Science, Pseudo-Science and the Supernatural

When debating claims of astrology, extra-sensory perception, ghosts, intelligent design, and religion, it is often argued that they are beyond science, that science doesn’t have the tools to study them. These arguments stem from a lack of understanding of how science operates.

Science is the gathering of observable, empirical and measurable evidence which is then used as the basis for establishing a hypothesis (a possible explanation for observed phenomenon). This hypothesis is then used to make further predictions for future phenomenon which can be experimentally tested or observed. Through experimentation these predictions can either be verified or falsified.

When the results contradict what was predicted, then a new hypotheses needs to be developed, along with further predictions (it is important to note that these predictions cannot have already been observed). If the results of the experiment verify what was originally predicted then the hypotheses becomes a working hypotheses, but must still undergo further testing. In both cases the experiment itself must be carefully analysed to ensure that there are no experimental errors.

These hypotheses through further verification evolve into theories, which are principles offered to explain phenomenon and provide accurate, predictive descriptions of the natural world. Science can never prove definitively that something is always going to happen, just provide a strong probability of that event occurring. An example would be that science cannot be used to claim that the sun will definitely rise tomorrow, just that it is extremely likely to, based on several thousand years of human observation leading to our current understanding of the orbits of the planets.

The opposite is also true in that science can never prove a negative, that is; science can’t prove that something doesn’t exist; it can just provide a probability of that event not occurring. Therefore science can’t state that there is no spaghetti monster, just that there is a very high probability that it doesn’t exist, based on the fact that so far no-one has found any trace of its existence despite our extensive exploration of the planet Earth.

Even the basic underlying principles of the scientific method cannot be claimed to be universal truths. It is only claimed that it is extremely probable that they will continue to work. Repeating an experiment with identical parameters has so far always generated identical results, but we cannot assume that this will always be the case, only that there is a very high probability of this occurring.

For something to be beyond science it would mean that there was no observable, empirical or measurable evidence for a hypothesis to be founded on. In this case the invisible, unmeasurable phenomenon would have no possible way of interacting with the physical world and affecting a person’s life in any way. It becomes something that is supernatural, literally above nature, and therefore of absolutely no concern to anyone. This is not to say they do or don’t exist, just that they cannot have any effect on the physical universe within which we reside, and therefore cannot be shown to exist or not.

An example of this could be in conversation with proponents of ghosts, spirits, specters or souls. It would be contradictory of them to state that they have seen ghosts or have seen things move inexplicably, and then state that they are beyond science’s ability to study and understand. If the phenomenon is creating an observable effect (moving things around the room or reflecting light waves to our eyes) then science can observe and measure these phenomena.

Using science, people will continue probing the universe, documenting what we find and building upon our already great wealth of knowledge. Current theories will likely be overturned and replaced as they have been in the past but this is just how the scientific process works. Scientists should never be personally invested in the outcomes of science but instead the scientific methodology from which these results are founded. As Carl Sagan said “Science is a way of thinking more than it is a body of knowledge”.