Meh… it is a valid hypothesis, certainly, but not necessarily one that is currently feasible to test. As Podblack points out, the sample noise is enormous when it comes to trying to nail down attitudes within gender boundaries let alone between them.

“Supernatural” is really a redundant term, because anything that manifests itself in our perceived reality is, by virtue of being experienced, a part of the natural order. If we discovered a genuine and fully bona fide vampire somewhere in the future, its existence would simply lead to a reassessment of the natural order, and that vampire would be realised as being a natural element within that order. It would not be “supernatural” but merely a piece of tangible evidence suggesting that we need to rethink certain conclusions that we’ve drawn about our reality.

A common error by non-scientific skeptics is to assume that something is only “real” or “natural” if it can be subjected to empirical investigation. Although this is hypothetically correct, it is often nonsense in practice. The actual extent of the natural world that is currently amenable to our current empirical methods is limited and only a portion is ever likely to be revealed, regardless of how sophisticated we become.

This is compounded by the fact that the manner of “supernatural” hypotheses tend to render them almost impossible to falsify. How do you determine the non-existence of a hypothetically conscious agent like a God or a ghost? i.e. and agent that can choose not to be observed? Or how does one test the existence of Descarte’s Demon? You simply can’t.

The correct response towards such claims then, is to simply say there is insufficient evidence to warrant our accommodation of such views, and there currently seems to be little practical benefit in pursuing them further. Anything else overstates the skeptics case and leaves materialism vulnerable to attack as being dogmatic and prone to similarly unsubstantiated claims, when it isn’t.

I have noticed that there is more variety WITHIN a gender than between them – from the research I have, I’ve certainly seen a range of beliefs and contradictions (what people say about creationism, evolution and continental drift, for example – it is apparently possible to believe that all of them are true??), leaving my item on ‘Belief in Aliens’ as possibly the nicest-looking graph with a clear difference between male/female belief, whilst all the others merrily squiggle and cross-over!

Speaking of which, I have to tidy up the index on my dissertation, I’ve still got a few more parts of it to complete – I’d be keen to test more theories on gender differences and belief in the future, but I have to get this degree done first!!

Anyway… I believe that females (as biologically defined) are indeed more inclined (but only as a group) towards intuitive reasoning because of genes. So I agree with my colleague Simon Baron-Cohen on this controversial issue. One consequence according to my theory is a corresponding stronger supersense.

But this is an empirical hypothesis that is testable. So hopefully others will take up the challenge
Bruce