faulty argument?

Question

I recently read an article written by a philosophy professor that attempts to prove/disprove the existence of the supernatural. He uses the following example--consider the following statements:

all swans are white

all perceived swans are white

He then asks the following questions to enhance his argument

Which one is true? Can we assume that all swans are white without physically observing each individual swan? How do we account for the swans we don't see? Can we discount the existence of all non-white swans simply because we don't see them?

My question to you: is this a reasonable argument for the existence of the supernatural? Do we tend not to believe in something simply because we can't physically see it? In other words, should we rely on logic and reason to explain supernatural phenomena?

Answer 1

This sounds like an argument about inductive reasoning. The philosopher David Hume used this very example, I think, to show that it was false to go from the truth about all observed instances of a thing to a general truth about that thing - in this case the swans. Europeans had always seen white swans, and so had assumed that all swans are white. But on arriving in australia (i think it was) they saw black swans for the first time.

So for the europeans, it would have been true that all perceived swans were white, since it was obviously a fallacy to jump from those observations to general observations about all swans. This problem of induction is a very big problem for science and for those people that believe that science and observation can tell us everything. Going on observation alone, we cannot make sweeping generalizations unless we are in fact able to observe all possible instances of the thing in question, which rarely, if ever, happens.

All this really means for the questions about the supernatural, though, is that we cannot disprove the supernatural through observation. We cannot observe that no ghosts, for example, exist. All we can do is either observe ghosts or not observe ghosts, and of course not observing them is not the same as observing that they do not exist. Its a very strong criticism of people that rely on observation and experimentation alone to prove and disprove facts facts about the world, since it means that they will never really be able to disprove or prove any theory.

But I don't think anybody seriously claims that we should believe in ghosts because it is not possible to disprove their existence through experimentation. This is where occam's razor comes in handy. While it may be possible that ghosts exist, and it is not possible to empirically disprove their existence, if a simpler theory can account for all phenomenon attributed to ghosts, then that theory is probably the correct one, since, by being simpler, there is less that can "go wrong" with it.

A pure empiricism which insists that everything must be "proven" or "observed" before being accepted is a very naive theory which will ultimately get itself in trouble. This argument shows that.

What is being left out is that even though it is not possible to disprove the "supernatural," this is not a good argument for believing in the supernatural, if a simpler theory can account for phenomenon. Otherwise we would have to accept all theories as equally valid; we would have to say that a theory of gravity which claims invisible fairies pull mass together is just as valid as newton's theory of gravity.

It is not only possible, but necessary to believe in things that we cannot directly sense, but occam's razor saves us from then having to say that all things which are not directly sensed are equally possible.

Answer 2

this is a very famous example btw, both are just "hypotheses", that is for any theory, whatever it is about we start from a hypothesis, then we can proove whether it's right or wrong based on observation or data analysis (in any field or science).
you cannot say "all swans are white" is a true/false theory, unless you find proofs.
if I say "all swans are white" basing my conclusion on the number of swans I have seen (all white-in this case the hypothesis is true). But, the hypothesis would be false if you consider that "maybe" there are other swans which are not white.
Still, it's up to the scientist to decide whether to accept the hypothesis as true/false, just bear in mind that no theory is perfect and that thera are always exceptions, but science in general is based on conventions and generalizations.
yes, this is a reasonable argument for the existence of the supernatural, not being able to see things does not mean they do not exist, logic and science are important and could explain many "supernatural" (as they were seen at some earlier times) phenomena, "supernatural" does not mean the phenomenon does not exist, it simply means that science has not found a "logical" explanation to it.

Answer 3

I basically agree with ebk1974.

The professor is arguing that since all swans are not white, we cannot use an inference alone, from anecdotal observation, to conclude what the nature of all swans is, especially since we have factual knowledge to the contrary. Therefor we must accept the possibility of the supernatural.

But lack of proof is not certain proof in and of itself.

A supernatural entity or phenomenon needs to be validated objectively, not simply reasoned into existence because of a presupposition that no alternative explanation of equal weight exists.
That would be a default fallacy, unless alternatives, b-z have been ruled out.

Explanations based on unproven predications are, even if ultimately true, weak.

To put it another way. To logically accept the existence of the supernatural, the evidence used to demonstrate its existence must meet some reasonable standards; being that there is a plethora of it; it's of good quality, etc. And alternatives, especially those that are based on tangible, demonstrable evidence, need to be ruled out.

Again, the burden here is to show objective evidence for the existence of the supernatural, meeting some reasonable standards. The lack of such evidence is evidence of lesser probabilitity of existence. One could go so far as to say that a lack of evidence shows implausibility of existence, but that would depend on the accordance with physical laws as we know them.

The burden is on the person claiming something supernatural occured or exists. Without elimanation of rationally based alternatives, we are left to simply make up the existence of something if the validation thereof does not exist.

I hope that long winded response makes sense.

Answer 4

I understand what he is saying. But because we don't always see the Supernatural, those things we don't see involve Faith, so we can't really take anything for granted unless you are talking about the existence of God which I am 100% sure. But then that's a whole different story. The swan example isn't a good story when talking about the existence of God.

Answer 5

This is not an argument for/against supernatural.
This is a an argument against a technique known as "induction"[1]
Inductive reasoning proceeds to reason from instances to general.
This is the way in which science operates.
If you see some phenomenon happen the same way enough times -- you assume that it always true.
For example if i observe rock falling to the ground for a million time i assume that heavy objects ALWAYS fall to the earth.

Of course the obvious objection is the one you bring up.
Namely, since we did not observe ALL objection how can we assume things about ALL objects by just observing SOME objects.

The answers is -- of course you are correct -- inductive proof is never a 100% guaranteed proof, but for CONVENIENCE sake we might as well assume that if something is true every time we observe it is ALWAYS true. IF we did not make such assumptions our life would be very hard: for example we would be unsure that the sun will rise in the morning.

This position is known as Instrumentalist.[2]

Answer 6

It seems to be reasonable. If there are some swans we can't see then we can't be sure they're white. So, just because we can't see supernatural phenomena, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But this only proves it could exist, it still doesn't offer proof that it does.

Answer 7

I don't see the logic of starting with an assumption and then discounting anything that doesn't fit with that assumption.

As for the supernatural, people tend to use that to explain anything that they can't find any other explanation for which is another use of faulty logic. If one asserts that there is supernatural phenomena, one must be prepared to show evidence to support that assertion.

Answer 8

Swans come in black as well.However,given the example-this comes back to mere beliefs-there is no way of trully knowing without physical evidence...one can't deny or be for certain of the supernatural-there is no hard evidence to debunk it or support it!!!

Answer 9

Well, I believe in love, air, helium, my pituitary gland, your pituitary gland, yeast, Pluto and lots of stuff that I can't see but have good reason to believe exist.

On the other hand, I have premonitions, prophetic dreams, and find most Aries have similar character traits, so believe in those too.

Some things are not reasonable and logic will not prove or disprove them. It doesn't make them less/more believeable for some.

Answer 10

Well, the premise that all swans are white is wrong, since there are black swans.