I absolutely agree that it in no way means these events are supernatural. They are extraordinary though, as in, they are literally out of the ordinary.
Here’s another perspective though; just because something seems ‘supernatural’, doesn’t mean it should be dismissed and ridiculed (yet that’s what happens more often than not).
And also, just because an authority figure, or science representative makes up a theory to dismiss these events, it shouldn’t automatically be considered a final say on the matter, and remain uninvestigated (that’s also what happens).
Science already has a use of the extraordinary; in optics, birefringent material have an ordinary ray and an extraordinary ray. Of course, once polarisation and crystal structure was understood, it was no longer “extraordinary” but the name stuck.
Science doesn’t “dismiss and ridicule” events; scientists seek an explanation and then either falsify them or admit them to the realm of the “ordinary”. A theory is only a theory until it has been experimentally tested and admitted to the realm of generally accepted knowledge. Unfortunately (to my mind) we don’t have a clear way of distinguishing “speculative theories” and “theories for which experiment has falsified competitors”, which might give the wrong impression that Evolution by Natural Selection and String Theory have equal weight.
I don’t see the relevance of “extraordinary rays” in this discussion. I’m using the word extraordinary as literally as can be:
adjective: extraordinary; adjective: extra-ordinary
very unusual or remarkable.
I agree, Science doesn’t dismiss and ridicule; scientists do.
Science will actually admit that there isn’t actually enough data to come to a conclusion - but scientists though; they regularly offer an explanation, or a “speculative theory” as you say, wether or not it is supported by any data or research, or even experience on the subject.
My basic point is this: scientists and the media should investigate the unexplained - not explain the uninvestigated.
