Much of the criticism about supernatural claims is warranted. However, this
article (http://members.aol.com/SHinrichs9/spntid.htm) has explained how
supernatural claims can be substantiated in a valid way. This section
attempts to respond to criticism of the valid approach not the invalid
approaches.
Determining all possible natural hypothesis nonetheless ruling them all out
is a big challenge and it is questionable if it has ever been accomplished.
However, before assuming it has never been accomplished, first one should
consider that there are certain types of phenomenon which have a finite limit
of possible explanations. If characteristics of the physical phenomenon being
evaluated can be related to logical concepts, then the logical evaluation of
these concepts could determine all the possible hypothesis as shown by
hypothetical examples in Section 2.5.1. Section 2.5.1 explains that discrete
phenomenon can have a finite number of explanation and even when there is an
infinite amount of possibilities it is still possible in some cases for a
finite effort to deal with all the possibilities. Section 2.5.2 explains for
continuous phenomenon supernatural intervention could be implied when the
phenomenon are outside of the reasonable range of some well-proven natural
governing principle. Also, section 2.5.3 explains that a finite number of
categories of hypothesis may be identified which could allow for a general
conclusion to be made without determining the specific correct hypothesis. If
the phenomenon is inherently essentially completely indeterministic then
according to Section 2.5.4 there can be justification for general eliminating
deterministic natural explanations.
Critics claim that one can never rule out all the possible explanation
because there may always be some unknown explanation. Thus, critics claim
arguments for the supernatural or intelligent design always have a fatal
weakness due to lack of knowledge of some actual plausible all-natural
explanation. In most cases, the scientist cannot evaluate all the possible
hypothesis, so there certainly are many cases where supernatural or
intelligent design are arguments from ignorance. However, section 2.5 has
explained how there can be cases where all possible hypothesis can be
evaluated and section 2.5.1 gives actual hypothetical examples. Thus,
arguments for the supernatural or intelligent design could consider all
possible hypothesis; thus, are not necessarily arguments from ignorance. In
fact no human has such complete knowledge to substantiate that there can be
no claim where all possible explanation cannot be evaluated. Thus, valid
criticism would be specific about identify cases where all possible
explanation cannot be evaluated. To claim in general that it is impossible
for any supernatural or intelligent design claim to not be an argument from
ignorance, is just another argument from ignorance.
Another complaint made about the approach of those making supernatural claims
is that their approach does not make any predictions; thus; is not
falsifiable or testable. The most fundamental use of the PE approach does
make any assumption aside from the presupposition that there is a correct
theory for explaining the reality being investigated and that reality follows
the law of no contradiction. If these presuppositions, proven natural
principals and a set of observation imply through the correct application of
appropriate rational criterion that the supernatural intervened, then the
supernatural has been substantiated without any specific predictions. Thus,
specific predictions about the supernatural may not be necessary to infer
supernatural intervention. Also, as mentioned in Section 2.6, assumptions
about the supernatural can be made from which specific falsifiable
predictions could be developed. The approach proposed in this article is
falsifiable. According to the approach proposed in this article by just
showing there is just one plausible possible natural hypothesis a specific
claim that there is proof for supernatural intervention is falsified.
The approach proposed in the article is not erroneous, but correct because it
is based upon PE in the same straight forward way that science attempts to
use PE. Thus, if PE does not have the potential to imply supernatural
intervention as proposed in this article, then PE does not apply in general
which would means there is no logical basis for determining something true
scientifically.
Some critics claim since supernatural intervention is not humanly repeatable,
it cannot be evaluated scientifically. Ability to repeat is very helpful
because it allows for more testing of the theory, however, just because some
phenomenon cannot be repeated does not mean it is impossible to
scientifically verify a theory about the phenomenon. Scientific analysis is
often applied to unrepeatable historical events such as in astronomy,
archaeology, forensic science, etc... For example, the big bang occurred once
within the life of our universe; however, there is plenty of scientific
reasoning that indicates it is true by evaluating it's after effects. The
after effects of the supernatural could also be evaluated and if there is
definitely no natural plausible explanation, then PE implies the supernatural
intervened.
There is a legitimate debate concerning probability calculations. However,
the probability approach proposed in this article is conservative to ensure
the calculated probabilities are not under estimated. Scientific evaluations
most always involves probability calculations or estimates. Scientific
theories are supposed to be falsifiable; thus, if an analytical tool
involving probability is scientific, then it should have the potential to
show a low probability for natural hypothesis implying the hypothesis is
implausible. If all natural hypothesis are implausible, then PE implies the
supernatural has intervened. Thus, those that claim that PE has no potential
to substantiate claims about intelligent design or the supernatural, imply
the scientific probability tools do not really have the potential to imply
all natural hypothesis false. Thus, they are just making an artificial
invincible defense to protect their naturalistic presuppositionalism just
like many theist build artificial invincible defenses to protect their
theistic presuppositionalism. See Section 5.4 of Ref. 1 for a description of
presuppositionalism and their associated artificial invincible defenses.
Just as natural scientist should be given every opportunity to find a natural
explanation, so should those who are interested in finding a rationale for a
meaningful explanation for humans, be given every opportunity to find the
intervention of the supernatural. However, the search for the supernatural
should still follow an appropriate rationale.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 08 2001 - 00:37:08 EDT