# The Rattling Chains of Supernaturalism and The Occult **URL:** \ **Category:** Philosophy of Mind\ **Created:** [August 18, 2026, 10:42pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610 "2026-08-18T22:42:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2026, 10:23pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/141 "2026-09-10T22:23:51Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > For example, We don’t say that infra red is “supernatural” just because we cannot see it with the eyes we have and require instruments to assist us in the seeing… Our eyes cannot see infra red, but we know how it works, generates, and what it does. In that sense, infra red is not totally imperceivable or unknowable. Supernaturalism and the occult don’t give us that detailed or credible knowledge, be it visible or invisible to our eyes. They are not only sensible via our standard 5 sense organs, but also imperceivable even to the most powerful sense organ, i.e. the brain. All we know about them is via the myth, religious texts, and the folks’ imagination. Hence your idea on infra red is not relevant for the comparison. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2026, 10:29pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/142 "2026-09-10T22:29:54Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > Our eyes cannot see infra red, but we know how it works, generates, and what it does. In that sense, infra red is not totally imperceivable or unknowable. > > Supernaturalism and the occult don’t give us that detailed or credible knowledge, be it visible or invisible to our eyes. They are not only sensible via our standard 5 sense organs, but also imperceivable even by the most powerful sense organ, i.e. the brain. > > All we know about them is via the myth, religious texts, and the folks’ imagination. OKay so you are not arguing for supernaturalism in any understandable context. Do you understand what is being presented in the OP - that “occult” simply means that which is hidden from our knowledge rather than it being something which is beyond our ability to know? > [@Corvus](#): > > Hence your idea on infra red is not relevant for the comparison. Yet, when taken with the opening post, it is indeed relevant. What is not relevant are arguments which are not taking that into account. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2026, 10:41pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/143 "2026-09-10T22:41:53Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > Do you understand what is being presented in the OP - that “occult” simply means that which is hidden from our knowledge rather than it being something which is beyond our ability to know? The real problem with occult is not what is hidden from our knowledge, because even the occultists don’t know what they are hiding. My point was what is it that is hidden? Is it hidden because it is beyond our ability to know, or because the occultist intentionally hidden the knowledge? My guess is the former is the case. And was suggesting to find out on these issues. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > Yet, when taken with the opening post, it is indeed relevant. > What is not relevant are arguments which are not taking that into account. My point was infra red is not out main point of debate here. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2026, 10:56pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/144 "2026-09-10T22:56:26Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Beats me, but I’m pretty sure we don’t consciously decide to be certain about a thing. How does your being “pretty sure” gain traction re argument? Are you pretty sure that anything currently unexplained, has to fit into some supernatural category? If not, can you agree that such concepts, no matter how we term them, are at least potentially knowable. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Are you of the opposite opinion? Do you think you consciously control how certain you are of a truth? What truth is it that you think I have perhaps argued for? > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Sufficient evidence of success to get their interest. Or you could probably just hire some researchers. Those guys can be kinda poor if they don’t have a good gig somewhere. So, while your suggestion may sound practical, it isn’t really practical at all in terms of what motivates most people to study some things and ignore other things. It is no so much about difficulty as it is about monetary considerations? > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > I doubt it. Lots of people make lots of claims. You’d probably have to have notable evidence of success. Let’s back up a little here. There are claims and then there are considerations. A consideration may be “Do we exist within a created thing?” or " is there more to individual human consciousness than what we currently do know?". > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > So you don’t believe in the unconscious mind? I consider it more along the lines that what we are each conscious of is not the whole picture - some things are hidden but not necessarily beyond our ability to uncover. I don’t believe that there are “guys in a backroom” in any literal sense. Rather, I see that as a very loose analogy from what we all (in our own way) experience as humans. Jung refer to these as Archetypes but did not (as far as I am aware) consider these to being independent personalities outside of our own - lets say - dominant persona. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > I have a strong imagination. I can come up with hundreds of possible explanations for what’s really going on around here. But it’s just imagination unless there’s evidence on the ground. I doubt you or anyone really could come up with hundreds of possible explanations for the “backroom guys” that would fit in with what we do currently know about the mindful phenomena being discussed here. From my own experience through ideomotor and the use of symbols, I have come to understand these as previously unknown aspects of my “self” - lets say - my own mind-scape, and that the process allowed for those aspects to explain themselves to “me” in my dominant conscious aware state - thus bringing not only an awareness of these, but a clearer understanding. Which is to say, I did (do) not rely totally on untethered imagination and have found (on the contrary) that such imagination doesn’t help much at all. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2026, 11:12pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/145 "2026-09-10T23:12:04Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > The real problem with occult is not what is hidden from our knowledge, because even the occultists don’t know what they are hiding. > > My point was what is it that is hidden? Is it hidden because it is beyond our ability to know, or because the occultist intentionally hidden the knowledge? > > My guess is the former is the case. And was suggesting to find out on these issues. I think we are both using the understanding of the word, differently. Occult simply means “hidden” so if we were to substitute what you wrote above it would read _“My point was what is it that is hidden? Is it hidden because it is beyond our ability to know, or because there are those who have intentionally hidden the knowledge?”_ Then we can use this to ask (for example) are we hiding some knowledge from ourselves - wilfully - for reasons which may appear practical and useful but are not? For example, are some professions to do with the study of the mind purposefully not investigating - in this instance - the ideomotor effect in relation to mechanisms/devices which are known to work with ideomotor - because they fear where it might lead or fear any backlash or fear that it would not be a great career move because it won’t generate income or perhaps because it is not interesting to them? Why is the science not being done if there are ways of actually doing the science? So, something isn’t necessarily hidden from anyone’s ability to uncover, or solely because of misinformation or because of some mysterious paranormal “something” which is preventing it from being known. > [@Corvus](#): > > My point was infra red is not out main point of debate here. What do you think our main point of debate here is? ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 2:01am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/146 "2026-09-11T02:01:42Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > How does your being “pretty sure” gain traction re argument? That question strikes me as odd. We are using language quite differently. I’d have no idea how to answer it. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > Are you pretty sure that anything currently unexplained, has to fit into some supernatural category? What does ‘supernatural’ have to do with any of this? I thought you were trying to remove the word from the language or something. Why are you asking me about supernaturalism? I don’t even know what it means. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > If not, can you agree that such concepts, no matter how we term them, are at least potentially knowable. Yeah, I’m completely lost. What concepts? All things are knowable. All we have to do is know them. It’s easy. The guys in the back room just sit on the CERTAIN button and refuse to get up. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > I don’t believe that there are “guys in a backroom” in any literal sense. Yeah, that would be silly, I think. Although I am thinking to start naming my guys. I might even make some of them department heads. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > I doubt you or anyone really could come up with hundreds of possible explanations for the “backroom guys” that would fit in with what we do currently know about the mindful phenomena being discussed here. I’m lost. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Sorry. I just can’t follow you. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > From my own experience through ideomotor and the use of symbols, I have come to understand these as previously unknown aspects of my “self” - lets say - my own mind-scape, and that the process allowed for those aspects to explain themselves to “me” in my dominant conscious aware state - thus bringing not only an awareness of these, but a clearer understanding. Which is to say, I did (do) not rely totally on untethered imagination and have found (on the contrary) that such imagination doesn’t help much at all. It’s fine. We all have our ways of understanding things. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 3:41am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/147 "2026-09-11T03:41:02Z")
> [@BestGuessYet](#): > > That question strikes me as odd. We are using language quite differently. I’d have no idea how to answer it. Precisely. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > What does ‘supernatural’ have to do with any of this? I thought you were trying to remove the word from the language or something. Why are you asking me about supernaturalism? I don’t even know what it means. You are partaking in a thread which - from the beginning - has made it clear that supernaturalism is fraud. Your wording which I responded to was asking a question re your argument. If you are not arguing that anything currently unexplained, has to fit into some supernatural category (be that paranormal, occult et al) then we can move on in alignment. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > Yeah, I’m completely lost. What concepts? In the case of the thread subject, the concept that there is something which can interact with the conscious self through the ideomotor effect which - while not generally understood - is knowable without having to resort to unnatural ‘explanation’ (supernaturalism). > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > All things are knowable. All we have to do is know them. I can agree with that. > [@BestGuessYet](#): > > It’s easy. The guys in the back room just sit on the CERTAIN button and refuse to get up. Are you certain of that? If so, please explain to the reader how you reached that certainty. How do you know this as a certainty? ---
**Author:** ![Punshhh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Punshhh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Punshhh)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 6:20am UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/148 "2026-09-11T06:20:30Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > In this case, it’s the **simulation** , not the _simulated-hardware_, that’s “in control”, I think? How so? As in my example of when someone breaks their leg, they can’t unbreak it. The leg only heals by following the universal laws. It might look as though the simulation is in control, but that might just be appearances. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 12:07pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/149 "2026-09-11T12:07:06Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > > [@PatternChaser](#): > > > > Right or wrong, the terms “nonconscious”, “subconscious” and “unconscious” are all added to “mind” so that their combination will apply to those parts of the human mind that are unavailable for conscious introspection. > > Which parts and why do you think these are unavailable? The parts of the mind that are not accessible to direct introspection. In my opinion, these terms that we are throwing around are misleading. The way we use them can lead to the false impression that the conscious mind is the prime component of human mentality, and the other bits are just … trivial. But lots of recent (in the last century or so) work seems to say that the conscious mind-fragment is merely one of many components, that together make up a whole mind. You asked for examples. Well, there are the primitive, hindbrain, bits that control all kinds of stuff like making our hearts beat. Then there are the preconscious bits, that process incoming (and outgoing?) sense data, leading into the full perception process; all preconscious, done _before_ the information is passed to consciousness. Hence ‘_unconscious_’. Then we might consider the parts that helped Coleridge with his stately pleasure dome, and that fixed the problem you have at work, while you were driving home from the office. These are not the only bits, as we have already seen, but they are the most interesting, for some. This is where creativity lies. And it happens in a timeless fashion, it seems. > [@Wikipedia offers this](#): > > The unconscious mind can be seen as the source of dreams and automatic thoughts (those that appear without any apparent cause), the repository of forgotten memories (that may still be accessible to consciousness at some later time), and the locus of implicit knowledge (the things that we have learned so well that we do them without thinking). It seems there are quite few parts to the human mind. These are a few of them. But I wonder _why_ you asked about them? 🤔 ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 12:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/150 "2026-09-11T12:13:50Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > Science is involved in looking both ways before crossing right? Such is basic but still science. No, that’s just _reasoning_, that is not the sole province of science. Are you, perchance, trying to steal reason, and give it over to science alone? I can’t agree with this. All serious and considered thought uses basic logic and reason, and perhaps some thought that is a little less serious too. All but actual frivolity incorporates logic and reason. They do **not** belong solely to science, although science makes use of them, as so many other thinking practices do as well. ---
**Author:** ![PatternChaser](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/patternchaser/32/1041_2.png) [@PatternChaser](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/PatternChaser)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 12:22pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/151 "2026-09-11T12:22:28Z")
> [@Punshhh](#): > > It might look as though the simulation is in control, but that might just be appearances. I don’t generally like computer-related analogies, as they can be seriously misleading. But here, I think they apply usefully. Your “simulation” is the executing app. It uses software and hardware in its creation and its execution, but these are just aspects or attributes of the running app. It is the executing app that is in control. The underlying details are just that. As to your words, that I quoted. They seem to take doubt a little too far, perhaps for effect, or to… I’m not sure. 🤔 ---
**Author:** ![BestGuessYet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/2bfe46/32.png) [@BestGuessYet](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/BestGuessYet)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 12:57pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/152 "2026-09-11T12:57:40Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > If you are not arguing that anything currently unexplained, has to fit into some supernatural category (be that paranormal, occult et al) then we can move on in alignment. The category “supernatural” means nothing significant to me, and I’m unsure why it seems to matter to you so much. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > In the case of the thread subject, the concept that there is something which can interact with the conscious self through the ideomotor effect which - while not generally understood - is knowable without having to resort to unnatural ‘explanation’ (supernaturalism). I don’t see why it matters if we call it natural or supernatural. It doesn’t change the thing. Anyway, it’s an interesting idea, but you backed away after I began questioning you about your “prediction” claim. Do you have any evidence that it could be a thing connected to our physical world somehow? > [@WhoKnows](#): > > Are you certain of that? I am certain of nothing or certain of everything. It’s just a word. But in this case, I will claim to be certain of nothing. I only have my best guesses yet, always ready to stand before the sandstorm and be changed into more comely form. > [@WhoKnows](#): > > If so, please explain to the reader how you reached that certainty. How do you know this as a certainty? How do I know that I don’t consciously control my own certainty? Well, I gave you the example of fleeing from an apparent lion. How do you explain that? I am a quick thinker, but not quick enough to make a conscious, thoughtful opinion on whether I should flee the lion. The guys in the back room just panicked and attacked the CERTAIN button, I’m pretty sure. ---
**Author:** ![Punshhh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Punshhh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Punshhh)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 8:05pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/153 "2026-09-11T20:05:12Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > Even if such things are actual, does not mean we have to think of them as superactual. I think the problem always boils down the idea of transcendence and therefore transfiguration . Things which don’t emerge from philosophy, but rather religion and therefore what has been bracketed in with the supernatural. ---
**Author:** ![Punshhh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Punshhh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Punshhh)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 8:19pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/154 "2026-09-11T20:19:39Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > We can explore the idea that consciousness is the hardware… Yes, I can go with that. With the physical world expressing in some way, what is in the consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![Punshhh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/43a26b/32.png) [@Punshhh](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Punshhh)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 8:45pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/156 "2026-09-11T20:45:51Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > It is the executing app that is in control. The underlying details are just that. Well spotted, I see what you mean here and nearly addressed this ambiguity myself. I think one needs to formalise what is involved in this hypothetical simulation to reach some kind of understanding. When I say hardware, I mean some other world in which a simulation is created and or generated as a creative act. Such that every aspect of our world is confected, from somewhere else. Software is the universals which determine the rules, or laws of nature. And the executive function is what happens in the simulation and in creative beings within the simulation, what they create, or perpetuate. So executive function as being in control would only occur in beings within the simulation with the ability to create an alternative course than the crude perpetuation of physical material. I hope I’m not getting too wordy. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 9:13pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/157 "2026-09-11T21:13:05Z")
> [@Corvus](#): > > Our eyes cannot see infra red, but we know how it works, generates, and what it does. In that sense, infra red is not totally imperceivable or unknowable. Nor are the aspects of consciousness that ideomotor effect (re the Op and thread subject) investigates. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 9:22pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/158 "2026-09-11T21:22:19Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > What do you think our main point of debate here is? The main point I was trying to analyse is clarification on the concept of supernaturalism and occult. Supernaturalism believes in the type of knowledge not available to human sensory organs. The occultists pursue the supernatural knowledge via the traditional hidden methods such as rituals, meditation or 100% intuition, not relying on the standard scientific methods which is the sensory observation and testing. The occultists often hide the traditional methods for coming to the supernatural knowledge to the outsiders to protect their beliefs, rituals and followers in the community. There is nothing scientific about these fields of acquiring knowledge. They are based on magic, super sensory capacities and psychic abilities of the adepts. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 9:23pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/159 "2026-09-11T21:23:54Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > > [@WhoKnows](#): > > > > Which parts and why do you think these are unavailable? > > The parts of the mind that are not accessible to direct introspection. Why do you think these supposed parts are not accessible to introspection or that this thread is about those? > [@PatternChaser](#): > > You asked for examples. Well, there are the primitive, hindbrain, bits that control all kinds of stuff like making our hearts beat. The thread is not about those parts of the mind - indeed, we can place such to one side as mindless automations. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > Then there are the preconscious bits, that process incoming (and outgoing?) sense data, leading into the full perception process; all preconscious, done _before_ the information is passed to consciousness. Hence ‘_unconscious_’. Ah yes. I hope you are not arguing here that those are mindless automations. > [@PatternChaser](#): > > It seems there are quite few parts to the human mind. These are a few of them. But I wonder _why_ you asked about them? I ask about them because I know that they are intimately connected with and understand why the ideomotor effect consistently produces coherent meaningful relevant helpful data. ---
**Author:** ![Corvus](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/corvus/32/1606_2.png) [@Corvus](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/Corvus)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 9:23pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/160 "2026-09-11T21:23:55Z")
> [@WhoKnows](#): > > Nor are the aspects of consciousness that ideomotor effect (re the Op and thread subject) investigates. My above post answers against your claim whatever it was. ---
**Author:** ![WhoKnows](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex007/user_avatar/www.thephilosophyforum.com/whoknows/32/1145_2.png) [@WhoKnows](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/u/WhoKnows)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2026, 9:26pm UTC](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610/161 "2026-09-11T21:26:52Z")
> [@PatternChaser](#): > > > [@WhoKnows](#): > > > > Science is involved in looking both ways before crossing right? Such is basic but still science. > > No, that’s just _reasoning_, that is not the sole province of science. Are you, perchance, trying to steal reason, and give it over to science alone? I tend to integrate rather than segregate. So much that we all do in our daily lives can be seen as science. [Previous page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610.md?page=7) [Next page](https://www.thephilosophyforum.com/t/the-rattling-chains-of-supernaturalism-and-the-occult/2610.md?page=9)