SFReader Forums

Swashbuckler said...
Just a brief interlude, if I may, to respond to a comment about scientists and their naturalistic reductionist worldview that "won't allow for the possibility of a supernatural explanation."

This is a common misconception. Yes, when doing science, a scientist must stick with natural, measurable things in seeking explanations. It's a necessary component of doing science. You can't possibly do science any other way. If you allow for causes that can't be measured or observed, you allow for EVERYTHING ... and the scientific method falls completely, hopelessly, utterly apart.

That does NOT mean, however, that a scientist automatically refuses to even consider the slightest possibility of a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon. A scientist is just as capable of believing he saw a ghost, or received an ESP communication, or of believing in a Creator, as anyone else. The scientist will not say that such explanations are SCIENTIFICALLY plausible, but he darn well might think the big dark shape he saw in the woods was Bigfoot, or that the noise in the attic was his dead Aunt Bessie. Being a scientist, he naturally will seek natural explanations for such things. If he finds such, being a scientist, he will lean that way. Occam's Razor, you know. Which is more likely, the wind banging a shutter or someone coming back from the dead? Bigfoot, or tired eyes deceiving their owner?

If a scientist finds no natural explanations, however, he will simply say "Science can't explain this." But he might well go right on being convinced his dead Aunt Bessie is making noise in the attic, or the thing in the woods was Bigfoot, while wishing he had some solid evidence to back that up -- or that he could even think of a way to possibly garner such evidence. That's the sticking point with supernatural explanations. By definition, science CAN'T do anything with them. It doesn't necessarily make supernatural explanations WRONG; it simply makes them beyond science. And a scientist who himself has NOT experienced a supernatural something-or-other is completely justified in remaining skeptical. That's particularly true in the realm of ghost stories and Bigfoot sightings. The number of cases that can be shown to have been hoaxes, or to have very simple explanations, makes it very difficult for a scientist to make the leap to a supernatural explanation if he hasn't had such an experience himself. But if he says "ghosts don't exist" or "There is no Bigfoot," he is being a bit arrogant, and will likely realize it and concede that he is being arrogant if pressed. Then he will amend his statement to "There is no scientific evidence for ..." etc. etc. etc.

I interject this because it's a frequent sticking point. People hear a scientist say "there is no evidence for A, B or C" and automatically assume that means the scientist is saying "A, B or C do not exist." Not quite the same thing, really. Scientists who have a strong religious faith, for example, run into that all the time. So ... I thought I'd point out the difference between a priori dismissal and simply recognizing that sometimes, there is no measurable evidence. (Of course, a priori dismissal does happen sometimes, because scientists are human, too. But overall, they actually are a rather open-minded bunch. They are just really persnickety about evidence.)

OK. Carry on.