considering my thoughts on this term 'supernatural' as of recent, I have formulated the following principle.. The principle of non-omniscience: One cannot simultaneously provide a rigorous distinction between natural and supernatural phenomena and know that only natural phenomena occur. To do so would imply omniscience. I have noted several distinct routes one can take without violating this principle, and they will also serve to illustrate its meaning. 1. Start from the premise that all phenomena are natural phenomena. Everything in nature is natural. Nothing in nature is supernatural. In this case, every phenomena is either a natural phenomena that occurs or a natural phenomena that does not occur. No distinction is made allowing for some phenomena to be considered supernatural, and so the principle is not violated. 2. Define supernatural as things that have not yet been given a natural explanation. Under this definition of the word, supernatural things occur all the time. For example, it is not known exactly how sea turtles coordinate arribadas, (mass nestings of as many as a half million turtles coming out of the sea together) so under this definition arribadas would be classified as supernatural, until someone finds out how turtles do it, at which point it would be a natural phenomena. Many may not find this definition to conform satisfactorily to usage, but it does at least avoid violating the principle of non-omniscience, since it does not allow for the claim that only natural phenomena occur. 3. Define supernatural as things that can never be explained naturally. If we also have the premise that all phenomena can eventually be explained naturally, this simply reduces to case #1 above. Otherwise, if we do not assert that statement, then we can only determine in which category to list a phenomena by providing a natural explanation, and until we do that, the classification will be indeterminate. 4. Define supernatural as involving intelligences whose existence is not universally acknowledged. This parallels case #3. If we also have the premise that no such intelligences exist(there are no gods, spirits, etc.,) this reduces to case #1. If we do not hold that to be the case, allowing that intelligences whose existence is not universally acknowledged do in fact exist, then we can only classify particular phenomena by demonstrating whether such intelligences are involved in that particular case. All-purpose explanations. I've also noted several generic explanations that can be employed for any phenomena whatsoever. 1. You dreamt that shit up. 2. Someone is shitting you. 3. You are shitting me. In the first case, we have the example of the manatee. Horny sailors are said to have imagined seeing mermaids upon actually seeing manatees. We should note that this vision did not arise in a vacuum. First, there was a real psychological pressure that was involved; the sailors had a normal natural drive that lead to their error. Second, there was a real phenomena that was involved: the manatees. We now know that there are not really mermaids, but there really are manatees, and there really are horny sailors. Acknowledging this, we do not then conclude that sailors should stop masturbating and thinking of mermaids. Rather, we let them continue, possibly planning to make more frequent stops in ports, and definetely sending someone to study the manatees. In the second case, one person creates an illusion and another reports it. Here we have crop circles as well as sasquatch and friends. We know that crop circles happen when people go into fields with ropes and crush the crops in a circular pattern. More elaborate designs can be made when the pranksters feel like putting their geometry skills to use for once. Sasquatch reports happen when people in Montana find a good place to order orangutan hair. Inevitably, people hear about weird things and figure out a way to duplicate the scam. But that in itself is not enough to conclude that all crop circles and all sasquatch reports are scams. To come to that conclusion we need a little more information. For example, we would need to know that a meteorological phenomena such as a tornado touchdown could never produce a circular pattern (more elaborate patterns could be considered obvious frauds.) In the case of the sasquatch, we would need to know that no one could possibly fail to recognize a bear as a bear, and that a sufficiently thorough search of the region and the fossil record had been done to eliminate the possibility of an undiscovered species. In the third case, we have get rich quick people, 800 number psychics, and just about everyone else seen on tv after 3am. Turning to another example, we might picture a young gentleman embarking on a transatlantic voyage around 1850. The sailors tell him absurd stories of sea monsters as a sort of hazing ritual. No respectable man of reason believes such things. "You're just shitting me" he says, or some other such thing. Except sea monsters are real. Some of them have 5 pairs of tentacles and eyes the size of basketballs. They have even been known to attack ships, eat people, and even sperm whales. I'm talking of course about giant squid. I think we may have found all the great cryptids. I do not think we have found the truth behind every phenomena soever. The human mind may yet hold fantastic creatures in its depths.