I see where you're going, but...the change from "supernatural" to natural is not intrinsic to the thing, whatever it is. The ghost of Aunt Mimsie or whatever doesn't suddenly change in nature when we get evidence of it. It's a change in our attitude and perception. The thing, if it exists, was "natural" all the time whether we knew about it or not. Like smallpox. This thing was killing people, and nobody knew why, and then we developed the instruments to look into its realm, and we found it...but before we had evidence for the existence of the bacillus, it wasn't "supernatural."
The word "supernatural" applied to the things I'm talking about presupposes not only that we have no evidence but that there's no point looking for any, even though it may just be in a place we have no instruments tuned to yet.
The counter-argument is of course that using the word "natural" presupposes that there is objective evidence, which (as far as I know, and discounting testimony from people whose testimony in a court would be trusted to send a person to prison or to set him/her free) there currently isn't. Maybe we need a new word.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-05-21 08:38 am (UTC)The word "supernatural" applied to the things I'm talking about presupposes not only that we have no evidence but that there's no point looking for any, even though it may just be in a place we have no instruments tuned to yet.
The counter-argument is of course that using the word "natural" presupposes that there is objective evidence, which (as far as I know, and discounting testimony from people whose testimony in a court would be trusted to send a person to prison or to set him/her free) there currently isn't. Maybe we need a new word.