Hi.
I wonder about this: what exactly does that mean? I've heard that if you can "test or study it with science", then it is "natural". Would this mean that, contrary to their proponents' claims, ghosts and so forth would not be "supernatural", but "natural", if they existed, since every claimant of such claims to have "observed" them. And if you can observe it, then in theory you can attempt to apply science to it. So then the definition of "natural" expands to cover it. In which case, how is the term "natural" more useful than "observable" and "testable"?
I wonder about this: what exactly does that mean? I've heard that if you can "test or study it with science", then it is "natural". Would this mean that, contrary to their proponents' claims, ghosts and so forth would not be "supernatural", but "natural", if they existed, since every claimant of such claims to have "observed" them. And if you can observe it, then in theory you can attempt to apply science to it. So then the definition of "natural" expands to cover it. In which case, how is the term "natural" more useful than "observable" and "testable"?
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=265519&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire