Talk:Supernatural/Archive 6

Arguments in favor of supernaturality
There are currently eight "arguments against supernaturality" and four counter-arguments ("arguments in favour of supernaturality"), yet two of the latter include counter-counter-arguments! This is hardly fair, so I have removed the counter-counter arguments.

In the last "argument in favor" I have corrected some of the information and removed redundancy. Philip J. Rayment 14:20, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * We usually don't remove text from an article to create balance. The Wikipedia way is generally to add text to maintain balance. Otherwise our articles are trimmed, and then trimmed again, and then trimmed again....  In this case we find many arguments against supernaturalism, but few for it.  I would think the proper response would be too add more arguments for belief in the supernatural, if any more arguments actually exist. RK 00:29, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

ghosts are true cause i saw a ghost doing a ghost poo
 * Thank you for that observation, but Wikipedia has a firm policy against original research, so I doubt we can add that to the article. JRM · Talk 10:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice.

Seeking expert eyes on Natasha Demkina
Hi all. I'd like to ask you, as people familiar with topics on or related to paranormal activity, to review the work at Natasha Demkina, "the girl with X-ray eyes", which has been undergoing a tug-of-war between a primary source and one of his critics. I've tried to bring it to at least NPOV but apparently I muddled the technicalities and there are still sourcing needs.

Would appreciate your comments -- the article is currently under protection but I think it can be taken out shortly.

TIA, - Keith D. Tyler &para; 21:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Rename
Do any of you perhaps think that this article might be renamed 'The supernatural'? The reason I say this is that when you say, 'Supernatural,' you generally mean the adjective. The noun form is almost always (I believe) indicated by adding a definite article in front, thus, 'The supernatural'. It seems to make more sense to me. Thanks for considering, Vlmastra 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

????
I can't make heads or tails of the last paragraph under "Arguments against"; It seems to be saying that if you hold one supernatural belief, but don't believe all of them, then that somehow proves them all automatically false. WhaHuh?? What kind of twisted pseudologic is that? I'd have an easier time believing in the supernatural than in that conclusion. To whoever wrote that mess, as a rational skeptic, I beg of you: please don't be on our side. That was painful to read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noclevername (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


 * It's gotten bigger and wordier, but no clearer. Noclevername 04:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that but it was intended to show that most supernaturalists hold their supernatural beliefs dishonestly. It makes no attempt nor does it claim to "prove" that supernaturalism is not the "Truth". As such it is an argument against supernaturalism at least for those that try to be honest. For others that do not endeavor to be honest in their "beliefs" if not their thinking I can see where it might be very confusing. Gkochanowsky 16:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No offense, but that paragraph is a disaster. And I don't mean structurally, I mean the basic premise.  I agree with the first comment.  "Arguments against the supernatural" should be a listing of presumed supernatural phenomena that have been proven natural by science.  The last paragraph as it stands is essentially a faith based argument with no basis in empirical evidence.  Two unproveable, unobservable states can both easily be equally valid within the framework of reality.  We don't have perception after death, therefore we can't (as rational thinkers) make absolute statements about what is or is not possible following the termination of life.  Oblivion, noncorporeal existance, reincarnation? None are proveable or disproveable and neither is setting up arbitrary rules like "all or nothing must be true".  To go one step farther, perhaps what happens following death is determined by the will of the individual.  Perhaps human consciousness exists on some quantum level and, following the termination of physical function, that quantum signature is either imprinted on a new physical incarnation or drawn off to some alternate reality depending on which way it gravitates naturally.  Crazy? Maybe.  But you can't disprove that, it's somewhat based on theoretical physics, and it would allow for the possibility of both an afterlife and reincarnation.  Please just kill that last paragraph.

Religion as a science???
Did you all ever stop to wonder whether or not religion is a science. A record keep of supernatural events that can't be catagorized into the mainstream deffinition of science. Repetative events. For example the buhdist belive that through medition and pondering a state of higher egsitance can be obtained, science has proven that "finding yourself", the modern term, leads to more fullfilling life and heallthier lives at that. scientifically when poeple get struck by lightning weird things happen to their brain and bodies, some good and some not so good. maybe the buhdist route might take a little longer but it is probbible safer. Similair teachers are within both christs "life everlasting" teaching and in the hindu realms as well. Babalonyan scholars thought the Hebrew bible was an amazing conglomeration of sociology in both personal and cultural context. But thats how they get you huh. After you start to explore the Realities of the religions that have survived and quite a few don't. you start to understand how and why religion is there in the first place. To understand that which in not understood. I belive in god for what its worth.


 * Frankly, I don't think that believing without evidence adequate to the claim is worth anything. A religion fails to qualify as science when it requires or even merely hints to anybody that they shouold accept something with no future possibility of questioning.
 * No, I never stopped to wonder if religions were science, because it seemed very obvious to me that they're not. Scientists are required to account for both evidence at the time of their writing, plus all evidence that comes along later.  Countless religions once claimed that a deity hurled lightning bolts.  When the theory of electricity and clouds came along, those who maintained "belief" in Thor, Zeus, and Wotan  were obstacles to accuracy.  In the mere 200(?) years science has been around (science didn't exist prior to the 1600's) the ancient religions have been challenged and have lost, over and over again.  Racism, slavery, arranged marriage, and monarchy were all supported by unprovable religious views.  Racism, slavery, arranged marriage, and monarchy did not fall until people demanded better answers.


 * (There are times when I wish science was, itself, a religion, with a deity. I'm really grateful to it for the abolition of racism, slavery, arranged marriage, and monarchy.  The profound emotions of my gratitude and my respect will probably just have to go to waste.  Drats.)


 * The more neurologists figure out how thinking and memory and emotions actually work, the more the 'spirit' believers have to look elsewhere for worthy evidence-- Science demands there has to be more than "I just can't believe it happens because of a brain and hormones like oxytocin." Should we not research how the conscious functions because we should be happy with the common religious explanation that we all have a "soul"?


 * A religion fails to qualify as science when it fails to subject itself to peer review. A religion fails to qualify as science if it fails to require that published information cite a pedigree to permit independent checking of its accuracy.  A religion fails to qualify as science  when it fails to write why its leading competitors could "get things so wrong".  The list of differences goes on and on.  Science has rules called the scientific method.


 * Okay, maybe some religions began as honest attempts to explain things way-back-when. But, science is alot more than merely "trying to explain things".  It also includes, being willing to let concepts go, not ordering people to "believe", as many religions do.  Science says, "Belief has to be rightfully earned-- and keep on being earned-- in the face of new information."  "Belief", for a scientifically-minded person, means commitment to an idea-- but only so long as the idea is supportable.  Scientists have to be faithless, abandoning theories when there are better ones.  I prefer not to use the word "faithless" here.  I'd rather remain "faith-free".  Faith is adherence to an idea in spite of evidence against it.  (If there was evidence, it wouldn't be "faith", it'd be "a conclusion.")

(--ThinkFest)


 * To answer what I think is your question, religion and science are generally considered to operate in different realms, with different methodologies. Religion operates through introspection, received teaching and appeal to ancient texts.  Religious teaching is usually established by a hierarchy, promulgated from authorities to ordinary people, and rarely changes, regardless of human progress. That's why it's called religious "dogma". Science operates though observation of natural phenomena, and attempts to explain and predict by developing principles or "laws" that encompass the observations and provide a basis for understanding them.  While science has its hierarchies and cherished principles, these are all ultimately subject to new findings, deeper understanding and new principles that encompass and extend the old.   Religion does not do this.  This is not to say that psychological or social insights cannot be gained from religious practice, but as a method for finding truth about the natural world, religion doesn't even come close to science.  Talkingtomypocket 23:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * While understanding that religion and science are different ways of approaching the world, you seem to be interested in similarities among world religions. I can recommend two of the classic texts in the field, both available on Amazon.
 * The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley
 * The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James
 * You can look at the Wikipedia articles on Huxley and James to get a feeling for these guys. These were some cool old dudes. Talkingtomypocket 23:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced
Added an "Unreferenced" tag to the whole article 11 April 2007. This is an important article with a lot of forward statements that need to be supported with references. Later on I may add more specific citation needed tags. Cheers. Schmitty120 13:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Removed tag today. Schmitty120 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added NPOV tags to the sections "Competing Explanations and Criteria of Preference" and "Alleged instances of supernaturalization," because they were written with a naturalist POV. The former section makes supernaturalists look like idiots for choosing comfortable but irrational explanations for phenomena. It's watered down with some weaselly "mays" and "some peoples," but this just makes it more boring to read without removing the POV. At the very least some sources are needed for the claim that pervades this article, that the science cannot work with the supernatural. The naturalistic POV at the end of the latter section is, I think, fairly obvious and again, cries out for attribution or deletion. Cheers. Schmitty120 22:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards your comments on "Competing Explanations and Criteria of Preference" are you ignoring that both points of view are presented? Certainly the term supernatural begs the term natural. Those could and often do represent opposing points of view, but as is pointed out in that section there are many that embrace both depending of course on thier criteria of preference. Exactly what bias are you talking about? Gkochanowsky 01:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"Many claimed supernatural phenomena vanish when they are examined closely."
Usually the phenomenon doesn’t vanish. The grill cheese sandwich with what looks like a likeness of Jesus is still there. It is usually the case that the explanation of the phenomena in terms of a specific version of the supernatural is found to be inadequate or inferior in predictive power to other explanations. This article as well as many others in Wikipedia suffers from a lack of distinction between the phenomena and a specific explanation. Gkochanowsky (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! WP needs to be more objective in its NPOV.  Supernatural is more of a lack of explanation than an explanation. Mike0001 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why argue?
Supernatural things can't be explained. Why argue?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.41.119 (talk) 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Why argue? Because many things once called "supernatural" have turned out to be very explainable and part of a coherent world, and therefore "natural".  Ball lightning comes to mind as an example. ("Despite over 10,000 sightings of the phenomenon, ball lightning has often been regarded as nothing more than a myth, fantasy, or hoax...")
 * There are always "things that aren't explained yet". But the term "supernatural" shouldn't be used to cover all of them.  Nanobes are not yet explained, but to say they're "supernatural" implies they will never be explained, and that's counterproductive.  It would be more accurate to say these things are "The Unexplained". --signed, ThinkFest


 * Some folk's laziness and low IQs regarding their not knowing nor not caring what their talking about can be explained.  Andrew Homer 07:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't insult that poster. Pity him if you must, but in a civil way. (they're, not their) Noclevername 23:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are re correcting the above sentence when it doesnt need to be corrected, the sentence with `their` is right, as it refers to the person, the verb that you are trying to correct is wrong as it doesnt refer to `their`, what you are trying to correct is `they`re`, short for `they are`. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndod (talk • contribs) 23:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And your point is...? If it is unexplained, then they are right in asserting a mystery. mike4ty4 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The clash we're seeing in this discussion is not just between "the people who don't want to believe" vs. "the people who want to believe". It's also between "people with very lax standards of evidence and reasoning," and "people with stricter and more sophisticated standards."  It's not fair to assume all such people are "lazy" or "stupid".
 * Consider that there are still places on earth where teaching rationalism will earn you, not just ostracism from your community, but a death sentence.
 * Obviously, nobody wants to be told that they're lacking the tools of reasoning, but it's true; reasoning is not a deity-granted innate ability.  It's a skill, just like plumbing and doing gymnastics.  It's a set of tools that needs to be taught. Some people can stand on one leg; some people can do cartwheels; some people do Olympic parallel bar routines.  It's the same with reasoning.
 * One of those "tools" is the idea, "Demand evidence of causality." By and large, "supernatural" concepts are still with us because they're upheld without (for instance) the standard of "causality" as well as "correlation".  For example, some people will accept that "God's anger with gay people" was the cause of the flooding of New Orleans.  Yes, there is a correlation-- 'there are homosexuals in New Orleans'-- but no evidence of a causal link.  All there is, is a coincidence, and somebody loudly declaring something unpopular in their community to be the  'cause'.  This makes no more sense than attributing the great San Francisco earthquake to gambling parlors.
 * Principles of rational thought such as "the demand for evidence of causality" deserve to be disseminated. Sometimes the word 'argument' doesn't mean fruitless mutual yelling.  With a little rationalist  training, it can mean 'presenting the most credible explanation you know for why you prefer a particular conclusion.' --signed, ThinkFest

Restored NPOV
I noticed a bias in the Arguments For and Against sections and have removed it. Mike0001 (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think thats a good ideaTutonite (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy Section
Why does this article start with the Controversy, before anyone has a chance to understand what supernatural even is?

Secondly, I had to quit reading because there was more in the article about Materialism, than there was about Supernatural. Hegelian Dialectic does not inform, but clouds the actual topic.

Third, since the article has be usurped and is about Materialism (nominally, marginally, about Supernatural) then we need to examine Materialism's follies. Materialism is a subjective view of the universe, starting with bias, and ending with the same bias ("I think only the physical universe exists"). Hence Materialism belies itself. I could go on. Can we make this article about Supernatural, please? 99.161.154.162 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to improve section 1, paragraph 2, the part after the quotes. Please examine my edits. I have also eliminated references to Superman and Wolverine as these are purely fictional, not supernatural. Talkingtomypocket 00:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)