Supernatural experiments.
You got into this debate on the notion that science can only investigate the material world. Since then, you've allowed that ideas — which are immaterial — are the things that science tests. Moreover, you conceded that experimental investigation is not the sole tool in the scientist's kit — reason and logic are also valid pursuits.
So, to make your argument for you, the challenge is to present an idea that contains a supernatural element and can be assessed using evidence, reason and logic. Naturally, there are innumerable such ideas. Obviously, the tools of a scientist can be brought to bear on them. Presumably, you want to declare that all of those ideas have been shown impossible, which would be a bold claim indeed.
Or you could suggest Einstein's thought experiments about relativity, but you then have to accept that they were about the real world and led to actual experiments in the real world that collected data and his theories were shown to be accurate.
Nobody knows what you're talking about anymore. :idunno:
For an assessment of Einstein's ideas, see my sig. :up:
It would have been much easier if RD or Stripey had suggested that. Then you would be correct in the sense that ideas, something non material, are used in science. In fact I'll give you that lots of science starts with thoughts such as "Wait, what about this?" or "What if we did this instead".
Did you not read my post? :AMR:
Instead RD goes off in a huff because there is no intelligence in "my creation" story which has no bearing on how chemistry and physics work in my brain and his brain, no matter our "creation story". And now Stripey jumps in misquoting me as is his wont.
But you won't show where I've misquoted you. :idunno:
So, lets see the supernatural experiment the experiment ON nonmaterial things.
English, dude. English.
Idea: Jesus rose from the dead.
Assessment: Analyze documents from that time.
Naturally, you will reject the idea. The underlying issue is that you want ideas you hate
a priori excluded from the discussion.
We prefer rational discourse.