1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
This question reminds me of Tim Minchin's observations of alternative medicine. By definition, alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or has been proved not to work.
You know what we call alternative medicine that has been proved to work?
Medicine.
That's kinda what I was thinking of, but not really sure if it was the same thing or not.
On a side note, have you heard his more "serious" songs? I'll Take Lonely Tonight is so good IMO (not that he was lacking in talent doing comedic songs)
White Wine in the Sun is a beautifully, refreshingly different Christmas song.
Not Perfect is another awesome non-funny song.
Rock & Roll Nerd is borderline humor but another absolutely amazing song thar doesn't stress the comedy.
Not this one, thanks for the recommendation, but I've heard White Wine In The Sun, and that's touched me even though I've spent all my Christmases in the Northern hemisphere. 🙂
Reminds me of this ships doctor I was chitchattibg with. He said something along the lines of:
"The difference between a doctor and a witch doctor isn't that big. The main difference is in sticking to what has been proven to work, and discarding what doesn't
Not related, but I was reminded of this old joke: what's the difference between God and a doctor? God doesn't think he's a doctor.
You know what we call alternative medicine that has been proved to work?
Medicine.
Sort of. You have things like willow bark which obviously work and are still considered alternative medicine. However, the pharmaceutical product synthesized from and to work like willow bark is one of the most recognizable OTC medicines in the world -- aspirin.
Similarly many Chinese traditional medicinal techniques do work. Chinese medicine is undoubtedly "alternative medicine". You can cure aches and pains using medicinal herbs. They probably aren't as effective as scientifically synthesised compounds designed specifically for this purpose, but many of them actually work. Others are just placebo. The Chinese government regulates Chinese medicine in China and it is approved for use in many low-level medical applications. But if you have cancer, no herbs will save you and any claims to the contrary are just mere quackery.
Some Chinese medicinal techniques have made their way into "Western medicine", as it is called in China. The most famous traditional Chinese medicinal practice adapted this way is variolation, which was refined by science and become vaccination.
Except what we get with the ancient records regarding willow bark were just what we’d expect with folk medicine: anecdotal claims that it treats a wide range of ailments without any proposed mechanism of action.
It wasn’t until willow extract was actually made into a pharmaceutical that it became anywhere near useful. That willow tea you’re imagining ancient people drank didn’t actually exist and if it did, they were not getting enough salicylic acid from it to equal even a single aspirin.
In short, aspirin follows the above rule: alternative medicine was proven to work, and then became medicine. But the end result is far detached from how it was used thousands of years before it was actually shown to work.
Exactly. The supernatural is things beyond nature - if you can prove something supernatural is part of nature, then it's not supernatural, so it would now be natural.
It's similar to the quote, "What do you call alternative medicine that works? Medicine"
It would simply move the concept of "ghost" from the realm of unproven and unexplained phenomena into the realm of proven but unexplained phenomena, joining the ranks of other proven but unexplained phenomena like gravity or particle-wave duality. In all of those cases, it would be possible to observe, quantify, model, and predict the effects of the phenomena in our natural environment, even if we don't have a complete grasp of the mechanism by which they work.
Ghosts wouldn't he supernatural anymore, just natural and observable.
And then humans will try to figure out how to turn them into gasoline, and/or have sex with them.
The current accepted explanation for gravity is that it comes from the fundamental twisting of spacetime in the presence of mass, as described in general relativity. It has held up perfectly ever since, including the recent measurements of gravity waves.
Wave-particle duality arises naturally whenever you start working with wavefunctions. It only seems weird to us because nothing else in our daily lives behaves the same way.
Hey thanks for weighing in!
You're gonna have a field day with what I just wrote downthread. Please be gentle. 😁
It seems I am out of the loop about gravity. How is it "unexplained"? Seems pretty straight forward (or "downward") to me.
We know two masses attract each other across space, and have characterized a model that accurately predicts the magnitude of the force of the attraction over distance and time. What we don't know is exactly why those two bodies are attracted, and how the force actually operates.
For other fundamental forces, the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear forces and light, we have a reasonably good handle for how they operate in the quantum and relativistic physical frameworks, and we can reconcile their behavior between the two systems. We can't say the same for gravitational force, and it's causing problems for our understanding of how the Universe came to be, and how it is evolving. We have only recently in the last 20 years successfully detected gravitational waves with LIGO, and are currently searching for proof of a cosmic background gravitational field. We have but yet identified a quantum particle responsible for "transmitting" gravitational waves. Likewise, we cannot reconcile our observations of Universal expansion with the amount of mass we can account for across the cosmos-- that whole thing about dark matter that interacts with other masses gravitationally, but seemingly not with the other fundamental forces.
I probably butchered that explanation badly and made some actual physicists scream with the frustration (and if so, i apologize. please weigh in and educate us!), but my point is yes, we know a lot about gravity but we just don't know why or how gravity works.
My understanding as to why entities are attracted by gravity is that the spacetime gets curved around them. Curved in such a way that a path “straight forward” in time gets curved so that it’s actually “toward the other one”.
Now why the spacetime gets curved is anyone’s guess. But the fact it’s attractive has to do with bending the road underneath the car. A car with its wheels pointed straight can be turned if you curve the road in the right way. It would look like the car is “steering without steering”.
Porque no los dos?
I'd try ghost sex. 👻
Settle down Beverly
Not true.
We'd also sell tickets to see them.
I think this makes gravity supernatural, we believe it but don't understand it, it's above (super) our understaning of nature. I'm not sure if this it what am axiom refers to, building all our theories on an unknown foundation. So I think ghosts could remain supernatural, we know they exsist, but their exitense is above our natural understanding. I mean, if I define supernatual as meaning above nature.
Supernatural means things that are beyond nature (I.e. don't obey our known understand of nature).
If ghosts are proven to exist in nature, then they become part of nature, thus are no longer supernatural.
We might not have a definitive explanation for gravity, but it is definitively within our understanding of nature - we can observe it, test it, and predict its effects far into the future.
Super- means above, like superimposed. Our lack of understanding means we don't know why it exists. It's above our understanding, even if we know it exists.
Supermatural IS things beyond our understanding of nature, phenomena that cannot be explained by science.
If we could scientifically prove ghosts exist, the phenomena associated with them are no longer inexplicable to science, they would no longer beyond our understanding of nature, ergo they'd no longer be supernatural - just natural
I'll compare to the concept of human culture being called superorganic, which is an old cultural anthropology concept which can provide a model for critical thinking. We don't understand culture, yet we define it, record it, measure it. Hard to predict, I'll admit. Refering to it as superorganic implies it exists at a higher complexity than we understand. Gravity and many other observational phenomena also exist at a higher compexity than we understand. Thus although you may not like to refer to such things as supernatural, it's not wrong, it's an opinion.
Last I was aware, the idea of human culture being "superorganic" referred to the idea of our culture itself acting as an organism above the individuals that compose it, i.e. a superorganism.
The concept being based on emergent behaviour observed in colony forming insects (I.e. ants, bees, etc.) to act as an apparent single larger organism.
That isn't the same as the concept of the supernatural, where it refers to things beyond our understanding of nature.
Not knowing the exact cause of a natural phenomena doesn't mean that we don't understand how it fits into nature - if it exists, then it can be understood, ergo not supernatural.
It's not that I don't like it, it's that you give such a vague definition as to what qualifies as supernatural that damn near anything you feel like could qualify.
https://anthropology.iresearchnet.com/superorganic/
There's no referal to superorganism, not sure where you picked that up, just the superorganic. Many people believe different things about what is supernatural, it's inherently vague. Many people believe ghosts are real but they are still refered to as the supernatural.
Your source doesn't specifically say the word "superorganism", but that is what the idea of the superorganic points to - a higher level superorganism, the same as a bee hive, a termite nest, or an ant colony...
It doesn't refer to any ability/inability to understand culture, which was my main point.
Yeah, because they believe in ghosts, they don't know they're real...
If you can't definitively, scientifically prove ghosts exist, then there is no way to understand how they work in nature, ergo they're supernatural. I don't think it's that vague...
We don't know the exact cause of life on earth, doesn't mean all life on Earth (including you) is supernatural.
Of couse it doesn't say superorganism, that's just plain wrong. My source is also any intro anthro textbook. It's over your head it seems.
The term superorganic was coined by Herbert Spencer while discussing the idea of the social organism, that society itself acts like an organism - guess what concept that is?
Oh right, the superorganism.
Just because it doesn't say that exact word in your source doesn't mean it's wrong...
And again, that wasn't even my main point, that was an aside that you started.
What is wrong is acting like gravity is some supernatural mumbo-jumbo because we can't exactly pinpoint it's exact cause, despite the fact that we can observe, predict, and calculate it with pinpoint precision.
Not understanding the cause of something =/= not understanding the concept of something
Ghosts are supernatural because we don't even know if they're real, nevermind their cause...
If we were able to prove their existence, we can understand the concept and learn how they work - with sufficient understanding of how they integrate into nature, they would no longer be supernatural.
It isn't that vague or subjective, either something fits into humanity's understanding of the natural world or it doesn't.
Anyways, I'm just about done with this, so hope you have a good one.
Bye
Gravity can be scientifically proven to exist though, unlike ghosts (so far, at least). We can do repeatable experiments to show that gravity has a predicable effect time after time, even if we don't know why or how
Assuming ghosts have been proven to exist, like op stated, but without knowing why, like gravity. Above our understanding of nature, supernatural, given the prefix super- means above.
For a moment you would have proof of the supernatural, then it would turn into regular proof of the natural.
That's why they are called "supernatural". It actually means "beyond natural laws".
No, because if you can prove it then it is just natural.
Exactly this. Once we advance to the point where we can detect the supernatural, we'll also have better understanding of how the universe works.
That's basically why it's still unsolved whether consciousness is a non-physical gestalt in itself or just a trick of the human neurological phenomenon: it's logically impossible to apply empirical methods to observe something outside the bounds of the natural world as we experience it. I had to write a paper on it for my master's degree a mere five years ago but I didn't really fall on either side. If you want to read more, I suggest reading up on "zombies": https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
Likewise, without wanting to start a debate (and I won't reply if you do), it's why "you should prove that God exists" is uncompelling: God by nature isn't supposed to exist within the realm of empirically provable things.
Pretty much. Same as mythological creatures. If you discovered and recorded proof of a dragon, mermaid, wendigo, etc they'd no longer be considered mythological. At that point they're simply creatures.
I quite like cryptozoology, looking for proof of animals that don't officially exist. Loads of the animals over the decades have been found and proven and then they just go over to zoology and people still think of cryptozoology as a pseudoscience, it's really weird.
Physical proof cannot prove metaphysical things. It would be like someone living in a video game trying to prove there is a world above its own.
To answer your title, no.
To answer your post, yes, pretty much (imo).
Why do your post and title have different (almost opposite) questions? Lol
They're not different questions in my head (I guess because I have all the context of what I'm thinking and just expressed myself badly).
I'm coming at this entirely from a philosophical point of view. I'm not asking if it's technically possible to build a machine to prove the existence of the supernatural, but whether such a machine would change our categorisation of the now-proven thing
Only in a sense. Only if they are “supernatural” in the sense of going beyond one’s current conception of “natural”.
For example, someone photographing a nuclear explosion would be “proving the existence of a supernatural entity” if they showed that photograph to someone whose physics hadn’t yet gotten to the point of understanding nuclear fission yet.
Nuclear fission is supernatural to previous-generation physics.
It’s not supernatural to Real Physics but Real Physics is an ideal that will always elude us.
If you want some deeper philosophical insights on the matter, you can check David Hume. He asked and gave an answer to a similar question. He talked about miracles, cause and effect and our foundations of knowledge.
You can also look at the discussions around the validity of inductive reasoning as a means of knowledge and what that means for science.
They are pretty fascinating discussions.
In a sense, if ghosts were beings from outside our universe, you could still call them supernatural, as they could be beings beyond our laws of physics i.e. what is natural in our world.
Of course there would be no magic to them and they would still be bound to their laws of physics.
If you can prove it then it's natural. So no.
Oh my god, why are people so dumb. Like do you think everything is Magic in the world or something? Don't you feel like an asshole for not trying to learn anything? The more small things you know, the more you can find out by yourself through contacts. So no they wouldn't suddenly become a different type of energy or whatever, I'll become natural like you said. They would just describe it differently. And say hey this is a being composed of such and such matter or whatever and that's it. And then we call that thing a ghost. You know you can think these things out in your mind right? Like you ask a question and then in your head you know you feel well what would I need to know to figure that out, and you know use your fucking head
I wrote an article about exactly this: https://medium.com/@viridiangrail/tautological-denial-of-magic-0e311ca94c2a
