A commentator recently made this observation:
When someone proclaims truth of the supernatural through philosophy and logic, I think of the people who follow their GPS into the lake.
Now I'm not making a judgment for or against supernatural claims in this - I'm just trying to understand (a) the assumptions in this observation; and (b) how we reason about such claims.
Truth by authority - this is true because a judge, a scientific authority, a person at the top of an organisation, or a well-recognised book/publication said it was true - and I don't need to question it further.
Truth by reasoning (rationalism) - this is true because someone has given me a bunch of reasons, and I have weighed it in my head, and I can't come up with a competing set of reasons that knocks it down - so it is valid in my head.
Truth by experiment (Empiricism) - this is true because I saw it or felt it. Further more I could repeat it, and if you repeat it, you will see the truth of it as well.
Truth by message (testimonial evidence) - I heard this message from a person I trust, and I hold their observations of reality as true. You can choose to listen to their message as well.
Now applying this to the original comment - it seems that most observations of the supernatural come from the 4th category - truth my message (sometimes called Revelation).
The original comment seems to be saying that philosophy and logic lie in the first three spaces, Truth by authority, Truth by reasoning (rationalism) and Truth by experiment (Empiricism).
To me that seems limited. I think you can still reason about all four types of truth claims - but I'm open to the idea that philosophy may have particular boundaries. I understand the original poster was trying to say that supernatural claims are inherently outside the bounds of experimental truth.
My question is: Are philosophical claims grounded in the observations of the material world around us? (With regard to supernatural claims)