Supernatural things, by definition, do not follow natural laws. Science deals with things that follow natural laws. It’s a fundamental assumption of science. To put it bluntly, supernatural = magic. If you know of some way to deal, scientifically, with magic, you should publish it!
That’s just a semantical game.
People make claim that these things affect the world. Ghosts make spooky noises. Dead relatives talk to mediums. Magical healing therapies cure disease. Prayer works.
You appear to be saying that science cannot test these things, because they’re not natural. But science can most certainly test those things. We can test of this things actually exist without understand what the mechanism is behind them.
None of these things have actually showed themselves to exist under test conditions, and very likely do not exist. But if they did - if ghosts were running around knocking over people’s silverware and everyone who stuck a magical healing crystal up their ass had an immediate remission of cancer, those are things we could observe as being real. Science can test anything that claims to have an effect on the real world by actually observing and testing that effect. And the vast majority of woo claims to interact with the world because, well, what’s the use in useless woo?
What, really? That’s kind of nifty! It’s scientific, in a limited single-blind kind of fashion. I admire those hospitals that are taking the effort to conduct this sort of experiment.
I’d love it if there were some positive results! (I’ve never accepted the claim that skeptics want magic or psi to be false. It would be the greatest thing ever if a whole new field of science opened up!)
Alas, I’m betting that nothing conclusive ever is discovered this way. If psi were that powerful, it would (probably) have evolved to be a formal human sense.
Are some individuals knee-jerk dismissive, yes. Are there any topics where the overall community is being too skeptical … I haven’t seen any good examples. Ancient aliens is on par with Egyptian gods being actual gods when it comes to available evidence. And for all of the examples in this thread, Ancient Aliens, Ghosts, NDEs there is a wealth of alternative hypotheses backed by an increasing amount of solid evidence, while the counter evidence hasn’t increased in volume or strength.
Even if that was true, they still have to interact with natural laws. A person who claims to be capable of dousing for water is making a claim that there is a causal relationship between water flowing underground and their brain receiving a signal that can be read as “there is water flowing underground here.” Before you can make any comment about what the mechanism is for that interaction, you first need to determine it exists, and that is something science can test.
This is at the heart of it all.
Those that are making the positive claim have to actually show that there is something there to make a claim about. otherwise there is no point in any further discussion.
Can those making a claim of a supernatural nature actually point to something that requires an explanation? If they can then we can move on to coming up with a hypothosis and design experiments to better understand what is going on.
Does the claim say suggest there is an effect in the material world? yes or no.
If yes it is amenable to the scientific method so polish up your protocol and let’s experiment.
If no, it doesn’t exist in any meaningful way so come back when you’ve got something to show me. Of course if you merely want to keep it as a personal pet theory akin to your belief in your “lucky underpants” then you are more than free to do so.
All this applies equally to all areas of the supernatural, religion very much included.
And again I ask: Show us something specific that was rejected by a group of skeptics out-of-hand, an example where they turned away without even bothering to view the evidence.
“They do this” without naming who “they” are, or “I (or someone else) once said something”…" without telling us what that specific something was-how the hell can we examine stories like these?
The thing about Ancient Astronaut and Lost World (e.g. Hancock) theories isn’t that there’s some neutral evidence and interpretation of the same can go either way, it’s that the theorists actively lie and distort evidence or present it fraudulently.
Doesn’t hurt that there’s also often a fundamental racism at the heart of the whole movement. “Oh, no, these brown people could never figure out how to move these big rocks”-type thinking.
Skepticism doesn’t mean rejecting things out of hand. Some people seem to think it does, but I think that’s a misuse of the term.
Skepticism isn’t about being sure that certain things are not real. It’s about doubting (e.g. that certain things are real).
A skeptic is someone who says, “I’m not going to believe in that until you give me a good reason to.”
Do you have any examples of ghost phenomenon stories that you think should be further studied? I would love to hear of any examples. Like others in this thread, I would love it if a ghost story was proved to be real, it would change the world in huge ways.
But for every ghost story I’ve heard, there always seems to be a simpler explanation than ghosts are real. People can mishear things or have actual audio hallucinations (which are more common than visual hallucinations), or see faces in various patterns because of pareidolia, or have dreams in the half-awake/half-asleep state which makes the dream seem real, or any number of other explanations.
Skeptics can’t get too skeptical. What they can get is cynical. That’s when it goes off the rails.
Skeptic, on hearing a claim: “Who says that? Who are they, what are their qualifications? What is their evidence?”
Cynic, on hearing a claim: “OK, I know that’s BS.”
[sub]this simplistic summarization brought to you courtesy of QtM’s simplistic summarization generator[/sub]
Are you a skeptic, or a cynic, when the same person or group of people keeps making claim after claim after claim, and responds to your questions with yet another claim, and after a while you just auto-respond with “OK, I’m just going to assume this is, as usual, BS.”?
Credulity is not a virtue.
And you do not have an “open-mind” just because you want to keep looking(and insist that others keep looking) until you get the answer you want.
Five Thirty Eight had an article on a book somebody wrote detailing that debunkers and skeptics often develop their own weird meta-apocrypha or “supermyths”, bunk explanations for why something is bunk. The principle example used in the article is the idea that spinach was thought to be some superfood because of a misplaced decimal point in the iron measurement in an old scientific paper, an event which never actually happened. Spinach was thought to be much healthier than it actually is, but nobody ever misplaced any decimal point in any paper.
I used to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer. As I recall, they would test just about ANYTHING. One I recall was whether you could sense that someone is looking at you. And - of course - Randi.
Extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence and all that. Sure there is a limited historic record. All kinds of things are POSSIBLE. But without sufficient proof, claims, theories, and hypotheses are just that.
Well there was that one time I talked on the board about the dream I had of eating a sandwich. The board asked that I submit tangible evidence that I could dream of such a thing, but I couldn’t. They convinced me I must have been mistaken.
The US Patent office summarily rejects any claims that include perpetual motion, for well established reasons. They effectively say “I know that’s BS” because it’s the right thing to do. Does that make the US Patent Office cynical or practical?
You don’t have to start from scratch in that case; you have prior information about the reliability of your source. If you can’t confirm that the person has better information this time than all previous times, it’s okay to dismiss them at that point.