The "science" of Miracles

What on earth can ever be unexplainable? Cosmic rays, all the known and unknown particles, are coming from the whole observable universe. They can, in principle, synthesize everything and move everything and stop the sun in the sky. It's hardly more improbable than that "evolution".

And don't forget that they can grant immortality and spin straw into gold.--Percy

We've been through this before. A scientist doesn't use religious terms when doing science. Objectivity requires leaving subjective beliefs at the lab door. We're not talking about personal here.

Exactly. So why would they use one with such obvious religious baggage? But we already know how science would react. The Miracle of the Sun was an actual scientifically studyable miracle. Science reacted the same way as it always does, even if the available evidence didn't lead to a definitive explanation. If it seems to violate what we think we know, we need to adjust what we think we know. So, what if it wasn't local? What if every bridge in the world conspired to flout the laws of physics? What if the Forth Bridge soared over to span the Volga? What if the Bridge of Sighs took a romatic turn and went up to Paris to gaze longingly at Notre Dame? What if the George Washington Bridge strolled over to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, to visit its buddy, Governor Bigfoot? What if the Golden Gate Bridge landed on the moon piloted by three pigs, who proceeded to enjoy a wallow in the dust?How would a spate of bridge aviation be less flagrant than your local scenario? Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food. I expected you to follow the forum rules: "Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references." Why would science react to a religious definition? UFOs are called Unidentified, not Unidentifiable.

How do you know scientists would even care about so-called "religious baggage"? For Tangle's scenario involving a shaman, how does one even avoid the "religious baggage"? Why do you even care what term they use? It's the concept that's important, and by the way, the word "miracle" already has the definition for that concept.But you don't like the word miracle, and even though I find your arguments spurious I've been trying to accommodate you. No we don't. That wasn't scientifically studied. What evidence? There was no scientific evidence. Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift? You're describing multiple simultaneous miracles that are each local. The laws of physics continue to operate normally throughout the rest of space-time. Ringo refuses to take in information about "what ifs". Now you're just being purposefully thick again. You expressed skepticism about the existence of papers about violations of natural laws, saying I should feel free to cite scientific papers correctly you, so of course providing a link to one such paper was an effective and also the most appropriate counter-argument. They're reacting to phenomena, not a definition. "Miracle" just happens to be the word most closely matching the phenomena. How many times now would you guess I've explained that in a scientific context where tentativity reigns that "unexplainable" doesn't mean "unexplainable forever"?--Percy

Objectivity requires leaving religious baggage at the door. It's standard practice. By not talking about miracles or gods. It isn't what I care about. It's about the terms they actually use. I've given you ample opportunity to cite examples of scientists using the terminology you advocate. So far, it appears I'm right that they don't. If you want to know why they care, ask them. It was, to the extent that was possible, given the evidence available. The anecdotal evidence was similar to the anecdotal evidence in UFO investigations. Scientists consider UFOs to be unidentified, not unidentifiable. How do you distinguish between a refinement and a shift beforehand? How do you know that? Why is it even important whether or not the effects are localized? Percy avoids the issue (where he is demonstrably wrong). It's a violation of the forum rules. If your citation did support your claim, you would still have to show how it supported your claim. Only by using your specially-tailored definition. You've made the claim before and it's still wrong. In actual fact, scientists use the term "unidentified" instead of "unidentifiable" because "unidentifiable" would tend to connote forever. It's a clearer, hence better, term.

This has different answers depending upon which scenario we're considering, but one thing the answers have in common is, no, it's not standard practice - it's only the way things have worked out so far. Following the evidence where it leads is standard practice.For the bridge scenario, how do you know how much scientists would care about the "religious baggage" of the term miracle when choosing a term for the phenomena and giving it a scientific definition that has no "religious baggage." That's a rhetorical question - you can't know the answer.For the shaman scenario, the term miracle fits pretty well, and the scientists might find the "religious baggage" of the term miracle to be an advantage rather than a deficit. Given that a shaman performed an obvious miracle, how does your answer even make sense? There's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as miracles or gods. What *is* in science is acceptance of what the evidence says. You're playing dumb again. The whole point of the "what ifs" was to present science with scientific evidence of a type of phenomena never before observed. We've discussed my characterization of unprecedented, why are you forgetting it now? Well now you're just making stuff up. There was no scientific evidence of the Miracle of the Sun, and no scientific study was performed. What does anecdotal evidence have to do with scientific evidence? The proposed "what ifs" include the gathering of scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "beforehand," so taking a guess the question becomes why, before we know the results of the scientific analysis of the bridge "what if", do you think it would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift? What is it about that scenario that leads you to that conclusion? Depends upon the scenario. For the bridge scenario, if suspension of the laws of physics were not local but extended everywhere then they would be observed everywhere, except of course we wouldn't be around to observe this since we'd be dead. The shaman scenario suspends the laws of conservation of matter, energy and entropy, which also seems pretty deadly if it weren't local and focused to the new limb. Making a spurious claim doesn't change the fact that you gave a non-answer and failed to consider the provided information. I guess you're determined to plumb the depths of absurdity. If you want to make Forum Guidelines violation claims take them to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. You asked for citations to papers about a violation of known physical laws, I gave you one. You asked for a quote from the paper about the violation, I provided it. You're repeating yourself again. If you were honest you would say, "Only by using your specially-tailored definition. Now I know you've argued that it's a common practice of science to adopt an existing term and provide a scientific definition, but...", and then continue on to explain how my position is wrong. Go to Google Scholar and type in "unidentifiable". You'll get over 90 thousand results.--Percy

How would calling it a miracle help them follow the evidence? And there's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as leprechauns - but scientists still don't label things as leprechauns. Because it's still nonsense.

quote:

---

"Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time."
Tom Hanks in "Sully"

---

There's the same evidence that there is for UFOs and scientists study that evidence all the time. It may not be good evidence but it's still evidence. Your what-ifs have made up evidence. You might as well use Star Wars as evidence of UFOs. Made-up evidence is even worse than anecdotal evidence. You're making the same mistake as ICANT. The flying-bridge scenario could be caused by islands of anomaly in an ocean of standard physics. I did consider the provided information. I pointed out that you're wrong to assume that a regenerated limb would violate conservation of matter and energy. You'd need to weigh the subject before and after the regeneration to find out whether or not there was any change in mass. No change in mass = no violation. I also typed in "unidentified" and got 748 thousand results.

Well, you see, human beings, which is what scientists are, use language to communicate, and it is helpful to have words with clear meanings to refer to things like cars and trees and light and entanglement and so forth.I never said that calling it a miracle would help scientists follow the evidence, that's just something you made up, but certainly clear communication couldn't hurt. And round and round you go. Nice to see Tom Hanks getting it right where you couldn't. If you want to equate the lack of scientific evidence of the two phenomena then I have no objections. Your objections to "what ifs" are nonsense. Why don't you read the Wikipedia article on thought experiments? Quoting just the opening portion:

quote:

---

A thought experiment (German: Gedankenexperiment,Gedanken-Experiment or Gedankenerfahrung) considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may not be possible to perform it, and even if it could be performed, there need not be an intention to perform it.

​

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question: "A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).

​

Examples of thought experiments include Schrdinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

---

The type of thought experiment we're engaging in here is described in the In philosophy section:

quote:

---

In philosophy, a thought experiment typically presents an imagined scenario with the intention of eliciting an intuitive or reasoned response about the way things are in the thought experiment. (Philosophers might also supplement their thought experiments with theoretical reasoning designed to support the desired intuitive response.) The scenario will typically be designed to target a particular philosophical notion, such as morality, or the nature of the mind or linguistic reference. The response to the imagined scenario is supposed to tell us about the nature of that notion in any scenario, real or imagined.

---

Moving on: Maybe scientists would choose the term "islands of anomaly." The nature of the phenomena remains as described in the "what ifs". There you go making things up again. Not a "regenerated limb" such as might happen (to some extent) with a lizard or salamander, but a "missing limb suddenly reappearing." Or in Tangle's original words from Message 265, "A human doing it instantly [growing back a limb] on the command of a shaman (or a god) would be miraculous."What is it about the shaman "what if" that leads you to conclude it couldn't be a violation of conservation of matter and energy? Yes, of course. That's why the "what if" includes the presence of a great deal of scientific analysis equipment. Since a limb very definitely has more mass than no limb, I think it's safe to say there would be an increase in mass. Or maybe you want to argue the limb has no mass, though matter with no mass would be a very interesting and novel phenomenon. But in your Message 562 that I was replying to, and I quoted it, you said, "In actual fact, scientists use the term "unidentified" instead of "unidentifiable" because "unidentifiable" would tend to connote forever." It turns out that in actual fact scientists use both terms, and you're wrong yet again.--Percy

How would calling it a miracle be clear communication? It would say to religious people that God did it. I said the same thing as he did: Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Since it hadn't happened before it happened, "for the first time" is clearly implied. How would you tell the difference? You don't know whether there was a change in mass until you measure it. A conclusion that the limb had just poofed out of nowhere would be pretty far down the list. The obvious line of inquiry would be to see whether it had formed out of existing matter. But you also have to consider the mass of the person that the limb is attached to. I can grow hair or fingernails without increasing my mass. It seems pretty clear that "unidentified" is the preferred term.

Yes, it very well might, but how many times now have I said that the particular term chosen by the scientific community is unimportant, that it's the nature of the phenomena that counts? But Tom Hanks didn't say, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens." That's what you said. What Tom Hanks said, assuming you quoted him accurately, is, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time." I pointed that out when you first brought this up. You continue to recycle old rebutted points and be wrong yet again. How many times now have I mentioned all the scientific instruments in the room? Yes, of course. What if the scientific instruments indicated the new limb "had just poofed out of nowhere"? Yes, of course. Has it been mentioned about the scientific instruments in the room recording and measuring what is happening? What if they find that in an instant the total mass of the person increased by the mass of the new limb? A lot of things that aren't true seem clear to you, but more to the point, that's not what you said. You said, "In actual fact, scientists use the term 'unidentified' instead of 'unidentifiable' because 'unidentifiable' would tend to connote forever," yet it turns out the scientists use both terms, and so you turn out to be wrong yet again.--Percy

You say that in response to a comment about communication. In one sentence you say that clear communication is a good thing and in the next sentence you say it doesn't matter. In one sentence you say that scientists would definitiely call something a "miracle" and in the next sentence you back-pedal and say they might call it "something else". I wish you'd make up your mind. It's the same thing. It's unprecedented until it stops being unprecedented. You haven't told us what evidence you made up. Did you make up a change in mass reading that I missed? That reading would not be trusted. The instruments would have to be re-calibrated - but unfortunately, the event can not be repeated, so the reading could not be verified. See above. We don't throw all of science out the window because of one anomalous reading. If I said the vast majority of scientists don't say "unidentifiable", would that be clearer to you?Aside from all of the silly nit-picking, I don't know what point you're trying to make. You agree with me that scientists observing your fairy tale would just keep plugging away at trying to solve the mystery. So what is it exactly that you're trying so hard to disagree with?

No, I said clear communication is important but that the particular term chosen doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees on the definition then clear communication should be possible. How any particular term is defined in non-scientific contexts doesn't matter as long as scientists agree on the definition they're using. I think you've got your own misimpressions in your mind of what I'm saying and are not paying attention to my actual words. Certainly there was nothing like you describe in any recent message from me. Duckspeak. I changed nothing. I originally said that a shaman causing a lost limb to suddenly reappear would be a violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. Nothing I've said since has changed that. Repetition was part of Tangle's shaman scenario, that he could make lost limbs reappear at will. See above, the event is repeatable. It would be you changing your claim from one that was obviously wrong to one that is only of questionable accuracy and definitely an exaggeration. I'm just asking the question, "How would science react were it to encounter an actual miracle?" Yes, of course they would. I disagree with your opinion that there should be no discussion of a thought experiment about how science would react to an actual miracle.--Percy

quote:

---

Message 266And there most certainly can be a consensus that something was a miracle. The George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson River. A leg lost in Afghanistan being suddenly restored. The water in the Nile River suddenly turning to blood. A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous.

---

quote:

---

Message 481Where in this thread is anyone arguing that scientists would merely "insert miracle here"? It's been described many times how hard scientists would work to understand the phenomena and develop explanations.

---

What part of working hard to understand the phenomena and develop explanations involves conceding that the phenomena are miraculous? There you go again, evading the issue.Let's think this through:
1. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented.
2. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented.
3. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented.
4. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented.
5. It happens. It's no longer unprecedented.That's what Tom Hanks and I are saying. What difference do you think you see? But why did you make that assumption originally? I thought miracles were supposed to be events that are not repeatable. If the event can be repeated at will and thus studied repeatedly, it seems even more clear that it is not a "violation" of any law but rather our understanding of the law is missing something. You've answered that question yourself, with the same answer I've given: They'd keep studying the phenomenon, business as usual. Whether they'd pause to call it "something" or whether they'd order Chinese food is not relevant to science. I haven't said any such thing. I've been discussing your so-called "thought experiment" at length. It doesn't seem to be generating much interest among the other members but I would certainly welcome any of them jumping in.

You keep asking the same questions over and over again. The answer hasn't changed. The phenomena fit the definition of miracle (or whichever term scientists agree upon to refer to events that inexplicably violate known physical laws), and scientists would continue studying the phenomena. I see the same difference that everyone but you can see:

• You: "Everything is unprecedented until it happens."
• Tom Hanks: "Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time."

I agree with what Tom Hanks said and disagree with what you said. Perhaps in your mind there's an implicit "for the first time" on the end of what you said. You asked this before and the answer hasn't changed. No, I did not make up a change in the mass reading that you missed. I originally said a shaman causing a lost limb to suddenly reappear would be a violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. Obviously a violation of the law of conservation of mass means that there was a change in the mass reading. Equally obviously it was an increase in mass since a limb obviously has more mass than no limb. Non-repeatability is not part of any definition of miracle I've seen. Certainly a possibility. Certainly. I think they'd undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena, that naming the phenomena would not require a "pause", and that ordering Chinese food would happen. Oh, is that what you call what you're doing. Well, I'm glad to hear you don't object to the discussion. Nope, no interest at present, not since Stile jumped in, none of whom's posts you responded to, lending doubt to your claim that you've been discussing the thought experiment at length.--Percy