Everything that exists is natural. Some people distinguish human-made from natural, but that is, in my opinion, just a way to pretend that humans aren't just large, hairless apes. In either case, a ghost would be something that happens "naturally" after a person dies, since no human has created ghosts artificially.

The supernatural cannot, by definition, actually exist. We assume things like ghosts are "supernatural," but if they existed, they would be "natural."

Claiming that science and empathy are somehow at odds is a false dichotomy.
Empathy is precisely what drives me to vaccinate my children. If I am fortunate enough to be healthy and have healthy offspring, I have an obligation towards those less fortunate to help establish herd immunity so that they do not die of the whooping cough, rubella, polio, etcetcetc.

Intuition is great, but it can lead you astray. That's where pretty much all logical fallacies come from: our intuitions being imperfect. The gambler's fallacy, for example, feels so right, but is oh so wrong!

Perhaps you need to set out a positive thesis about how 'linguistic minds' work (what is meant and entailed by the term 'linguistic minds')

I second this. First you'd have to define who has a linguistic mind: with the recent developments in primatology, we know that apes are capable of learning hundreds of words in sign language. Dogs can learn dozens. Cats at least a few. Pigs, rats, dolphins, and most other animals as well. Linguists for a while were moving the goal posts of what counts as linguistic ability purposefully to exclude non-human animals. So yes, the question would have to be in multiple parts: what is a linguistic mind? Who has one? And what, if anything, can we know about the minds of those who are non- or pre-lingual (as in the case of human babies or fetuses)?

It certainly is possible to have a moral code of some sort in a world with limited emotions or feelings. But any sort of action requires a certain amount of desire to do. The species in question would have to at least possess desires about existence or else they would not act in ways to continue existing. Why eat, drink, or even breathe if there is no desire to live and no feelings of hunger/thirst/wanting air to propel one toward action? Self-preservation is a desire.

Once you have a population fixed only on self-preservation and no other emotions, it's at least feasible that they realize that cooperation is their best bet for long-term survival and that cooperation requires rules that everyone follows. Those rules would look a lot like our morality: murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. Just not to avoid hurt others per se, but to avoid risking being the next victim. Other parts of our morality would probably be absent: infidelity may or may not be a problem, and telling someone they look fat in that dress wouldn't matter.

Perhaps the question then, can you call this set of rules "morality"? What makes something a moral rule as opposed to just a rule or a code of conduct?

I, for one, disagree with that entirely! We may sometimes realize that some things we thought were perfectly moral were actually immoral, but that does not mean we shrug our shoulders and continue on as though nothing happened--that means we change our system! If letting men own their wives turns out to be irrational and thus immoral, we adjust our definition.

One thing we have to tease apart is the difference between having a moral code for rational reasons, and that code being rational in itself. The trolley problem shows that we can have rational reasons for being morally inclined to contradictory conclusions if only marginal differences exist between situations.

I don't think that recognizing someone's intellect or wisdom goes hand in hand with agreeing with their every sentiment. It would be pretty silly to dispute the intellect of a man like Einstein, but that does not necessarily mean he was right in all of his theories. Same for wisdom: Plato was a very wise man, but not always correct in his theories. However, both Einstein and Plato were closer to any sort of truth about science and philosophy, because they were highly intelligent and educated persons. The point is not that uneducated or unknowledgeable people can't be wise, but that education and knowledge increase the wisdom of most, though admittedly not all, individuals. Knowledge expands your horizons. It moves you from group-think and cliche's to more global perspectives and the ability to grasp the big picture. Just like any other skill or ability, practice and knowledge makes you better. I may have a natural talent for the piano, but only practice and classes are going to make me better at it. And if I never had talent at the piano, only practice and classes are going to make me even passable at playing. (And again, I can recognize the musical talent of many artists without thinking that they sound very good or that they always have very good ideas while playing.)

As to the civil rights of the individual without education: I agree that this is the main problem with the whole concept of keeping democracy in the hands of those who are educated. However, I do not think the ethical dilemma can be dismissed so easily out of hand. If the majority of uneducated people are voting in favor of racists and those who would intentionally harm certain populations, then their individual rights may be at odds with the rights of others.

The only thing my position presupposes to work well is an education that emphasizes critical thinking over indoctrination. But I would argue that even the most indoctrinating education is better than none, because it is always giving you more tools with which you might be able to see through the propaganda. You can see China struggling with this tension throughout it's regime's history and today--they want to have educated people, and to have a boast-worthy system of higher education, but it's hard to maintain their rigid system of propaganda at the same time.

Regarding argument one: while knowledge does not necessarily make you wiser, it does make it more likely that you are. In most cases knowledge will also make the innately wise person even wiser. A group of more educated people may not be 100% free of people voting for the wrong things and for the wrong reasons, but it significantly reduces the total number thereof.

Regarding argument two: in order to revolt, the people would have to have a certain amount of political knowledge. Would it be enough that we consider them eligible to vote anyway and thus making the revolt moot?

Another argument against an epistemocracy is an ethical one concerning the rights of autonomous adults. Any adult has the right to be as stupid as he or she wishes to be and to make as many poor choices as he or she wants--provided, of course, these choices do not harm others. So, do we allow stupid people to vote because they should be allowed to ruin their own lives? Or do we say that their stupid voting choices are negatively affecting others and as such should be more controlled?

The solution, of course, is fairly simple: a democracy that ensures the education of all of it's people and that values learning/knowledge more than, say, the Super Bowl. Easier said than done perhaps, but also the only truly ethical way out of the mess.