If a claim exists beyond the bounds of the senses, one cannot use the lack of senses to refute the claim; however we may derive skepticism from a lack of evidence. People may be skeptical, for example, of molecules until more evidence is given, though the existence of molecules remained unchanged all along. The claim can be rejected if the senses can definitively prove otherwise–just as the senses can serve as inductive evidence that a particular claim stands.

If there is such an intersection between the natural and supernatural, a true scientist ought to ask questions (second step of the scientific method) of the supernatural claim to determine if it is supported by the natural world. If the claim fails the test of coherence among such categories as origin, meaning, morality, or destiny, or if natural observation definitively negates the claim, then the scientist can rightly deem the claim as invalid. Further tests may include considerations like logical consistency (it cannot both affirm and deny a component). Short of this thorough investigation, however, no valid conclusion may be reached.