Join us on Facebook!
Join us in our 24 Hour Chatroom!
Check out TheOneRing.net on Twitter!
Join us on Instagram

Latest Tweets

  1. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: San Sebastiàn festival is honoring Viggo Mortensen and here is a 30 minute special *in Spanish* https://t.co/MksPa0jp6U

  2. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: Here is Obi-Wan himself saying LORD OF THE RINGS is a key inspiration for Star Wars https://t.co/J4b4YlfOWo

  3. TheOneRing.net
    TheOneRing.net: Type the year you turned 10 into a GIF search https://t.co/RGq5iqeiW7 https://t.co/KqbAEn7dGC

The Philosophy of Science of Lord of the Rings

June 28, 2011 at 11:18 am by xoanon  - 

Phil at Bad Astronomy opined (and it is a common opinion) that the supernatural is incoherent:

If you posit some thing that has no perceivable or measurable effect, then it may as well not exist. And as soon as you claim it does have an effect — it can be seen, heard, recorded, felt — then it must be in some way testable, and therefore subject to science.

Joshua was not so sure about this. The supernatural could, perhaps, interact observably with the universe at some times but not at others. Under normal circumstances the normal laws apply, under others, supernatural stuff happens. Chad weighed in on that.. More..

Posted in Lord of the Rings on June 28, 2011 by

Daggers of Tauriel

One response to “The Philosophy of Science of Lord of the Rings”

  1. Slagenthor says:

    Substitute “human consiousness” for “supernatural” and his argument is what becomes incoherent. In many ways they both behave similarly in terms of empirical measurements go.

    Confusing “May as well not” with “not” is itself incoherent…or at least somewhat lazy.

    There are many things that are not empirically testable (and accepting his definition of “science” thus scientific) , yet are rational, coherent, and or real.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *