Evidence Needs to be Involved Rather Than Including Potentially Limitless Supernatural Speculations in an Investigation
Kevin R. Henke
October 31, 2022
Henke (2022bg) largely deals with alchemy and how some people held superstitious views about Theophrastus Paracelsus of Vienna. In Henke (2022bg), I said the following:
“Apparently, Mr. Lundahl changed his mind at some point and no longer considers it likely that Theophrastus Paracelsus of Vienna actually changed a copper coin into gold or was possibly involved in some sort of a “demonic sham.” Good for him.”
In Henke (2022b), I had earlier made the following comment on this topic:
“So, why would Lundahl (2022a) even need to consider the possibility of demonic activity when this entire story can be explained away as a legend or a simple trick?” [my emphasis]
Lundahl (2022u) then replies to my bolded statement:
“Why not catalogue the possibilities one believes feasible or if not at least possibly relevant from start, just because one of them is not believed by Mr. Henke?”
Groundless speculations involving the supernatural are not reasonable options. They are only limited by people’s imaginations and cannot be readily tested with current technologies. How would you distinguish between two supernatural claims, where one individual says that Paracelsus was able to change copper into gold because of demonic assistance and another argues that supernatural fairies were responsible? Where’s the evidence for either demons or fairies? Others might speculate that extraterrestrials helped Paracelsus to do alchemy. The number of baseless guesses is endless. This is why the scientific method limits hypotheses to only natural explanations, which at least have a chance of being testable (Strahler 1999, p. 4). If someday, someone demonstrates that demons, fairies, extraterrestrials, or alchemy are real, then researchers can try to develop methods and technologies to test for their presence. For now, only natural explanations will be considered as part of the scientific Method of the Multiple Working Hypotheses (Strahler 1999, pp. 19-20).
Reference:
Strahler, A.N. 1999. Science and Earth History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy: 2nd ed., Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 552 pp.