--- In [email protected], "compost1uk" <compost...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "compost1uk" <compost1uk@> wrote: <snip> > > > I don't think it's about the "stuff" so much as about > > > the laws: A supernatural object or event is one in > > > which the Laws of Nature are temporarily suspended (or > > > violated). > > > > But that would imply we know all the laws of > > nature, wouldn't it? > > Well, maybe. What an odd idea "supernatural" is when you > prod and poke at it! > > Something strange needs explaining. The supernaturalist > says there IS no explanation;
Or gives an explanation that can't be turned into a testable hypothesis. the scientist says there would be if we could just > figure it out. I think I'm with the latter, but > (against Stenger), I don't see why all explanations > are materialist explanations. I think it comes down to testability. I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of things that are rejected as "supernatural" because they can't be-- or haven't been--nailed down by a test have simply not been tested properly. Lawrence LeShan came out with a book recently arguing that tests for mental telepathy are so poorly designed that they couldn't find telepathy even if it did exist, and proposes a different approach altogether.
