Timeline for If the supernatural were real, would we be able to study it scientifically?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
25 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16 at 8:09 | comment | added | Simon Crase | @Conifold The things that you call "platitudes" are the very things that distinguish Cargo Cult Science from the real things. You may have been misled by the fact that much of a freshman science course is technique, which does differ greatly. For example, in Chemistry 1 I learned how to to be a whizz with a pipette and burette, which weren't relevant to my other courses. | |
| Jun 16 at 2:33 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 16 at 0:21 | comment | added | Simon Crase | @ScottRowe Start here, perhaps? | |
| Jun 16 at 0:00 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | @SimonCrase we just need to determine those predictions of the things currently considered supernatural. From those, Seek and ye shall find. | |
| Jun 15 at 23:31 | comment | added | Simon Crase | @ScottRowe "Radio waves are pretty supernatural". In what way are they supernatural? Maxwell's equations (a reasonable extrapolation from what was known experimentally) predicted electromagnetic waves. Heinrich Hertz didn't stumble across a weird "supernatural" phenomenon; he discovered electromagnetic waves because Maxwell's equations said that they'd be there. | |
| Jun 15 at 22:20 | comment | added | Simon Crase | Science depends on the assumption that gods don't intervene: you can have no God, or a hands-off God (set Universe up, switch it on, then don't touch). Science doesn't work if with one God who intervenes when he feels like it, nor, I expect, with a bunch of Olympians messing with stuff. IMHO it would help if the OP clarified what he means by the supernatural being real, especially: who is in charge? | |
| Jun 15 at 21:36 | comment | added | Simon Crase | As di bubbe volt gehat beytsim volt zi gevain mayn zaidah-- "If my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather." And if the supernatural were real, it would be--natural. | |
| Jun 15 at 21:23 | answer | added | Mark Andrews | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 15 at 17:39 | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 15 at 16:01 | answer | added | tkruse | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 15 at 13:49 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 28 at 3:06 | |||||
| Jun 15 at 13:41 | history | edited | user66156 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 64 characters in body
|
| Jun 15 at 13:33 | comment | added | JonathanZ | Well, I haven't done any scientific research on it, but I have a belief, that I consider justified, that this is a question intended to push a personal agenda, and I'm also pretty sure that it didn't come to me from any supernatural realm. | |
| Jun 15 at 13:25 | answer | added | user23013 | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 15 at 13:24 | comment | added | Nikos M. | It all boils down to what "supernatural" and "real" (and their intersection) mean.. As Conifold pointed out, "science" can be quite broad and adaptable to subject matter under study. In what sense, for example, something "real" and "supernatural" is not also broadly "natural"? | |
| Jun 15 at 13:17 | history | edited | user66156 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed grammar
|
| Jun 15 at 9:45 | history | became hot network question | |||
| Jun 15 at 7:15 | comment | added | Conifold | If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Scientific method is different for physics, biology, psychology, it is adapted to each subject to meet its needs. The only common core are vague platitudes: be thorough, test your claims, observe and do not make things up, reason soundly, check biases, etc. If we study something we would want to do those things, whether we call it "scientific" or not. But what substance is there to saying it about we know not what? | |
| Jun 15 at 6:51 | answer | added | g s | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jun 15 at 6:40 | answer | added | Alistair Riddoch | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jun 15 at 5:10 | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 15 at 4:19 | answer | added | Miss Understands | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jun 15 at 3:59 | comment | added | Scott Rowe | Radio waves are pretty supernatural. A handheld device lets you communicate with no exchange of anything material or that you can sense at all. Show me something more astounding than that? Gravity waves. Ok. You got me there... Neutrinos causing supernova explosions, which are how we end up with the iron that makes our blood work. Boy, so many super (beyond) natural things exist! Why chase ghosts when real accessible miracles are everywhere? Study them. Be curious. | |
| Jun 15 at 2:03 | comment | added | How why e | For one we might actually be studying the supernatural every time we do Science, it just depends on your definition of the natural and supernatural really. Say people who meet ghosts of past ancestors might consider this natural and not meeting them or their disappearance as unnatural, just like how scientists consider working with probabilistic models of quantum mechanics i.e., phenomenon like entanglement, superposition and tunnelling might be considered actually supernatural by some who don't know these things about nature. | |
| Jun 15 at 1:42 | history | asked | user66156 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |