|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
I say that it would truly be a miracle if ringo agreed with anything said in this discussion by his opponents.He apparently never knows when to stop arguing. quote:And also something about, "cold dead hands."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Percy writes:
As you seem to understand, there is no point at which scientists stop. Nothing panned out yesterday but they keep looking today.
... but what if nothing panned out? Percy writes:
Explain why you think it doesn't support my contention. It's called a miracle by the Catholic Church but it's explained by scientists. My contention is that scientists don't call events miracles.
We already discussed the Miracle of the Sun, and it doesn't support your contention. Percy writes:
I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to figure out why you don't understand your own words. You say that scientists would work very hard to understand the phenomenon and than you say that they would stop working and call it a miracle. How many times are you just going to forget or ignore the many descriptions of how hard scientists would work to understand things. Or are you saying that they would call it a miracle and go on working anyway? in that case, why call it a miracle at all? Why not just call it something they're working on?
Percy writes:
No it doesn't. The comic shows a lot of figures on the blackboard which clearly took a lot of effort.
"Insert miracle here" is from a comic and implies no effort was made to study the phenomenon. Percy writes:
Huh? The sun rising is not unprecedented.
ringo writes:
Obviously false. The sun will rise tomorrow. Unprecedented? I don't think so. Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Percy writes:
When they come to the end of the trail, they don't just stand there. They ask, "Where to now?"
They follow the evidence where it leads. Percy writes:
More tentative explanations. The "tentative explanations" don't pan out. Now what. Please make up your mind. Do they stop looking or not?
Percy writes:
It indicates my inability to move you forward. But you're the guy who denied that the word "attributed" was there, even though you quoted it. And you're the guy who refuses to acknowledge that attribution is important in miracles even though it's mentioned in virtually every definition. And you're the guy who doesn't see that actual events are called miracles by believers but not by scientists.
Do you seriously not know that your inability to move beyond your original arguments makes clear how bereft your position is? Percy writes:
That's exactly the point. I don't care. The people who aren't discussing you flying bridge scenario decided on their own to not discuss it.
What do you care whether people discuss things you think stupid? Percy writes:
I'm like the janitor here. I clean up your mess. If you make the same mess tomorrow, I have to clean it up again tomorrow. That's the nature of the job. Like the scientists, I don't at some point decide that the mess is a miracle and can't be stopped. Like the scientists, I just keep going.
If you were doing your job right no one would be discussing this. Percy writes:
Absence of evidence for fairies, absences of evidence for the Loch Ness Monster, absence of evidence for UFO abductions, etc. Yup, sometimes.
... is that what you think, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Percy writes:
Then why are you suggesting that scientists would run out of possible explanations for your flying bridge?
ringo writes:
Obviously from context (see the sentence preceding your cut-n-paste) I was not. Are you suggesting that scientists have not proposed explanations for all of those things? Percy writes:
From previous experience with pigs. They see mud and they wallow. They don't need a definition. First, without defining how the new mud is different from the old mud, how do you know pigs would wallow in it? Scientists see questions and they propose answers.
Percy writes:
I would expect them to wallow in that too. I would not expect them to care whether it was "unprecedented" or whether it violated any pig laws.
A more fitting analogy would be to ask what pigs who only knew mud would do were they one day confronted by snow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
There's only so much that can be invented, so let's close the Patent Office? There is only so much that can be studied. Or, as we often tell creationists, questions usually produce more questions than answers.
Phat writes:
Or their grandchildren would solve the mystery.
... if it took them their entire career they would eventually solve the mystery. Phat writes:
It isn't as if every scientist on earth would be studying the phenomenon in the first place. The vast majority of them would leave it to somebody else to figure out - which is another reason why there could never be a consensus calling it a miracle.
You must concede, however, that a fair number would actually give up further research and go on with their lives. Phat writes:
They could privately call it Pinocchio. That has nothing to do with the topic.
What they privately chose to call the event would be as unique and individual as their very different lives and experiences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
When doing science, I think they are. Can all drivers see? It's kind of a prerequisite.
Are all scientists agnostic by definition? Phat writes:
How?
Can there ever be a science regarding miracles? Phat writes:
Agnosticism is not a step on the road to atheism. It's a constant state, like the curiosity of scientists. You can "declare atheism" but you're still really agnostic. A scientist can be temporarily stumped but he/she is still looking for answers. There is no reason for scientists to consider the concept of "inexplicable" at all. Will you remain agnostic your entire life or will you declare atheism and stop looking?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
It's hard to nail your jello to the wall. If research wouldn't come to a halt, why would scientists take time out to call something a miracle? It seems redundant.
My dear boy, nobody implied that calling it a miracle would bring research to a halt. Percy writes:
Well, where did all of those figures come from? Thin air?
You think the comic implies they put a lot of effort into the miracle step? Percy writes:
The sun rising every day in the past is well-documented. That's why we can comfortably predict that it will rise tomorrow. The sun rising tomorrow hasn't happened yet and therefore according to your statement is unprecedented. On the other hand, scientists haven't labelled things as miracles, even when they were temporarily inexplicable. (If you have examples of scientists labelling things as miracles in the past, feel free to cite them.) That's why we can comfortably predict that they won't do it tomorrow.
Percy writes:
The thread is about miracles and you keep calling them miracles.
It's been said many times now that the particular term chosen by science for inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws isn't important, yet you're still hung up on the term "miracles". Percy writes:
No it hasn't. It has been established that events that are called miracles are only called miracles in a religious context, not in a scientific context. The attribution to unnatural causes is the only thing that distinguishes a "miracle' from any other event. That isn't going to change just because you don't like it.
... it's already been established that attribution or cause isn't a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. Percy writes:
How so? The analogy is that scientists wallow in all types of questions, including the inexplicable ones. We have no reason to think they would handle a "new" question differently. The actual point was that you didn't choose an inappropriate analogy, and if pigs actually do wallow in all types of mud, including any new type of mud, that just makes the analogy even worse.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
If you define miracles as "a violation of the laws of nature", then as far as science is concerned they can't exist because science works only within the laws of nature (sometimes amending those laws as necessary). Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. But as far as believers are concerned, they do exist. That fact has to be included in the definition.
Percy writes:
"Something we can't currently explain."
Maybe they'd call it a miracle, maybe something else, but surely they'd call it something much shorter than "inexplicable phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws." Percy writes:
I'm imagining that the authors intent was to say that the scientists, after much effort, had given up.
Are you imagining that the comic's author did anything more than make stuff up or copy stuff out of a math book? Percy writes:
Of course not. Just the opposite. It implies that the scientists, after much effort, had given up.
And concerning the miracle step, which is what I actually asked about, do you really think the comic implies a lot of effort was placed into "Then a miracle occurs"? Percy writes:
Scientists haven't encountered it before because they don't recognize that it can happen. If something appears to "violate" known natural or scientific laws, they conclude that either the appearance is deceptive or the laws need to be tweaked.
But you're leaving out the violation of known natural or scientific laws, something scientists haven't encountered before. Percy writes:
I don't think it has any relevance. Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Scientists deal with unprecedented observations every day.
Is the word "unprecedented" really so difficult for you to understand? Percy writes:
Do you need to be reminded of the Miracle of the Sun? It's only a miracle because it's attributed to unnatural causes.
Do you need to be reminded of the two-slit experiment and quantum entanglement and radioactive decay and so forth? Percy writes:
We have no reason to think scientists would change their MO.
Up until now that is true. But what if tomorrow that changed? Percy writes:
Again, you're the one who is making the claim that pigs would suddenly change their behaviour if confronted by a new kind of mud. You need to back up that claim. Because your pigs react to the new type of mud as if nothing about it was different from the old type of mud. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
The definition defines away the argument. Hume is just doing what ringo is doing - defining away the argument.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
It isn't a scientific definition. Why should science define a word that it doesn't use?
Why do you think religion should have a say in a scientific definition? Percy writes:
The cartoon is making fun of people like creationists who use Goddidit as a "reason".
Is it funny because the scientist made such an absurd error? Is it funny because of the understated way the other scientist calls attention to the error? Is it funny because of the incongruous insertion of a miraculous event into science? Percy writes:
Exactly, which is why scientists wouldn't change their MO, no matter how flagrant the "violation".
Known natural or scientific laws have been violated many times in the history of science.... Percy writes:
You keep asking the same question.
but what if neither of these possibilities (nor any others) pan out?quote:No matter how many times you ask, the scientific method doesn't change. It's still a closed loop, with no escape hatch if the questions get too hard. Percy writes:
The level of flagrancy is irrelevant. There's no such thing in science as a "violation". There's only insufficient understanding.
When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios? Percy writes:
But it is a necessary part of the definition of miracles. That's why miracles are not science.
Attribution is not a necessary quality of scientific phenomena. Percy writes:
I used the word "unnatural" specifically because it is broader than "supernatural". Any event that is attributed to causes which can not be explained (by the attributor) is called a miracle, whether it can be explained by somebody else or not.
I think religion might prefer the term "supernatural" to "unnatural...." Percy writes:
That's the analogy I used. To a pig, mud is mud. What kind of analysis do you expect them to do? An accurate analogy to the proposed scenarios in this thread would be if pigs were presented something different to wallow in.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
I'm not crafting anything. I'm using the definition as written - the definition that you quoted yourself. As far as science is concerned, a violation of natural laws can't exist. An event is only attributed to a "violation" of natural laws by people who believe they can. More clearly, you and Hume are crafting your definition of miracle as something that can't exist.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Science doesn't create the definition or even use the word.
If science creates the definition then it is a scientific definition. Percy writes:
Then what the @#$% are you saying? Why would the notion of 'inexplicable" or "violating natural laws" or "miracles" come up at all if it was just business as usual?
Of course they wouldn't change their MO. They'd continue to follow the evidence where it leads. Percy writes:
I did say that it was attributed to Einstein. But of course it doesn't matter who said it.
Einstein never said this. You can find this misattribution explained on many webpages, e.g..... Percy writes:
It would indicate that our understanding of natural laws was breaking down, not that the laws themselves had been "violated".
... the evidence could indefinitely indicate phenomena inexplicably breaking known natural or scientific laws. Percy writes:
Right back atcha: Why would there be some point at which scientists were "more baffled" than ever before? How would they measure the level of violation-flagrancy and bafflement so that they could switch into "miracle mode". And bear in mind that you have agreed that nothing would change in their approach to the problem.
ringo writes:
How so? Percy writes:
The level of flagrancy is irrelevant. When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios? Percy writes:
Where does it say there is such a thing?
Where in science does it say there is no such thing as a violation? Percy writes:
If they leave evidence behind that science can study, how are they miracles?
If they leave evidence behind that science can study, then why are they not science? Percy writes:
The question is: How would the pigs interpret "something different"? Since pigs habitually wallow, their natural response would be to wallow. A more appropriate analogy would be one where the pigs were presented something different than mud to wallow in. The analogous question would be: How would the scientists interpret "something different"? Since scientists habitually investigate phenomena and find explanations for them, their natural response would be to investigate the phenomenon and explain it.
Percy writes:
I'm saying that miracles do exist in the minds of people who believe in miracles. Things are inexplicable in the minds of people who can't explain them. You and Hume agree, right? That by definition miracles can't exist. But to scientists, they are just things that happened. A scientist saying something can't be explained would be like a pilot saying an aircraft can't fly.
Percy writes:
It's the only context in which miracles are defined.
By the way, like you Hume considered miracles from a religious perspective, the only one you're willing to consider. Percy writes:
The consensus would be that there was a need for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the laws. Yet what if the scientific evidence shows a violation of natural laws, and a consensus develops around the evidence that a violation of natural laws did indeed occur?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
~1.6 writes:
But I'm not defining anything. I'm using the definition as written. It's Percy who is ignoring the importance of attribution in the definition that he himself quoted. Defining a term in such a way that makes one’s position much easier to defend.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
So you're making up the scenario, making up the evidence and making up the scientists' reaction. That's the nice thing about fiction: you don't have to have any rationale at all for your claims.
ringo writes:
It does in the "what if". Science doesn't create the definition or even use the word. Percy writes:
If you think considering the possibility of a miracle is part of the standard practice, you shouldn't have any trouble citing scientific papers that do so. I've been asking you to do that. Why no response?
I'm saying they would follow the standard practices of science when confronted with unprecedented phenomena and creating new conceptual frameworks. Percy writes:
I can't tell whether you're being deliberately evasive or not. Deal with what was said and quit quibbling about who said it.
Only the ignorant would believe an attribution to Einstein. The first clue is that it doesn't sound remotely like Einstein. Percy writes:
Every time we add something to our knowledge, the old understanding changes. A paradigm shift constitutes a major change in the old understanding - i.e. we tear down the old understanding to replace it with a newer, better one.
How can adding to our knowledge be equated to our understanding breaking down? Percy writes:
Relativity. Quantum mechanics.
If you have examples of science encountering such dramatic contraventions of known physical laws in the past then feel free to cite them. Percy writes:
But you keep saying that the evidence in your fairy tale doesn't lead anywhere. You claim that scientists would react differently because the evidence doesn't lead anywhere.
"Following the evidence where it leads" isn't terribly constraining. Percy writes:
Where does the scientific method allow for "violations"?
ringo writes:
Where did science ever say something existed before it was either first observed or theory predicted it? Percy writes:
Where does it say there is such a thing? Where in science does it say there is no such thing as a violation? Percy writes:
Then show us in the MO - i.e. the scientific method - where there is consideration of "violations".
You're incorrect if by MO you mean they'd refuse to consider the possibility of phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws. Percy writes:
But you keep waffling. If they follow the evidence where it leads, why do they need to consider violations or miracles at all? If the evidence leads nowhere, they look for more evidence; they don't say, "You can't get there from here."
Isn't "follow the evidence where it leads" just a more succinct form of the same thought? Percy writes:
Scientists are people who look for explanations, not people who think things are inexplicable.
ringo writes:
Scientists are people. Things are inexplicable in the minds of people who can't explain them. Percy writes:
And he wouldn't say it would take a miracle to get to Mars. He'd continue business as usual until the problem was solved,.
More appropriately and accurately, a scientist saying something hasn't yet been explained would be like an astronaut saying we can't yet go to Mars. Percy writes:
I'm pointing out that scientists don't have a perspective on miracles. Given the same event - e.g. the Miracle of the Sun - only religious people interpret it as "inexplicable" or a "miracle". Scientists explain it. Ergo, miracles are not part of their perspective.
You're stepping into a science thread and insisting only religious perspectives on miracles are allowed. Percy writes:
Are they? Who made up that rule and why? Possibly, but remember, miracles are local in time and space.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Huh? Someone forthright would say, "Now I know Percy has said that attribution isn't an essential quality of scientific phenomena, citing the two-slit experiment, entanglement and radioactive decay as examples, but...", and then go on to explain why that is wrong, something you haven't yet done despite repeated opportunities, always instead merely repeating your original argument unchanged. Nobody is calling the two-slit experiment or entanglement or radioactive decay a miracle. How are they relevant to events that are called miracles? We're talking about the definition of "miracle" here. I keep asking you: if attributing an event to an unnatural cause is not an important part of the definition of miracle, why does practically every definition mention it?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You're not rebutting anything. You're claiming that scientists would somehow react differently to your what-if scenario but you admit that their behaviour would be business as usual. I ask for any possible rationale for their reaction being different and all you say, "it's unprecedented." You have given us no reason to think that your claim is true. You're again repeating an old already rebutted argument.... You say that scientists would certainly call it a miracle and then you turn around and add, "or something else." You might as well say that planetary motion is caused by gravity, or something else.
Percy writes:
The old paradigm still works in "most contexts", not all contexts. Conventional aerodynamics still works in most contexts. Flying bridges would require something like relativity or quantum mechanics to refine the paradigm.
Relativity and quantum mechanics are refinements of known physical laws, not contraventions. Newtonian physics still rules the day, being sufficiently accurate in most contexts, since for low velocities the behavior of Einsteinian physics is indistinguishable from Newtonian for many decimal places. And classical mechanics works just fine in all but the most microscopic contexts. Percy writes:
Again, scientists don't conclude that physical laws have been "violated". (Again, feel free to cite scientific papers that correct me.) They conclude that their current understanding of the physical laws is incomplete.
We've described the opposite, that the evidence leads to the conclusion that known physical laws were violated. Percy writes:
Where does the process accommodate violations? Where is the step in the process that allows for, "insert miracle here"? An unprecedented phenomenon might slow the turning of the wheel or even stop it temporarily but it doesn't add spokes to the wheel.
ringo writes:
Where does the scientific method allow or disallow any possibility? It's a process, not a set of rules about what possibilities scientists are allowed to consider. Where does the scientific method allow for "violations"? Percy writes:
About the same number of times as I've asked you why they would call it a miracle if they were still working on it. The number of answers I've gotten: zero.
What would your estimate be of the number of times I've said that scientists would continue working hard to find explanations? Percy writes:
And I never said it was. It was supposed to be a simple analogy, obvious to anybody.
This is the fallacy of believing that because an analogy is accurate in one respect that it is therefore required that it be accurate in all respects.... Percy writes:
I'm not the one who's arguing religion. You are. Miracles are religion, not science. For example, the Miracle of the Sun is called a miracle by religion, not by scientists. Similarly, a flying bridge might be called a miracle by religion but not by science.
I explain that you're arguing religion in a science thread, and you reply by arguing religion in a science thread? Percy writes:
You didn't answer the question: Who made up the rule that miracles are local? If whether it's local or not was irrelevant to you then, why do you care now? Take the Miracle of the Sun, for example. If the sun really did dance around in the sky, it would not have been a local phenomenon. It would have been visible from wherever the sun was visible. That's one reason why scientists had to look for another explanation than "miracle". The claim that miracles are "local" sounds like religious waffle words, similar to the claim that God doesn't reveal Himself because He wants us to have faith.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Humour me. If attribution is not an important part of the definition, why is it mentioned in practically every definition?
This point about attribution has already been addressed. Percy writes:
I did. I pointed out that the two-slit experiment, entanglement and radioactive decay are not called miracles. They're not attributed to unnatural causes, even if we don't have an understanding of the causes. If they were called miracles, it would be because they were attributed to unnatural causes. Someone forthright would say, "Now I know Percy has said that attribution isn't an essential quality of scientific phenomena, citing the two-slit experiment, entanglement and radioactive decay as examples, but...", and then go on to explain why that is wrong.... I keep repeating the argument because you keep repeating that I didn't make it. And I can keep asking the question until you answer it: If attribution is not an important part of the definition of a miracle, why does practically every definition mention it? Do you think people just pepper their definitions with random irrelevant words?An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024