4.1.2.1.3.1. Supernatural

1) Prophecy (precognition), as well as  other "supernatural" or paranormal events
have, in recent years, and unbeknownced to the multitudes, become well-documented by
scientific research.

The problem in the past in nailing these things down has been the lack of control we humans
have over them.  While we would record highly significant results on one trial, we'd record
totally insignificant results on the next -- stuff like that.  But then, along came the technology for
accessing mega (mountains of) data and doing meta-analysis.  Now, we can sift out the 'noise'
and catch the sneaky little critters of the paranormal red-handed.  See
www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html and www.newtimes.org/issue/9710/97-10-scipsych.html.


2.  In addition, quantum mechanics is providing a scientific basis for this alleged
phenomena.

Time and space, simply, are not what we thought they were.  What used to be magic, or
"supernatural," in a scientific context, is now seen as part of the natural, albeit normally hidden
from us, universe.  Science has proven that Hamlet was right.   
Look up "Bell's Theorem" and "quantum nonlocality" on your search engines.  Einstein called
this stuff "spooky."


3.  And remember, all we need do here is establish the scientific plausibility of
prophesy, so that we can move on to judge the OT claims of prophesy on their own merits.


4.  Discussion
1. Science has derived reliable rules, or laws, regarding how things work.  Claims of
supernatural phenomena are inconsistent with these rules.
Perhaps science has missed some of the rules.  Perhaps, there are whole other dimensions out
there that science has not been able to identify or explore.  Perhaps science has missed these
rules because these rules are seldom applicable to a measurable extent.  Such would not be
unprecented -- science has been wrong before.  
On the other hand, quantum mechanics is going where no man has gone before and is turning up
what appear to be 'supernatural' events.  For good examples, use your search engines to look up
"Bell's Theorem" and "quantum nonlocality."  Einstein called some of the predicted (and now
proven) dynamics of quantum mechanics, "spooky."

2. The alleged supernatural phenomena has not been replicable.
Some of the alleged supernatural phenomena are, indeed, replicable -- see
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/2.html.

3.  There has been a long history of fraud in regard to this alleged phenomena.
So?

4.  There are a number of awards available to anyone who can prove paranormal ability which,
as far as I know, have yet to be claimed. Pick up any issue of "Skeptic" or "The Skeptical
Inquirer" for more.
"Dear Mr. Savage,  Thank you for your recent inquiry and for your interest in our program.  We
have no interest in any of the so-called "awards" for convincing demonstration of "paranormal"
ability because 1) we do not study "paranormal" phenomena; we regard any phenomenon that
can be demonstrated under controlled laboratory conditions as normal, even if we do not yet
understand how it works (we do not yet understand how combustion works either!); and 2) most
of them are scams, designed to humiliate people who disagree with the dogmatic belief systems
of the "skeptics" who offer them.  It is also worth observing that a skeptic, according to one
dictionary definition, is "someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs."  The defenders of
accepted belief who constitute CSICOP are technically not "skeptics," but zealots.  Nor have
they ever investigated anything scientifically, to the best of my knowledge."  [Brenda Dunne,
PEAR Laboratory Manager, see#2 above and #6 below]
I emailed CSICOP regarding the PEAR Laboratory research back on 8/30/03, and at this point,
9/27/03, they haven't answered me.

5.  We humans tend to want to believe in supernatural phenomena and consequently 'perceive'
them where they don't exist.
The skeptical "zealots," described above, have the same problem, just in the opposite direction.   

6.  For every "well documented" paranormal act of precognition, one could probably find
numerous well documented debunkings as well. James Randi and others have made careers out
of disproving psychic claims.
If there really are as many well documented acts of precognition as there are well-documented
debunkings, the pro-precognition side is winning -- the side trying to prove a negative is always at
a disadvantage.
In addition, in reality, the number of 'well-documented' debunkings of precognition are nowhere
near the number of 'well-documented' acts of precognition.  Serious psychic research has been
going on since at least 1882 and is currently being treated very seriously at very serious
universities.  For instance, by 1997 a certain type of rigorous telepathy experiment had been
conducted in 15 different universities around the world (including Cornell University in New
york, Edinburgh University in Scotland, Goetburg University in Sweden and the University of
Amsterdam in the Netherlands) some 2500 times, with the odds against chance of getting the
overall results they did being over a billion to one.  See
www.newtimes.org/issue/9710/97-10-scipsych.html.  
And, according to http://www.p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue3/Intuition_3.htm, "Independent
confirmational studies (have been) critical for demonstrating the reality of precognition.   The
Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) group, one of Princeton University's
engineering groups, conducted a series of such studies.   Robert Jahn established PEAR in 1979
when he was the Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton
University.   Since that time, this group has been working to better understand "the role of
consciousness in the establishment of physical reality."   Their results confirm that 20 years ago
many of the phenomena that were referred to as "anomalies" are a normal part of the way the
universe operates."