There's no such thing as supernatural witchcraft. — jorndoe

Evidence, please.

Evidence, please. — RussellA

Uhm ask the Saudi Arabian accusers/authorities to prove their case.

Until allegations can be justified, relevantly (and proportionally), which has never materialized, the Saudi Arabian authorities consequently stand accused.°

This is a case where existential verification, not falsification, applies; I'll just keep denying their superstitions unless they come through, as others have done before, and as I'm sure others will once I'm gone.
(Other than that: get real. :wink:)

This is a case where existential verification, not falsification, applies — jorndoe

You are right that to say that the proposition "there is such a thing as supernatural witchcraft" requires verification, but it follows that the proposition "there's no such thing as supernatural witchcraft" also requires verification.

As you made the statement "There's no such thing as supernatural witchcraft", it is your responsibility to provide a verification, not a third party's responsibility to provide a falsification.

, call it a reasoned inductive conclusion (if you must). Shouldn't prevent you from voting, right?

Guilty of what?

, hmm I thought it was reasonably clear. Here's some background, context, precedence:

• Witch trials in the early modern period
• Modern witch-hunts
• Nuremberg trials

International organizations have Saudi Arabian cases on record. I'd think most humans would find it disgusting, unjust, wrong, gratuitous, with mentioned slippery slope.

Admittedly, I don't have the technical/trained legal background to take the authorities to court, to run a case. It's not my case in particular anyway.

This stuff shouldn't block voting, right?

Well, you are arguing a case and claim they stand accused, but accused of what? I can find SA guilty of a lot of things but I think it's important we talk about the same thing, no?

So it blocks voting because I like to know what I'm voting for.

, maybe "unjust executions" works?

Sample cases and efforts listed (check) some history with outcomes (check) precedence (check) international responses available (check)

I'm kind of reminded of argumentum ad baculum. :)

Rather different context, same result for the accused/victim, both "unjust executions":

Christian zealot beheads teen for practicing witchcraft (Nov 2, 2014)

Some don't subscribe, some have their own version, some parts could use an update here and there, yet the spirit thereof is clear enough, great document:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec 10, 1948)

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that "Guilty" should mean war. Isn't sentencing a separate thing anyway? Come to think on it, maybe some sort of inclusive approach, having them take related responsibilities for all to see would help some, get them to do some soul-searching:

Again: Saudi Arabia Elected Chair of UN Human Rights Council Panel (Sep 20, 2015)

Don't know. It was a controversial move:

Why Is Saudi Arabia Heading a UN Human Rights Council Panel? (updated Apr 14, 2017)

OK, so I voted guilty, understanding it as a moral injustice as opposed to a legal injustice. It could still be a legal execution if all the proper rules were followed - I don't have the time to really figure that out but isn't relevant to the point I'm making.

It's quite a paradox that the Saudi ethos, by extension the entire Middle Eastern Islamic mindset, can be both so open-minded (witchcraft) and so narrow-minded (witchcraft).

I thought when in Rome do as the Romans do was a Western saying. It probably saved countless lives - we should somehow make this meme go viral in Saudi Arabia.

It's quite a paradox that the Saudi ethos, by extension the entire Middle Eastern Islamic mindset, can be both so open-minded (witchcraft) and so narrow-minded (witchcraft). — Agent Smith

YouGovAmerica did a poll 2019 that contributes to this topic, including:

"YouGov asked Americans about their belief in various paranormal entities. Turns out that more than four in 10 Americans believe that ghosts, demons, and other supernatural beings do exist."

"More than one in five (22%) say that demons “definitely exist” while slightly more (24%) believe that they “probably exist.” The numbers are similar when Americans are asked about ghosts: 20 percent say they “definitely exist” and 25 percent say they “probably exist.”"

"Far less common is the belief that vampires live among us. Only 13 percent of Americans say that vampires definitely or probably exist."

"More than one-third of Americans (36%) say that they have personally felt the presence of a spirit or ghost. Once again, women (41%) are more likely than men (31%) to say that this has happened to them. Just over one in ten (13%) Americans say that they have communicated directly with a ghost or spirit of someone who has died."

Polls can be interesting, but it is not always clear what conclusions can be drawn from them.

Witchcraft exists at least to the same extent as prayer exists. People pray, and people practice witchcraft.

The Saudi Arabian authorities occasionally execute people on false religious grounds. — jorndoe

So are you saying that all religious grounds are 'false'?
If so, what are the 'true' grounds for legal penalties?

I interpreted his post to refer to morality. Legal penalties are whatever the law says are the penalties. In that view, the executions were perfectly fine because in accordance with the law (presumably).

I interpreted his post to refer to morality. — Benkei

So did I. So the question is what morally grounds the law such that the distinction between true and false grounds can be made. Are we defending the freedom of worship of witches, or what?

You are right that to say that the proposition "there is such a thing as supernatural witchcraft" requires verification, but it follows that the proposition "there's no such thing as supernatural witchcraft" also requires verification. — RussellA

Not quite, which was the point of linking that other thread; that stuff goes back to John Watkins, Karl Popper, those people. We might ask: what exactly would evidence of x being fictional/imaginary look like...? (something's not quite right)

In the general case we're talking an indefinite/infinite domain/scope.
You can verify an existential claim ("look, there it is"), but you can keep trying to falsify indefinitely without having falsified the existential claim.
You can falsify a universal claim ("here's a counter-example"), but you can keep verifying indefinitely without having verified the universal claim.
That is, existential claims are verifiable and not falsifiable, universal claims are falsifiable and not verifiable.

So, that's why the onus probandi is anchored with the claimant of the (original) existential claim, and not much else is applicable, in this sense at least.

Here in the real world we often enough go by more fallible methods.
In this case, we tend to ask the (original) claimant, which strands on (unverifiable) anecdotes, or we can sometimes narrow the domain/scope to something more manageable, which, granted, would change how my statement is worded.
If nothing comes through, then both the (original) existential claim, and the contrary (my statement), have the same status, stating one is as hypothetical as stating the other.

↪RussellA, call it a reasoned inductive conclusion (if you must). — jorndoe

By the way, metaphysics tend to be both unverifiable and unfalsifiable; earnesty seems to mean provisional/tentative, or maybe a difference that makes no difference.

Witchcraft exists at least to the same extent as prayer exists. — unenlightened

Right. The word can mean different things. And some are self-professed witches, others kill who they deem witches. Killing is up there among the most severe sentences; the Saudis must deem it a rather severe offense (unless they have no respect for humans, over the top indecency, but that's uncharitable).

Legal penalties are whatever the law says are the penalties. In that view, the executions were perfectly fine because in accordance with the law (presumably). — Benkei

I'd replace "perfectly fine" with "perfectly legal". And I'm thinking the law would depend on morals; the other way around doesn't make much sense. Don't know if the endlösung was legal back there-then, but it was immoral; if it was legal, then that'd be a mockery of law. Anyway, side-track.

Maybe the most straightforward response is to requir...ask the Saudis to make their case, sufficiently, proportionally, with relevance. They already invested in a state-sponsored corps of witch-hunters. Other factors could be mentioned slippery slope, asking what (demonstrable) harm is done justifying execution.

ask the Saudi Arabian accusers/authorities to prove their case — jorndoe

There's a mountain of history, precedence, international works and documents, plain decency, whatever to go by already. I don't see how anyone can't find it disgusting — look over cases yourself. Not hard to come up with analogous scenarios that would seem absurd. But, the executions are happening (and someone voted "Not guilty"), so maybe there's a strong case to be made?

So are you saying that all religious grounds are 'false'? — unenlightened

Nayh. (Actually, I'd prefer the thread sticking to the topic; various religions have enough troubles as it is. :wink:)

I'd prefer the thread sticking to the topic — jorndoe

Yeah, I was asking what the the topic was.The Saudi regime is is a brutal dictatorship with a cloak of piety, propped up by the West.

A witch-hunt is a synonym for unjust persecution and terrorising of a population and victimisation of any social deviance. Probably, it's an unsound legal concept,

Gracias for posting the poll findings vis-à-vis the paranormal in the US of A.

Ponder this: With respect to belief (in the paranormal with emphasis on witches) the USA is identical twins with Saudi Arabia. However, the difference that makes the difference is that America doesn't conduct witch-hunts and behead suspected witches while Saudi Arabia does. Beliefs and behavior needn't be consistent in America but not so in Saudi Arabia.

Consistent with what @Benkei said, you need to explain what law you're asking they're guilty of. For example, if a Saudia Arabian killed a woman for being a witch and the laws of Georgia applied, he'd be guilty. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-1/16-5-1

However, if the Saudia Arabian law says you can kill those who the clerics have declared a witch, then they'd be not guilty.

Is your question whether there is some natural law that is applicable regardless of what the government says the law is?

witch-hunts — Agent Smith

Comme on dit, le terroriste des uns est le combattant de la liberté des autres.

That is, existential claims are verifiable and not falsifiable, universal claims are falsifiable and not verifiable. — jorndoe

Universal and Existential

Universal quantifier ∀ - “All cat’s are mammals.”
Existential quantifier ∃ - “There exists a cat.”

"There is supernatural witchcraft" is a universal claim. "There is a supernatural witch" is an existential claim. The existential claim that there is a supernatural witch logically follows from the univeral claim that there are supernatural witches.

Either supernatural witches exist or they don't.

Universal claims

I can verify my statement "cats exist", because I can point to two cats. No-one can falsify my statement "cats exist", as I can point to two cats.

I cannot verify my statement "cats don't exist", because there may be two cats that I am unaware of. Someone can falsify my statement by pointing out two cats.

I cannot verify my statement "unicorns exist", because I cannot point to two unicorns. No-one can falsify my statement, as there may be two unicorns that they are not aware of.

I cannot verify my statement "unicorns don't exist", because there may be two unicorns that I am unaware of . No-one can falsify my statement as there may be two unicorns that they are unaware of.

Existential claims

I can verify my statement "a cat exists", because I can point to a cat. No-one can falsify my statement, as I can point to a cat.

I cannot verify my statement "a cat doesn't exist", because there may be a cat that I am unaware of. Someone can falsify my statement by pointing out a cat.

I cannot verify my statement "a unicorn exists", because I cannot point to a unicorn. No-one can falsify my statement, as there may be a unicorn that they are not aware of.

I cannot verify my statement "a unicorn doesn't exist", because there may be a unicorn that I am unaware of . Someone cannot falsify my statement as there may be a unicorn that they are unaware of.

Cats exist as I can point to one. The fact that I cannot point to a unicorn does not mean that they don't exist.

IE, both existential and universal claims can be i) either verifiable or unverifiable and ii) either falsifiable or unfalsifiable.

Verification

People are guilty of making unverified statements all the time: in the pub, at the bus stop, on the Forum, in the media.

It is not the case that unverifiable statements should not be made on the Forum, after all, this is philosophy, but if an unverifiable statement is presented as a fact, such as "there is no such thing as supernatural witchcraft", the author should be required to verify their use of an unverifiable statement presented as a fact

IE, it is not that an unverifiable statement should be verified, rather, it is the use of an unverifiable statement presented as a fact that should be verified.

, according to some sources, Saudi Arabia does not have a legal definition of "witch", and no particular legal safeguards. Cases do not follow international law (rather the opposite here), are discretionary, justice system actors have no particular accountability. But they do have a state-sponsored corps of witch-hunters. Don't know of any sources contrary to that. Examples include someone saying that the accused magically caused a jinn to make them sick, someone in possession of a book deemed witchcraft, ..., foreigners have been executed as well.

Suppose we took the examples and made them into a law; for that matter, we could just declare it retroactive to cover past decades. That'd be making a mockery of law (international included), of doing the right thing, of conscience, decency.

Don't know if the the endlösung was legal back there-then, but it was immoral; if it was legal, then that'd be a mockery of law. — jorndoe

Technicalities/legalities aside, it's an assessment anyone can make; various information and factors mentioned earlier. "Ridiculous" might be an appropriate word. The kind of thing that history books might record as examples of what not to do, as repugnant.

The Saudi regime is is a brutal dictatorship with a cloak of piety, propped up by the West. — unenlightened

Right. (I'm just sticking to the opening post.)

, and other examples could be:

(∀) "photons don't decay", "all life is DNA based", scientific models
(∃) "there are extraterrestrial aliens", "the Vedic Shiva is real", observations

↪RussellA, call it a reasoned inductive conclusion (if you must). — jorndoe

, , there's been a few of those probes ...

2011 Americans' Beliefs in Paranormal Phenomena (Infographic)
2014 Superstition: Do you believe the following, or not?
2015 18% of Americans say they’ve seen a ghost
2018 ‘New Age’ beliefs common among both religious and nonreligious Americans
2019 United States: Do you believe any of these superstitions?

Not sure how informative they are.
I'll take seat 13 on the plane if at half price. Actually, I'll take row 13 off your hands for the price of a seat, just say the word. ;)

Saudi Arabia does not have a legal definition of "witch", and no particular legal safeguards. — jorndoe

If you're asking whether something is legal or not, you're left with exactly two choices: (1) Positive law or (2) natural law. Positive law is that law which is declared by the law making authority (the legislature, the dictator, the crown, or whoever) and natural law is the law that exists as part of nature. That is, it exists regardless of what people might declare. An example of positive law would be the Georgia statute I cited. An example of natural law would be something like Locke's statement that we all have the right to life, liberty, and property even if the government says otherwise.

If you're saying Saudi Arabian law has no positive law on the subject of whether it's legal or not to kill witches, then the answer to your question under a positive law analysis is no, it's not illegal to kill those determined to be witches.

If you believe that natural law exists (and many don't), and you believe it is enforceable without a positive law statement that it does (which many more don't), then the question of whether it's illegal to kill those determined to be witches would turn on whether you believe every person has a God given right to practice witchcraft without being placed in fear of death. If you do, then it would be illegal under this analysis. I will say, though, that this does a bit of an injustice to what we typically mean by "illegal," but it better describes more generally what me mean by "immoral."

, just relaying that they have no legal definition of "witch" (reported by whatever sources).
Unless they have laws against killing, I guess anyone is fair game, or if they do, I guess they're set aside (discretionary), something to that effect.
I wasn't planning on dragging them to a courtroom in The Hague (or Medina, "The Enlightened City"), but will get a good legal team if I do. :)

Immoral - check
Legal - undefined
Appalling - check
Slippery - check
Unjust - check
Decency - negative
Ridiculous - check

So, your sister got some tarot cards with nifty illustrations on them, next thing you know she's in jail. Someone said she cast evil spells on them. No more electronics studies at King Saud's. The cards were later sold on eBay by a clerk at the police station.

Let's call it a court of philosophy (and ethics, humanity) first, not like those rooms frequented by the chief SCOTUS, if you will, then legalities secondary. :)

^{Stuff like this would be a study on its own...
• Laws | The Embassy of The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Washington DC)
• Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (Saudi Arabia)}

There are some beliefs that people won't act on or if they do their actions are not proportionate to their beliefs. Some believe in ghosts/poltergeists/witches/demons/and so on, but all they do is just yak about 'em. Tell these very same people that you saw someone wearing a hoodie and armed and they'll run for their lives!

I considered a similar poll regarding homosexuality.
(In principle at least, people would/should be similarly equipped to do an assessment; this one has received more spotlight though.)
Defining "homosexual" would be easier, their laws more "well defined", yet equally unjust, inhuman, indecent, wrong.


:D

Witchcraft isn't against Islam;
Islam is against witchcraft.

What gives?