The reproductive habits of eels is certainly not the type of thing I was trying to discuss of course. This OP hasn’t come out as I expected because of a problem with words, words, words. English lacks the right word for me in some cases plus the words that are out there have different meanings, nuances and intents for different people. On the other hand I heard if you don’t keep the OP short and interesting no one will read it.

But I’d still be interested to know if you agree/disagree with what I was TRYING to convey. If you don’t grasp what I was trying to say then tell me that.

What I was trying to say was: With the untold millions of stories (some I’ve heard are of high believable quality to me) the chance that all are not paranormal (ghosts, spirit communication, deceased loved ones communication, OBEs, NDEs, poltergeists, and 20 other things) that, if all the facts could be known, all would have an explanation in phenomenon currently accepted by mainstream science is very slim.

Do you get what I want to say?

 

[Philomath]

I'm a believer(I'm assuming believer in God) but I do not believe in the Paranormal.

 

[George-ananda]

I'm a believer(I'm assuming believer in God) but I do not believe in the Paranormal.

Do you believe in an afterlife? (I doubt it then)

Why does your belief in God matter?

 

[idav]

I just use the terms supernatural/paranormal in the OP to describe phenomena that can't be explained by anything currently accepted by mainstream science.

Metaphysical might be a better term.

There are phenomenon that can be explained by mainstream science the problem I find is that people don't want it explained by science. Lets take white noise for example where people record static to try and pick up paranormal vibes, there are probably at least a dozen explanations that can explain the white noise phenomenon without delving into the paranormal. The explanations can also be accepted by science except people want it to be their dead relative speaking rather than other scientifically accepted explanations.