Question 2: Does science ever make judgements about the possible existence of the supernatural?
Science by its nature must occasionally make judgments about the possible existence of a supernatural being. If for instance, a person were to say that there was a werewolf transforming on the quad right now for all to see with their naked eyes, science, as it is based off of empirical facts, would have to say that such a supernatural thing does not exist in that state. Additionally, science can say that the existence of werewolves in generally is not likely, as such a transformation would involve a physiology that no human could possess; transforming from a human to a werewolf and back would involve the growing, shrinking, and readjustment of bones, such that many of the human bones would break. Since no evidence of human transformation even to a far lesser extent has hitherto come to scientists, science would have to deny the possibility.
On the other hand, science cannot say anything about the supernatural that do not have empirically observable features. If a person where to say that there was a werewolf transforming on the quad right now, but that we could not observe it, science could neither confirm not reject that statement. All science can say is that there is nothing to be empirically observed. However, scientists may question how it is that a person claimed to know about the werewolf's transformation. Science is not right 100% of the time. Given that science is based on empirical facts, science is limited by our senses and our technology, which will improve, granted. But we may never get to a point where we have all possible means of empirically observing things.
Even if we do get to that point, how will we know?
No comments:
Post a Comment