Searching for GOD...

[ProfessorDavey]

That's not been my experience on here. I don't unquestioningly accept anyone on here is who they say they are. Any personal details people share on here I just take as an interesting read. I read a few chapters of Sriram's blog. Even if it turns out it is complete fiction and Sriram is a white, middle-class professor living in Scotland, I still thought it was an interesting read - much like books I have read that open up perspectives even if the characters are fictional.

But that isn't my point.

Of course it is possible that Sriram is a white, middle-class professor living in Scotland - the point is whether he refuse to accept that he is who he says he is. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I accept him to be a guy from south India with an interest in spiritual issues. Just as in the absence of evidence to the contrary I accept you to be a woman living in the UK who is now muslim but wasn't brought up as such. I extend you the courtesy of accepting that you are who you say you are - why is it so difficult to extend the same courtesy to me VG.

And by the way, we aren't fictional characters - we are real people who happen to post her.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't trust anyone to be open and honest about who they really are IRL (including my husband and kids) because I think people are too complex and often hide their frailties, idiosyncrasies, flaws, fears and failures as a defence mechanism, which is understandable, and people having hidden layers and stories also makes life more interesting. So, I don't trust anonymous people on a forum to be divulging the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

You really do have trust issues, don't you VG.

[bluehillside Retd.]

VG,

Nope/ incorrect / wrong again BHS - I said supernatural is a description for something outside the currently known rules and explanations of the natural world that science has come up with based on demonstrable evidence. The "currently known" refers to both rules i.e. current scientific methods - and also refers to explanations i.e. the explanations derived from the scientific methods.

That was your first (ie, pre-edited) version, yes – and it’s still wrong for reasons that have been explained to you several times now. The notion that something would be “supernatural” only for as long as current scientific methods and knowledge don’t explain it, but would then flit to natural if science found an explanation (and presumably would flit back again if the explanation was falsified) is bizarre.   

You don't need to demonstrate 'supernatural', though you are of course free to assert that you do need to demonstrate 'supernatural' if you want to.

No, but people who claim such a thing as “supernatural” do. “Phenomena that science doesn’t explain as of today’s date” (which you seem to have reverted to) doesn’t even come close to doing that.   

As far as I am concerned you could just take the general consensus on what kind of things the adjective 'supernatural' could be applied to. It doesn't mean any of those things described as supernatural are in fact supernatural or real. If someone can't demonstrate the existence of anything described as supernatural, it would be reasonable for other people to not accept that that the phenomena described as supernatural exists. Of course you are free to disregard my opinion on whether we need to demonstrate supernatural or not, as much as I am free to disregard your opinion on this issue.

Now you’re shifting ground again from something actually being objectively “supernatural” (ie, outside nature – at least potentially) to a loose, colloquial version akin to “magic” used in fiction. The latter is fine if that’s where you want to be now, though I can't imagine how you’d square that with your belief in a “real” supernatural god/angel.       

Since you have stated that you have not expressed certainty on here, that leaves us as 2 people disagreeing on an opinion.

No it doesn’t. Do I really have to go through epistemology 101 again to explain why it doesn’t? 

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I'm sorry VG that is just nonsense. Something that is supernatural is something that is outside the natural world, not something than we currently cannot explain by reference to what we known about the natural world.

Incorrect. It is an adjective that can be applied to certain phenomena that are outside the investigation of the natural world by the scientific method used to investigate the natural world. Examples of the kind of things that can be described as supernatural were in the dictionary link I gave.

The latter view is simply non-sense as it implies that things move from being supernatural to being not supernatural as our knowledge increases which is clearly bonkers.

Thousands of years ago humans couldn't explain earthquakes based on their currently known rules and explanations of the natural world science has come up with based on demonstrable evidence - we now understand these to be completely natural phenomena. In your bizarre definition you'd need to conclude that earthquakes used to be supernatural, but are now not supernatural. That is nonsense - earthquakes are not supernatural and never were supernatural.

So take your argument to its clearly (il)logical conclusion, given that in the history of time human inquisitiveness is merely a blink of an eye given that the human species hasn't been around for long. So before intelligence sufficient to explore such phenomena evolved, you'd have to conclude that everything was supernatural as it would lie well outside currently known rules and explanations of the natural world science has come up with based on demonstrable evidence - current being prior to humans.

Incorrect. Supernatural is an adjective used to describe particular types of phenomena _ I gave examples and gave a link to a dictionary to support my examples. Things move from supernatural to natural if they are capable of being investigated by the rules and scientific methods we use to investigate the natural world and and objective evidence can be provided for their existence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

You really do have trust issues, don't you VG.

It's not a issue for me to recognise human frailty. It seems to be an issue for you though, that I recognise human frailty.

[Nearly Sane]

You really do have trust issues, don't you VG.

Is this comment based on your expertise in mental illness?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Has someone made that claim?

Patience dear boy, patience.

[Nearly Sane]

Patience dear boy, patience.

So, no then.

[Gordon]

Just to chip in with a very brief comment - it seems to me that the term 'supernatural phenomenon' is an overt oxymoron.

[ProfessorDavey]

I feel I do benefit from what I read on here as it gives me information and alternative perspectives and when time permits I look into them in more detail, especially where people have provided links to read rather than just stated their opinion. That's why I keep coming back to this forum even if sometimes there are long gaps between posts.

But this is based on a presumption that none of us here are actually experts, and therefore that all we provide is a lay-person opinion, rather than an expert opinion. So the only time you'll get any expert opinion is if one of us posts a link.

Well firstly we all do this, including me - and you'll be aware that I tend to link to primary source information (original research) rather than a talking-head opinion piece. And also sometime apologise because I'm not clear whether a research article I can readily access may not be accessible to everyone. Why do you think that might be VG - any clues based on my profession.

But there is a further point - occasionally the expert is actually the person themselves. In that case their actual direct opinion is just as valuable, potentially more so, than a link to an 'expert' opinion. Specifically because they are actually the expert.

If you were discussing choral conducting with a highly experience professional choral conductor, why would you only be interested in their opinion if they provided a link to a blog written by another choral conductor. You can benefit from the expert opinion literally first hand.

Point being, for most of us, most of the time here we are all merely interested amateurs. But every once in a while we may touch upon something that one or other of us has a genuine expertise in. Rather than dismiss this, better to actually listen as you might actually learn something. That's always been my approach, but I guess as  professional researcher I am inherently curious and genuinely want to learn from people who have expertise where I don't.

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to chip in with a very brief comment - it seems to me that the term 'supernatural phenomenon' is an overt oxymoron.

Good point.

[ProfessorDavey]

Is this comment based on your expertise in mental illness?

Nope - just an opinion, not an expert opinion.

But I understand the difference and if someone on this MB was a professional in a relevant area of mental health, I'd tend to consider their opinion on that area of mental health to carry more weight than a lay armchair googler.

[ekim]

The latter view is simply non-sense as it implies that things move from being supernatural to being not supernatural as our knowledge increases which is clearly bonkers.

I think the missing word is 'believed' to be beyond a natural explanation. When a natural explanation is provided there will be those who believe the natural explanation and those who cling to the supernatural explanation some of which is tied into a mythical language which uses natural forms to try to communicate that explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, no then.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not a issue for me to recognise human frailty. It seems to be an issue for you though, that I recognise human frailty.

Nope, rather it seems to me that you presume dishonest, while I presume honesty.

But realistically it actually seems only to be me who you challenge as to whether they are who they say they are. Despite the fact that Sriram posts on the basis of being from south India and with a level of insight into eastern religions that most of don't have, I cannot remember you ever demanding evidence from him to demonstrate his south Indian-ness. Despite the fact that a bunch of posters on here post on the basis of being scottish and having an inherently greater insight into all things scottish, I cannot remember you ever demanding evidence of their scottish-ness from them.

That you do for me says somewhat more about you than it does about me I feel.

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.britannica.com/topic/naturalism-philosophy

The relevance to those posting here?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

VG,

That was your first (ie, pre-edited) version, yes – and it’s still wrong for reasons that have been explained to you several times now. The notion that something would be “supernatural” only for as long as current scientific methods and knowledge don’t explain it, but would then flit to natural if science found an explanation (and presumably would flit back again if the explanation was falsified) is bizarre.

For the reasons I have given, I don't think it's bizarre to describe certain phenomena as supernatural because it can't be investigated and demonstrated to exist by the scientific method. I provided a link to the dictionary for examples of the type of phenomena described as supernatural. Seems a good working definition to me. You can think it's bizarre if you want to.

No, but people who claim such a thing as “supernatural” do.

The adjective is available in language, so clearly people are using it without having demonstrated anything about the supernatural. You are welcome to insist they are wrong for using the adjective in this way. Your opinions and assertions on use of language is noted.   

“Phenomena that science doesn’t explain as of today’s date” (which you seem to have reverted to) doesn’t even come close to doing that.   

The definition I used was the current scientific rules and methods for investigating and demonstrating the existence of something and the explanations for phenomena that came out of those methods.

Now you’re shifting ground again from something actually being objectively “supernatural” (ie, outside nature – at least potentially) to a loose, colloquial version akin to “magic” used in fiction. The latter is fine if that’s where you want to be now, though I can't imagine how you’d square that with your belief in a “real” supernatural god/angel.

I am not shifting anything - you just seem to have trouble understanding what I wrote. Given you stated that you are not certain about your opinions on here, it is understandable if you misunderstood what I originally wrote and have now gained a fresh perspective. 

No it doesn’t. Do I really have to go through epistemology 101 again to explain why it doesn’t?

You can go through whatever you like on here - whatever makes you happy and floats your boat. It's a forum for all, after all, and some posters may enjoy your perspective on things.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope - just an opinion, not an expert opinion.

But I understand the difference and if someone on this MB was a professional in a relevant area of mental health, I'd tend to consider their opinion on that area of mental health to carry more weight than a lay armchair googler.

And you know the qualifications of those on here? Or is that just an opinion?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

But this is based on a presumption that none of us here are actually experts, and therefore that all we provide is a lay-person opinion, rather than an expert opinion. So the only time you'll get any expert opinion is if one of us posts a link.

It's merely based on the oft repeated statement on here that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That includes any claims by people on here that they are experts.

Well firstly we all do this, including me - and you'll be aware that I tend to link to primary source information (original research) rather than a talking-head opinion piece. And also sometime apologise because I'm not clear whether a research article I can readily access may not be accessible to everyone. Why do you think that might be VG - any clues based on my profession.

But there is a further point - occasionally the expert is actually the person themselves. In that case their actual direct opinion is just as valuable, potentially more so, than a link to an 'expert' opinion. Specifically because they are actually the expert.

If you were discussing choral conducting with a highly experience professional choral conductor, why would you only be interested in their opinion if they provided a link to a blog written by another choral conductor. You can benefit from the expert opinion literally first hand.

Sure, once the expert choral conductor had satisfied the burden of proof for their claim that they are an expert. You keep coming up with all these different professions - surgeon, choral conductor, scientist - the principle remains the same regardless of the area of expertise. If someone on here is claiming to be an expert on something and is using that claim to try to support their argument, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claim that they are an expert.

Point being, for most of us, most of the time here we are all merely interested amateurs. But every once in a while we may touch upon something that one or other of us has a genuine expertise in. Rather than dismiss this, better to actually listen as you might actually learn something. That's always been my approach, but I guess as  professional researcher I am inherently curious and genuinely want to learn from people who have expertise where I don't.

I don't dismiss them - I read what they have to say and then look for objectively demonstrated supporting evidence. 

[ProfessorDavey]

And you know the qualifications of those on here? Or is that just an opinion?

If someone indicated that they had a particular expertise and there was no obvious reason to think otherwise, I'd accept that and discuss matters with them on that basis.

But I'm not really talking about qualification, but professional expertise and experience. It is likely that someone with specific professional expertise and experience will have relevant qualifications (although not all types of expertise require qualifications), but just because someone has (for example) a degree in biology, that doesn't give them the professional experience and expertise as (for example) a biomedical researcher. They might have chosen to become an accountant after their degree.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Nope, rather it seems to me that you presume dishonest, while I presume honesty.

But realistically it actually seems only to be me who you challenge as to whether they are who they say they are. Despite the fact that Sriram posts on the basis of being from south India and with a level of insight into eastern religions that most of don't have, I cannot remember you ever demanding evidence from him to demonstrate his south Indian-ness. Despite the fact that a bunch of posters on here post on the basis of being scottish and having an inherently greater insight into all things scottish, I cannot remember you ever demanding evidence of their scottish-ness from them.

That you do for me says somewhat more about you than it does about me I feel.

I don't presume dishonest - I just don't take someone's word for it. It's apparently the recommended way of interacting with anonymous people online.

I don't remember responding to a post by Sriram or NS where they claimed that being Indian or Scottish (respectively) made them an expert in a particular area and therefore their opinion should be taken over someone who was not Indian or Scottish. I thought this is somewhat related to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Which posts are you referring to where I deferred to their claimed "expert" opinion?

[Nearly Sane]

If someone indicated that they had a particular expertise and there was no obvious reason to think otherwise, I'd accept that and discuss matters with them on that basis.

But I'm not really talking about qualification, but professional expertise and experience. It is likely that someone with specific professional expertise and experience will have relevant qualifications (although not all types of expertise require qualifications), but just because someone has (for example) a degree in biology, that doesn't give them the professional experience and expertise as (for example) a biomedical researcher. They might have chosen to become an accountant after their degree.

And again, you know the experience and expertise of people on here? Or is that just your opinion?

[ProfessorDavey]

It's merely based on the oft repeated statement on here that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That includes any claims by people on here that they are experts.

In this case I would have thought the burden of proof would be 'on the balance of probabilities'.

But the point is VG, what evidence would be sufficient - do you want to see my degree certificates. Perhaps you'd like to read my PhD thesis. I think you might get a tad bored working through my 130 peer reviewed research papers, although I suspect you might find my lecture notes on medical ethics more to your liking.

Point is, we work on the basis of trust here. I trust that NS is from Greenock (I think that's right NS) - I'm sure I could try to trick him up as I also know Greenock quite well as my mother's family were from there and Port Glasgow. But I don't, I take it on trust, and if NS posts that there was a fantastic view from Lyle Hill yesterday evening I'd trust that to be true, not that he is somehow trying to scam us.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If someone indicated that they had a particular expertise and there was no obvious reason to think otherwise, I'd accept that and discuss matters with them on that basis.

Can you give me an example of this on here, where someone had indicated they had a particular expertise and you have accepted it?

But I'm not really talking about qualification, but professional expertise and experience. It is likely that someone with specific professional expertise and experience will have relevant qualifications (although not all types of expertise require qualifications), but just because someone has (for example) a degree in biology, that doesn't give them the professional experience and expertise as (for example) a biomedical researcher. They might have chosen to become an accountant after their degree.

How would you determine if the biomedical researcher was an expert biomedical researcher?

[ProfessorDavey]

And again, you know the experience and expertise of people on here? Or is that just your opinion?

I don't - I take it on trust. And if someone says they are a qualified lawyer and provided some level of expert opinion on the law based on their expertise I would trust that unless it was clear they were talking hogwhash.

The very notion that I regularly link to primary source publications that are (unfortunately) not available in full to the general public suggests I might just have some preferential access to the academic literature. Why might that be?