Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

What does the word supernatural mean to you?

Page 3 of 5 [ 78 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

07 Sep 2010, 6:43 pm

Sand wrote:
But where beyond? Above, below or to one side?

See above (pun intended :P)

(I edited my post, but WP is slow)


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Sep 2010, 7:26 pm

greenblue wrote:
Sand wrote:
But where beyond? Above, below or to one side?

See above (pun intended :P)

(I edited my post, but WP is slow)


Aah, but "above" is a very tricky word. Could be directional, psychological or whatever.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

07 Sep 2010, 8:43 pm

Supernatural phenomena are phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of nature (known or unknown).



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

07 Sep 2010, 9:10 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
Supernatural phenomena are phenomena that cannot be explained by the laws of nature (known or unknown).


But the word itself has implications of superiority. In science there are still many major mysteries where no one has discovered the key to involving them with natural laws but no one who is rational assumes they are ultimately beyond understanding. Superstition (again that word "super") tries to invade observed phenomena and claim the yet to be understood is beyond understanding.Language makes fools of us all.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Sep 2010, 1:36 am

Sand wrote:
Language makes fools of us all.


It's not language which makes fools of anyone, it's unwillingness to comprehend that which others say. If you actually desired to listen and analyze the spoken or written words of anyone, regardless of the language they use, you'd be surprised how much you actually would be able to understand with barely even feeling like you're trying. But as long as you act as a snob towards the words of others, they might as well be telepathic for all that you'd be able to draw from it. Start trying to listen, it will be amazing how far you can go when you make an honest effort to understand what others are intending to say rather than arguing with them that your own misunderstanding is their intended meaning.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Sep 2010, 2:14 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Language makes fools of us all.


It's not language which makes fools of anyone, it's unwillingness to comprehend that which others say. If you actually desired to listen and analyze the spoken or written words of anyone, regardless of the language they use, you'd be surprised how much you actually would be able to understand with barely even feeling like you're trying. But as long as you act as a snob towards the words of others, they might as well be telepathic for all that you'd be able to draw from it. Start trying to listen, it will be amazing how far you can go when you make an honest effort to understand what others are intending to say rather than arguing with them that your own misunderstanding is their intended meaning.


Intentions are not always made clear by vague linguistics.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Sep 2010, 2:21 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
Language makes fools of us all.


It's not language which makes fools of anyone, it's unwillingness to comprehend that which others say. If you actually desired to listen and analyze the spoken or written words of anyone, regardless of the language they use, you'd be surprised how much you actually would be able to understand with barely even feeling like you're trying. But as long as you act as a snob towards the words of others, they might as well be telepathic for all that you'd be able to draw from it. Start trying to listen, it will be amazing how far you can go when you make an honest effort to understand what others are intending to say rather than arguing with them that your own misunderstanding is their intended meaning.


Intentions are not always made clear by vague linguistics.


When the utilization of language is vague, then contextual clues are necessary. However, your method of latching on to a singular keyword or phrase and dragging it to death seems to work well enough for your own self pleasure and I doubt it will end anytime soon.



MrLoony
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298
Location: Nevada (not Vegas)

08 Sep 2010, 2:51 am

What I consider supernatural is that which the general science community (and those at large) have dismissed as not within the realm of physics.

The vast majority of people consider the parting of the Red Sea and the ten plagues to be impossible events without the hand of God directing them (and so impossible for many people), but in truth there are scientific explanations for them.

The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.

There is growing interest in things that have previously been deemed "supernatural" amongst the scientific community (such as remote viewing, historical miracles, etc). As such, I believe that the scientific community will soon come up with explanations for many of those that do not exist, and disprove (obviously not conclusively) many of those that do not.


_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Sep 2010, 3:25 am

MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.


Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Sep 2010, 6:00 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.


Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.


Tradition



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

08 Sep 2010, 10:03 am

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.


Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.


Tradition


Both tradition and convention. Either directional convention will work.

ruveyn



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

08 Sep 2010, 12:43 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.


Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.

You mean that if science is unable to answer a given phenomena, is it reasonable to appeal to the supernatural? You mean that the god of the gaps is justifiable?

If science cannot explain something (currently), it may do so in the future (more advanced resources, more data, corrections), that has happened before, and supernatural explanations are discredited when that happens, so MrLoony is correct, he isn't loony :P


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Sep 2010, 4:14 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.


Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.


Tradition


Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Sep 2010, 6:49 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.


Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.


Tradition


Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?


To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

08 Sep 2010, 7:04 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.


Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.


Tradition


Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?


To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.


It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

08 Sep 2010, 7:50 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
MrLoony wrote:
The thing about science is that it can explain everything. However, it takes scientists with motivation to explain it for science to be able to do that sort of thing.


Okay, since science can explain everything, unqualified, then how about a 'scientific' explanation as to why the arbitrary conventional current is opposite of electron current and who the arbiter of such a decision was.


Tradition


Tradition is not a person who decided, arbitrarily, which direction conventional current "travels". Ruvyen is right, it works either way (as long as one is consistent when drafting). It may be that "tradition" is the reason why the convention is opposite of reality (the direction of electron flow), however, "tradition" would not have started without some form of origin. As such, is it possible, by the laws of science and/or the scientific method alone, to determine and prove who the originator of conventional current was?


To discover a specific person responsible for a tradition is not a matter for logic or reason. It merely requires historical research and the necessary facts may or may not be available.


It is certainly much easier to perform historical research, however, is it possible or not to determine the identity of the originator of 'conventional current' by the scientific method alone?


To even ask such a question reveals a complete misunderstanding of scientific method.