Supernatural Science - When Science Fails to Explain...

[Liv]

rex_whistler.jpg (39.16 KiB) Viewed 428 times

Watched Sherlock Holmes the other day, and one particular paragraph from the script gave me something to think about while I watched the rest of this horrible film:

You know, Holmes I've seen things in war I don't understand. In India, I once met a man who predicted his own death right down to the number and placement of the bullets that killed him.

You have to admit, Holmes that a supernatural explanation to this case, is theoretically possible.

This made me think. Atheists generally rule out anything unscientific, anything supernatural. We will claim it's fraud, or a hoax. It sort of goes with the whole territory of rational thought. Yet there's plenty of people who have predicted their death. Sure there's plausible rational explanations, but there are phenomenon in this world that we have a tough time explaining. Things like the placebo effect, the nocebo effect, mother's intuition, or even love. What about coincidence, precognition, chance, patterns (fractals)? What about the stuff scientist even say "does not make sense"?

Now I'm not saying any of this amounts to a supernatural deity, and I'm sure we could sit here all day debating the endless possibilities of explanations; but in the end, oddly enough, it's the science fans that ironically must have the faith in their logic that these things are explainable by science and not supernatural. Because at this time Science is having a hard time explaining a lot of stuff. You say, "That's what science does, it takes data to build a hypothesis which eventually leads to fact." Then again what's wrong with maybe saying something supernatural does exist out there. I'm sure others can inject other world mysteries, and I'm not just referring to Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster. I'm referring to the stuff and things we've all seen, felt and heard. The mother lifting the car of her child. Passengers on planes who got off before the plane crashed or any other "supernatural" phenomenon people can name?

They say God is there in the coincidences. Sometimes you've got to wonder.

[A Person]

Where to start.

The lack of a rational explanation does not mean that a non rational one must be true. There are lots of things that cannot be explained - usually because there is insufficient information or only anecdotal information

You examples are trivial. The mother lifting the car of her child turns out to be 'mother lifts one side of a car a few inches until someone could get a jack under it. I personally have lifted a car off a man that had come off the jack. Being an engineer I opened the car door and used that so I had an extra 3' of leverage and was fairly easily able to lift the car sufficiently for the man to get out. The people who cancel their flight plans and escape death are likely balanced by the people who change their plans and get on a plane that crashes - only we don't get to hear from them

The phrase that triggers more advances in knowledge is "that's strange' or as you put it 'that doesn't make sense' when a scientist says that the result is a research program. If it's a priest the result is "who can understand the mind of God"

The first thing for the scientist is to ask, is there a phenomenon to explain in the first place. Do the number of people with premonitions who change their plans and miss out on a crash out weigh the people who change their plans and get on a doomed plane? Is the passenger manifest smaller on doomed planes because of the people with premonitions?

what's wrong with maybe saying something supernatural does exist out there.

Because it's a knowledge killer. As soon as you attribute something to the supernatural you have given up on finding an answer or committed intellectual suicide.

Why do I always end up with single socks? Because the IPU takes the left socks. I've never seen her do it. That's because she's invisible - duh.

What causes lightening. It's from Thor beating out swords with Mjollnir in the clouds. How does he do that? He's a God, he does what he wants.

How did life start on Earth? God created everything. How? He spoke the Word. What word? Who are you to question the Word of God!

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

This made me think. Atheists generally rule out anything unscientific, anything supernatural. We will claim it's fraud, or a hoax. It sort of goes with the whole territory of rational thought.

Hold on right there. Rational thought isn't just a matter of saying "supernatural explanations are impossible" as an axiom. In fact, this attitude MUST be supported by valid reasons before it can be considered "rational."

The fact that you have to do a little digging to learn those reasons doesn't mean they aren't valid -- only that you haven't done enough study.

Yet there's plenty of people who have predicted their death.

I'm not aware of any who predicted their deaths in any manner that would defy reason. For instance, everyone expects they will die eventually, so their deaths are accurately predicted... withing a tolerance of around 60 or 70 years, by and large. People who are planning their suicides are a fair bit more accurate in their predictions, for obvious reasons. And folks with terminal diseases can get fairly accurate estimates of the timing of their deaths from experienced physicians.

But folks like the person recounted in your fictional dialog are ... unknown to me. Please enlighten me if you have some facts.

Sure there's plausible rational explanations, but there are phenomenon in this world that we have a tough time explaining. Things like the placebo effect, the nocebo effect, mother's intuition, or even love.

What exactly is so mysterious about love? I hear this common human emotion listed by mystics as being "unexplainable" by science. I never have understood why anyone considers it so.

What about coincidence, precognition...

Why do you think "coincidence" should be explainable or measurably predictable? In a chaotic world, odd coincidences are to be expected... but completely unpredictable (with any specificity) by any means. And what exactly are you saying IS "precognition"? And what examples do you have in mind?

...chance, patterns (fractals)?

Say what?

What about the stuff scientist even say "does not make sense"?

You seem to think that it's preferable to live in a world of magic, Liv. I have to admit, I wouldn't mind it if voodoo was real -- I have a fair long list of people I'd LOVE to hex today. But get real. Magic is purely an entertainment, not reality.

They say God is there in the coincidences. Sometimes you've got to wonder.

Perhaps. A sense of wonder is natural for people. But don't mistake fanciful guesses for reality.

[A Person]

Last night I had an horrific dream where I watched my eldest son fall to his death. It was one of those dreams where you wake with your heart pounding and adrenaline pumping. It took a while to accept that it was just a dream. He is a keen climber so it wouldn't be too improbable for it to happen.

If I were superstitious I would immediately phone my son and tell him not to go climbing this weekend. If he did and had a fall it would be 'proof' my premonition was sound. If he changed his plans and one of his friends had a fall it would also validate my premonition. If he has a fall in the next few weeks it would likely still validate it. All sorts of events could validate it. If nothing happens did then I would forget about it and not mention it to woo artists like Larry Dossey.

Being of a more analytical mind I remembered that last night I watched a clip of a man watching his girlfriend fall when her parachute failed to deploy properly. No doubt I was empathising with how he must have felt watching her fall and being unable to do anything.

I haven't called my son. I'll let you know if he dies.

[Liv]

Okay, expected responses.... Cool....

So is there anything "supernatural" (or define it as unexplained) which would most likely give credence or convince you that something more is going on here than science? Or is it a straight ticket for both of you?

[A Person]

more is going on here than science?

Science is a method for investigating reality that can be summed up as evidence based reasoning. If there is evidence then it is amenable to the scientific method. If there is no evidence then we have to ask how we know there is anything to explain.

It could be that PSi, premonitions, etc, are real and have rational but unknown mechanisms. But they have been investigated and every time they are (with appropriate safeguards against frauds like Uri Geller, or known problems such as selection bias, sample sizes, probability etc), they conclude there is no phenomenon to explain.

And claiming a supernatural explanation is always no explanation. Instead of saying that 'something is happening and we can't explain how or why" you say "something is happening and it's because of something we can't explain how or why"

The history of science is the history of explanations for things that previously could not be explained. The history of religion (or superstition) is to not try to explain them. 'God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform'

Looking back on my previous post, I'm reminded of the lyrics from Joseph And The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat

The dreams of course will not come true
That is, we think they won't come true
That is, we hope they won't come true
What if he's right all along?

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

Okay, expected responses.... Cool....

If you expected these responses, does that mean you are expecting to ignore them?

[Liv]

I'm not ignoring them, the post was a collection of random thoughts... If anything, I completely agree with your responses.... except (there's always an except) I'm under the belief "mainstream" science often can almost rule answers simply based on plausibility, and in general, science to some degree is up for interpretation. Sometimes there's evidence, disconnected- often interconnected pieces of evidence, pieces of the puzzle which due to the holes are interpreted by science as not a possible explanation. When we don't have a clear answer we often go with the most plausible one. The most rational one. But I feel, (I'm all touchy feely) that science often excludes human intuition. The ability to connect the dots with a lack of evidence. Like when your child lies to you and you don't need proof of their guilt, because you've connected the dots. I'm not saying all conspiracies, urban legends, or religious stories are true, and I'm not saying they should necessarily be treated as such because in the end, saying it is or it isn't generally doesn't matter... but, by being all too willing to be binary, to being closed to the possibility of something merely because it seems unlikely seems to leave out the humanity of science.

[BecauseHeLives]

You can't force BLIND people to see any more than you can force deaf people to HEAR. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING could not be supposedly explained away by a person who has science as their God. Their science leaves no room for deviation.

[A Person]

[A Person]

Last night I had an horrific dream where I watched my eldest son fall to his death. It was one of those dreams where you wake with your heart pounding and adrenaline pumping. It took a while to accept that it was just a dream. He is a keen climber so it wouldn't be too improbable for it to happen.
...
I haven't called my son. I'll let you know if he dies.

He's fine, he spent the weekend climbing but didn't even have a minor fall, neither did his friends

Obviously God was watching out for him.

[A Person]

I was intrigued by the painting Liv chose, I assumed it was religious, the paunchy middle aged man has wings and is presumably an angel, uncovering a robust woman and telling her to keep quiet. But I was wrong

It is however fairly recent and not very religious. It's Allegory: HRH The Prince Regent Awakening the Spirit of Brighton, by Rex Whistler. Rex was a tank commander in WWII and died a couple of weeks later in Normandy.

Whistler's most famous wartime folly is his Allegory: HRH Prince Regent awakening the Spirit of Brighton, executed in a couple of hours on the walls of 39 Preston Park Avenue in Brighton, where he and his soldiers were billeted (now in the Royal Pavilion, Brighton). The decorative scheme, painted direct on the wallpaper, perhaps best encapsulates the spirit (though not the ability) of Rex Whistler. By a complete occlusion of opposing forces, he created a new world within the colourless living quarters. He could transform so much out of so little, and in so short a space of time; an assessment that remains true of his life as for his work.

Brighton is distinguished by being the LGBT capital of the UK, there's a strong likelihood she wouldn't appreciate being woken up by a lecherous man, even if he was the Prince Regent.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

He did that -- in a couple of hours? Dag! I'd have thought a project like that would take weeks. I guess some artists work faster than I can imagine...

[Liv]

I was intrigued by the painting Liv chose, I assumed it was religious, the paunchy middle aged man has wings and is presumably an angel, uncovering a robust woman and telling her to keep quiet.

I thought it was nice piece of work... and thought it connected because:

It seems as if Whistler, like many other artists in war, predicted his own death. Just days before he was killed, he remarked to a friend that he wanted to be buried where he fell, not in a military cemetery. On the night before his death, a fellow officer, Francis Portal came up to him and they talked for a bit. Before they parted, Portal remarked "So we'll probably see each other tomorrow evening." Wistfully, whistler replied "I hope so."[2]

[A Person]

Just days before he was deployed from a comfortable house in Brighton to invade Normandy (where casualties were expected to be severe) he was worried he might not survive?

I doubt you could find a single soldier on the eve of Operation Neptune who wasn't wondering if they would survive.

normandylandingbeaches.jpg (29.9 KiB) Viewed 1428 times

[Liv]

LOL....

[Liv]

The D-Day crossword puzzel interests me tonight as a possible coincidence:

But while some members of MI5, Britain’s counter-espionage service, were whiling away their spare moments in May 1944 by doing the Telegraph Crossword, they noticed that vital code-names that had been adopted to hide the mightiest sea-borne assault of all time, appeared in the crossword.

They noticed that the answer to one clue, ‘One of the USA’, turned out to be Utah, and another answer to a clue was Omaha. These were the names, given by the Allies, to the beaches in Normandy where the American Forces were to land on D-Day.

Another answer that appeared in that month’s crossword was Mulberry. This was the name of the floating harbour that was to be towed across the Channel to accommodate the supply ships of the invasion force. Neptune another answer, referred to the code-name for the naval support for the operation.

Perhaps the most suspicious was a clue about a ‘Big-Wig’, to which the answer was Overlord. This was the code-name given for the entire operation!

Alarm bells rang throughout MI5 …was the crossword being used to tip-off the Germans?

Two officers were sent immediately to Leatherhead in Surrey, where a man called Leonard Dawe lived. He was the crossword compiler, a 54 year-old teacher.

Why, the officers demanded to know, had he chosen theses five words within his crossword solutions?

“Why not?” was Dawe’s indignant reply. Was there a law against choosing whatever words he liked?

MI5 eventually became convinced of Dawe’s honesty and he managed to convince them that he had no knowledge of the coming D-Day invasion.

His crossword solutions it appears were perhaps just another of life’s astonishing coincidences!

cite

Skeptics say he (or soldiers) just overheard the code-words:

Mr Dawe was a compiler of puzzles for the Daily Telegraph and it was often his practice to call in 6th formers and ask them for words for inclusion. At that time the US Forces were liberally strewn through Surrey, particularly in the Epsom area and there is no doubt that boys heard these code words being bandied about and innocently passed them on. I should know as I was then a 6th former there myself, although not involved with this particular matter.

[SouthernFriedInfidel]

More thoughts on the thread subject:

In 1500, no one had any idea of why the planets moved in the manner that they do: some appearing to have more easily predictable motions than the others, some performing retrograde turns as they crawled across the background of the stars. They had no way of knowing the scales of distances involved between say Earth and Jupiter, nor about this strange force called "gravity."

In that time, supernatural explanations for astronomical facts were pretty much the norm. and the Church fully supported the "knowledge" passed down from Ptolemy.

At that time, given what was known, would it have been a good idea to simply say "God moves everything in the universe as He sees fit, and that's the end of our inquiry"? Or would it have been preferable to say "We don't know what the deal is, but perhaps we ought to look into the facts and hopefully find a way to make more sense out of this puzzle"?

Similarly, even when Newton found his version of a solution to the astronomical puzzle that is planetary motion and formulated the laws of motion, he found a puzzle in minor departures by Mercury in its path around the Sun. It didn't QUITE fit in with his nifty equations. Should he have said "Well, that's obviously God doing odd things" and stop wondering? I sort of think not, even thought it would take Einstein to finally solve that puzzle.

Science may fail to explain a lot of stuff we see around us. but its track record of failures has been mostly only temporary. It's well to keep that in mind.