|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Not if that's the answer. Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid. No, that's not an answer. That's a refusal to consider the "what if." We've been down this road just a short while ago where in addition to the flying pigs example there was, "What if Germany won WWII?" The response, "But Germany didn't win WWII" is not an answer but a refusal to consider the "what if."
Percy writes:
I've been trying to figure out what the @#$% your meaning is. ... you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning. The idea behind a "what if" isn't all that complicated.
In one post you say, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." Then you change it to, "or something else." I didn't change it to "or something else." You said it was a conclusion, I said it was an opinion, but call it what you like, from my end the examples of miracles that were provided are open to discussion.
You agree that nothing in their procedure would change... Yes, because following the evidence where it leads and the scientific method should not change just because the object of study changes.
...but when I ask why the notion of miracles would come up at all, you just repeat, "It's a what-if." Yes, of course. People can devise whatever "what ifs" they like.
What is your meaning? I don't so much have a meaning as a hope or intention, which is to discuss how science might react were it to encounter a true miracle.
Percy writes:
And how many times did you admit that nothing in the scientific method would change? So what's the point of the what-if? How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"? Why do you think the scientific method should change for different objects of study?
Percy writes:
How could it? Does the what-if evidence include video of God lifting the bridge? What if the evidence leads to miracles? I'm willing to consider the "what if" defined in that way.
All the evidence can lead to is, "We don't know (yet)." It can't lead to woo. But what if it did? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
You're confusing rejection of your conclusion with refusal to consider. That's a refusal to consider the "what if." I don't have a conclusion. So far all I have is a "what if".
I have considered and I have come up with a different conclusion: If there was a flying bridge, scientists would investigate it. Agreed.
If they failed to explain it according to known physical laws, they would not call it a miracle. I don't see how you can know the choice of nomenclature in advance, but I've said many times now that the particular name isn't important.
They would keep looking and if necessary they would adjust their understanding of the physical laws. Might that adjustment in understanding include that physical laws can be suspended and superseded at the command of a shaman? If not then that is a refusal to consider the "what if."
My conclusion is based on everything we know about scientists. Since you're not considering the "what if," how can you have a conclusion?
Percy writes:
But there doesn't seem to be anything behind your what-if. What if bridges could fly? What if pigs could fly? What if Germany won World War 2? The idea behind a "what if" isn't all that complicated. If you think details have been omitted you need only ask.
You haven't gone anywhere with your what-if except to arbitrarily claim that scientists would call it a miracle. See above about nomenclature being unimportant.
Percy writes: ringo writes: And how many times did you admit that nothing in the scientific method would change? So what's the point of the what-if? Why do you think the scientific method should change for different objects of study? I've been saying exactly the opposite for lo these many posts. If you don't think the scientific method should change, then why do you think it a weakness in my position that I believe the same thing?
Did you miss that like you missed the word "attributed"? So it is your position that I make mistakes, you don't, and therefore your argument must be correct?
I'm the one who says the method would not change, whether the subject was a flying bridge or a new species of beetle. I've said the same thing.
You're the one who says that on the subject of flying bridges scientists would call it a miracle even though they never have on any other subject. See above about nomenclature being unimportant. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes: Might that adjustment in understanding include that physical laws can be suspended and superseded at the command of a shaman? If not then that is a refusal to consider the "what if."
Can you cite any examples of modern science doing anything like what you suggest? Ringo and I have been discussing this for a while. That first sentence you quoted when taken out of the context of the conversation could easily be misinterpreted. Given what you say next:
I believe that scientists would respond to such behavior by one of their own by announcing that he/she was not following the scientific method. It's does seem possible you're missing some context.
Science is an aggressive search for natural processes as an explanation for all phenomena. There is no point at which a scientist stops looking for his lost keys and considers the possibility that a poltergeist took them. If that is what you mean by "refusal to consider the what if", then yes, that is a limitation of science. Now I'm more sure that you're missing some context, because Ringo and I have already been over this ground. At heart this is a simple "what if": What if science encountered a miracle? The response offered has been, in effect, that's impossible - science could not encounter a miracle. So at several points possible miracles were suggested for purposes of clarity, and one of them was a shaman making limbs reappear on command. At another point (at many points, actually) it was made clear that the miraculous phenomena would be subjected to rigorous scientific study. At another point (at many points, actually) it was made clear that science would not give up studying the miraculous phenomena. The response remains the same, in effect, it's impossible for science to encounter a miracle. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Based on past behaviour. I don't see how you can know the choice of nomenclature in advance.... Like biological classification names based on gods or supernatural beings or even the ark (Arca noae)? Like planets named after gods, and galaxies and nebula after mythical characters? The Higgs boson is sometimes referred to as the God particle, and Leon Lederman actually titled his book about the Higgs The God Particle.
Percy writes:
Then your what-if is just a God-did-it. Where's the "experiment" in your thought? Might that adjustment in understanding include that physical laws can be suspended and superseded at the command of a shaman? If not then that is a refusal to consider the "what if." Do you recall how many times the scientific equipment in the room has been mentioned?
Percy writes:
My conclusion is that the what-if is worthless. It doesn't lead anywhere. Since you're not considering the "what if," how can you have a conclusion? My opinion is that it would be an interesting exploration of one aspect of the philosophy of science.
Percy writes:
The weakness in your position is that the jelly keeps sliding down the wall. It doesn't have the structural integrity to be nailed down. You say that scientists' reaction would be the same, but different. If you don't think the scientific method should change, then why do you think it a weakness in my position that I believe the same thing? Actually, no, I haven't said that. I've said that scientists would follow the evidence where it leads and the scientific method. It is the phenomena that are novel, not the scientists, their reactions, or their methods.
Percy writes:
No you haven't. The very fact that you're talking about nomenclature at all proves it. There is nothing happening that needs new nomenclature. ringo writes:
I've said the same thing. I'm the one who says the method would not change, whether the subject was a flying bridge or a new species of beetle. Interesting reasoning. We're just speaking hypothetically, which means we're speaking of a situation which does not exist as if it did exist. What if an irresistible force were to meet an unmovable object? What if Captain America were to fight Batman? What if quantum effects could manifest themselves at macroscopic levels? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes: At heart this is a simple "what if": What if science encountered a miracle?
I don't think my comment reflects any missed context. That you raised the exact same issues Ringo raised innumerable times indicates a great deal of missing something.
If there were a real miracle, then science would fail in that instance because it does not accommodate miracles. Because...
Scientists would continue to search for a natural explanation. Yes, of course, as those who have read the thread know I've said many times.
Your post claimed that their failure to consider that the shaman had suspended natural rules was a failure on the part of scientists. Where did I say that? What I did say was that if the adjustment in understanding Ringo referenced ("they would adjust their understanding of the physical laws") could not include evidence of a miracle then he was refusing to consider the "what if."
Okay, so it is a failure in some hypothetical sense. So what? Since it was never said that there was any "failure on the part of scientists" there can be no response to this, but there do seem to be some strong feelings that some hypotheticals are impossible. I agree that this is so. Hypotheticals like one equals zero or massless particles have mass or identical objects are different make no sense, but the hypothetical that science detects evidence of miracles doesn't seem to fall into that class. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
You make my point. We can predict what nomenclature scientists will use I the future. They might name a bug after an Inca god or a galaxy after a hobbit in Lord of the Rings. They have not called events "miracles" in the past so we have no reason to think they will in the future. Like biological classification names based on gods or supernatural beings or even the ark (Arca noae)? Like planets named after gods, and galaxies and nebula after mythical characters? Science has no problem drawing upon fiction, mythology and religion for terminology - why do you think the term "miracle" special? Do you have any other terms, from any realm, that science would eschew? "Magic," perhaps? You sure seem to know a lot about what science might and might not do. However did you become such an authority, not to mention seer, soothsayer and part-time baloney salesman?
Percy writes:
The Transporter is mentioned on Star Trek. That doesn't elevate it from science fiction to thought experiment. Do you recall how many times the scientific equipment in the room has been mentioned? And yet people have engaged the concept of the transporter as a thought experiment. There's a Wikipedia article describing some of the thought put into it, see Transporter (Star Trek). Lawrence Krauss wrote The Physics of Star Trek that gives some consideration to the transporter:
quote: Percy writes:
We'd realize that one of the concepts, or both, is nonsense. What if an irresistible force were to meet an unmovable object? And Einstein riding a light beam is nonsense, but that didn't invalidate it as a thought experiment. These are "what ifs." I don't know why you're not getting it, but you're not. Something about them seems to offend your sensibilities. If you don't want to play no one is making you, but it's hard to imagine speculations one isn't free to ponder. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes: Might that adjustment in understanding include that physical laws can be suspended and superseded at the command of a shaman? If not then that is a refusal to consider the "what if." Yes, it is a refusal. The part that says "that is a refusal to consider the 'what if'" is referring to Ringo. He thinks the "what if" is nonsense.
And science requires that its practitioners refuse to consider magic as an explanation. First, the "what if" doesn't postulate any explanations like magic and so forth. That was left for discussion. One could rephrase the "what if" as, "What if naturalistic science were faced with the quandary of evidence of violations of known scientific laws?" (In attempts to satisfy critics (i.e., Ringo) the "what if" has been posed in a variety of ways, but as no progress was made I reverted to the simple, "What if science encountered a miracle?" In other words, I'm flexible.) Second, there's no such requirement in science. Science follows the evidence where it leads. Check out the scientific method. When formulating hypotheses as part of the method there are some requirements, such as that it be falsifiable and natural. The "what if" only describes evidence of phenomena in the natural world. Science widely assumes that the natural world is objective, rational and consistent. What if that assumption is false? Or what if it is true and miracles can be interpreted within an objective, rational and consistent framework? What about The Miracle Argument? These are just a few possible directions discussion could take. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
It's scientists who don't use it, so ask them why they don't. Science has no problem drawing upon fiction, mythology and religion for terminology - why do you think the term "miracle" special? I think all you can say is that they haven't used it yet. What if instead of Hallucigenia that Ediacaran had been named Miraculousia? It's may only be a matter of time before the term "miracle" is applied to something in science, if it hasn't already. This is true of any word in any language.
My guess is that it has more immediately religious connotations than calling something "Neptune". The evidence strongly suggests that scientists do not shy away from fictional, mythical or religious realms when choosing terms.
Percy writes:
Probably. You can feel free to cite examples of scientists referring to magic. Do you have any other terms, from any realm, that science would eschew? "Magic," perhaps? We're talking about choosing names. When a scientist chose the name Hallucigenia for that Ediacaran he was no more calling it a hallucination than he would be calling it magical had he instead named it Magica. It's just a name. If at some point "miracle" enters the pantheon of scientific nomenclature it will not be because some scientist thinks he's discovered a miracle.
Percy writes:
I learned to read when I was six. You sure seem to know a lot about what science might and might not do. However did you become such an authority, not to mention seer, soothsayer and part-time baloney salesman? And when did you forget?
If you've read anything that suggests that scientists consider the possibility of miracles or magic, feel free to cite examples. Again, talking about nomenclature. See above.
Percy writes:
That's all after the fact. Nothing you've posted here leads us to conclude that you've put the same level of thinking into your what-if. Maybe it could become a thought experiment if you did actually think about it. And yet people have engaged the concept of the transporter as a thought experiment. A great many relevant details have already been provided but if you think more is required then help flesh it out, or ask questions.
And with the transporter the problem is, "what is the fastest and most efficient way to do it?" There is no "violation of physical laws" involved. Who said there was? It does strain at physical laws a bit, though: The trouble with teleportation: It could take quadrillions of years. Browse through the Journal of Special Topics at the University of Leicester.
Percy writes:
The irresistible/immovable force/object scenario is nonsense because they're contradictory. Both can not be true. And Einstein riding a light beam is nonsense.... You seem so sure.
It's inherently impossible. And a person riding a light beam isn't?
Einstein riding a light beam is just a plot device, a way for him to collect evidence. It doesn't have to be literally true for the evidence to have value. Do you even know what a thought experiment is? Of course it isn't literally true, and certainly no evidence is collected. It's a mental exercise. Wikipedia says:
quote: Percy writes:
You can ponder to your heart's content but if you conclude that scientists would react as they've never reacted before you're going to be challenged. And if you insist that the conclusions of your "experiment" are not conclusions, you're going to be challenged on that too. If you don't want to play no one is making you, but it's hard to imagine speculations one isn't free to ponder. Challenge to your heart's content, but you might want to challenge things I actually say. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Or it may only be a matter of time before all scientists become creationists. Another useless what-if. It's may only be a matter of time before the term "miracle" is applied to something in science, if it hasn't already. Yet you're still unable to support this contention, or this one:
Percy writes:
The evidence is that they do shy away from "miracle". The evidence strongly suggests that scientists do not shy away from fictional, mythical or religious realms when choosing terms. Your only evidence that scientists would never adopt "miracle" (or any related word) as a term within science is that they haven't used it yet. They haven't used "breadbox" or "toothbrush" or "fireplace" either - are they shying away from them, too?
Percy writes:
So you're shooting yourself in the foot. Even if scientists did call something a miracle, which they seem to avoid, they still wouldn't think it was a miracle. If at some point "miracle" enters the pantheon of scientific nomenclature it will not be because some scientist thinks he's discovered a miracle. How many times now have you had to be reminded that in this part of the discussion we're talking about nomenclature? Only sometimes do you remember the context, e.g., just a few messages ago at one point in Message 628: "We can predict what nomenclature scientists will use in the future." But in other places you forget and seem to drift back and forth between contexts, between whether scientists would eschew the word "miracle" as a scientific term and how would science react if faced with evidence of a miracle. You also ignore the many times I've said the specific label science chooses isn't important - it's the meaning that's important.
Percy writes:
How does your story gain new information? And didn't you deny drawing inferences? Wikipedia says:
quote: First, about whether I denied drawing inferences, it seems an unlikely thing for anyone to say, I don' t remember saying it, and a search reveals that in this thread I've never used the word "infer" or any of its various forms (until just now in reply to you). Second, about how we would gain new information, in just the way Wikipedia describes, "In thought experiments we gain new information by rearranging or reorganizing already known empirical data in a new way and drawing new (a priori) inferences from them or by looking at these data from a different and unusual perspective." The new information could be any number of things. We can't know what the new information will be without going through the thinking exercise. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar. Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes: First, the "what if" doesn't postulate any explanations like magic and so forth. That was left for discussion.
Yes, you did postulate exactly that. No, I didn't. I think a few things are confusing you. First, obviously you've read little of the thread. Second, Ringo keeps circling back to the same already-addressed arguments (he's been doing this for ages - Tangle first commented on this way back in early February in his Message 479 when he said, "What is it with you and this stubborn circular, repetitive stuff?"). Third, explanations made earlier are often not repeated in full form when someone reintroduces the old argument. Fourth, Ringo often misrepresents or misinterprets what I say, but since you agree with him you're putting greater weight on what he says I'm saying than on what I'm actually saying. Your Message 637 is an example.
The "what if" was that a shaman suspended the laws of science. First, that wasn't the "what if". That was part of a question for Ringo about whether the adjustment in understanding might be permitted to include that physical laws can be suspended and superseded at the command of a shaman. If not then he was refusing to consider the "what if", just as you are. Second, it looks like you're just going to ignore the explanation that appeared in the very message you're replying to that the "what if" has been expressed in a variety of ways in an attempt to satisfy Ringo. The shaman version is just one of them. The example itself comes from Tangle, and it was that a human limb regrows on the command of a shaman. Do you object to this form, too? There's little point to pulling something out of context and insisting it means something it was never intended to mean. It's just a waste of time. I already explained that you're missing context in Message 621.
The "what if" was completely contrary to science. Is it? What if science encountered evidence of violations of its very laws? There's the evidence as clear as day, and science looks at the evidence. Are you saying there's evidence science can't examine?
In that case, there would not be a scientific explanation and the scientist would not find one,... Can you be so sure - inflexible and dogmatic, one might almost say? Even if they never explained it, might they perhaps at least learn more about it?
...and would not consider a non-scientific explanation. Or might how we look at science change? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
When all the evidence you have points in one direction, that might be the right direction. Get back to us when the direction changes. Your only evidence that scientists would never adopt "miracle" (or any related word) as a term within science is that they haven't used it yet. So far you've offered nothing in support of your opinion.
Percy writes:
If you claim that scientists "would certainly" call a flying bridge a toothbrush, you'll get the same argument from me.
They haven't used "breadbox" or "toothbrush" or "fireplace" either - are they shying away from them, too? Percy writes: First, about whether I denied drawing inferences, it seems an unlikely thing for anyone to say, I don' t remember saying it, and a search reveals that in this thread I've never used the word "infer" or any of its various forms (until just now in reply to you). I said that your conclusion was wrong. No, you didn't. What you said was, "And didn't you deny drawing inferences?" And my reply made clear I thought you were talking generally, that you were saying I had denied ever employing inferences. What else do you think I meant when I said, "It seems an unlikely thing for anyone to say."
You said you didn't draw any conclusion. Yes, that's correct. I haven't drawn any conclusions about the "what if" because that would be premature since we haven't discussed it yet. Inference is a type of conclusion, but conclusion is not a type of inference because conclusions can be reached through either deduction or inference. In any case, I have thus far drawn no inferences, made no deductions, reached no conclusions.
Percy writes:
We've been through the thinking exercise. The new information could be any number of things. We can't know what the new information will be without going through the thinking exercise. No, we haven't. You've refused to engage in any discussion concerning the "what if", declaring it nonsense out of hand.
What new information is derived/inferred/concluded from thinking that physical laws have been violated? You tell me, since in your fantasy world you think we discussed it already. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
What I've done is point out that there is nothing in support of your opinion. There is more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than there is for your idea that scientists would "certainly" call a flying bridge a miracle. So far you've offered nothing in support of your opinion. You're again circling back to old already-answered arguments. We were talking about nomenclature. But responding to this old argument yet again, the actual "what if" is "What if science encountered a true miracle?" The George Washington Bridge lifting free of its moorings and floating 50 miles up the Hudson was offered as an example of something scientists would view as miraculous, because the phenomena displayed would be so obviously in violation of the natural laws of the universe that they couldn't be viewed as mere anomalies. If examples are getting in the way of your consideration of the "what if" then ignore the examples and just consider the question, "What if science encountered a true miracle?"
Percy writes:
You keep claiming that you made something clear when you didn't. And my reply made clear I thought you were talking generally.... How can I "keep claiming" something I just stated for the first time? I'm sorry it wasn't clear to you that I thought you were accusing me of in general eschewing inferences, but now hopefully it is clear. Did you understand that "inference" is not a synonym for "conclusion"? Do you see that inference is a type of conclusion but not vice versa?
Percy writes:
It seems unlikely that somebody would miss seeing a word like "attributed" when he quoted it himself - but it happened. What else do you think I meant when I said, "It seems an unlikely thing for anyone to say." You're again circling back to old arguments. Are you under some misimpression that your posts have been free of mistakes? Your most recent mistake was thinking "inference" was a synonym for "conclusion," but that's just the most recent among many. If mistakes render everything subsequently said unworthy of consideration, then what you've been saying has been unworthy for quite some time.
So I don't take it too seriously when you say something is "unlikely". Two things. First, you don't think it unlikely that anyone would deny ever using inference? Second, perhaps your unwillingness to give serious consideration to what I've been saying explains why your arguments have been so repetitive and circular, and why your messages display a marked inability to maintain continuity or context.
Percy writes:
What exactly would constitute a "discussion" in your mind? What specifically do I have to do to "discuss" the flying bridges to your satisfaction? You've refused to engage in any discussion concerning the "what if" What you have to do needs no detailed characterization. You need merely engage in discussion instead of dismissal.
Percy writes:
So none? Since when does a thought experiment require my participation? FYI, Einstein didn't consult me. ringo writes:
You tell me, since in your fantasy world you think we discussed it already. What new information is derived/inferred/concluded from thinking that physical laws have been violated? Sarcasm rather than substance is your only response?
If your "thought experiment" didn't derive/infer/conclude any new information - with or without me discussing it - it seems like a pretty thin "experiment". So help flesh it out if that's how you feel. Make suggestions, ask questions. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Originally wrote conclusion/inference synonym relationship backwards. Edited by Percy, : Two places. Edited by Percy, : Sigh - got it right first time. Don't watch soccer while reviewing message. Add clarification.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
"True miracle" is the stumbling-block. You're assuming that scientists would interpret "something" as a "true miracle". They never have. Why would they now? If examples are getting in the way of your consideration of the "what if" then ignore the examples and just consider the question, "What if science encountered a true miracle?" Yes, we know, science has not so far encountered a miracle. But what if, now, science for the first time encountered a true miracle? How would science react?
Percy writes:
I'm aware that you think I've made mistakes. Are you under some misimpression that your posts have been free of mistakes? So you didn't confuse "conclusion" and "inference"? Where your mistakes are pointed out, your replies pretend they never happened. Was it really your position in pointing out an error (that I readily conceded in Message 276) that it excused you from taking what I say seriously? Is that why you're subjecting the thread to this merry-go-round of spurious arguments and diversions, that you just don't take it seriously? No one is saying there aren't very strong scientific arguments against the existence of miracles. We all acknowledge that. But the discussion is about a hypothetical, it's speculative. What if science did encounter a true miracle? What then?
You've done an elaborate semantic dance around almost every word I've used. And I think your posts represent a lengthy exercise in evasion and diversion.
For the most part, your criticism has done nothing to address the actual points being made. But you're not making any "actual points." You're just making up a bunch of excuses for why the "what if" is nonsense and impossible, all the while repetitively circling back to old arguments that have already been discussed.
Percy writes:
Is there a sentence in there? Is that your idea of being clear? First, you don't think it unlikely that anyone would deny ever using inference? Is that your idea of reading comprehension? Oh, wait, I get it, when you're losing an argument you pretend not to understand. Or am I giving you too much credit?
Percy writes: ringo writes:
What you have to do needs no detailed characterization. You need merely engage in discussion instead of dismissal. What exactly would constitute a "discussion" in your mind? What specifically do I have to do to "discuss" the flying bridges to your satisfaction? See? There you go again, dancing around the issue. Just answer the question: What would constitute discussion? By all means, give details. I can't tell you what to contribute from your side of the discussion. That's up to you. Just consider the "what if" instead of ruling it out-of-bounds out of hand. I can give you some possibilities to consider in the form of questions. Would science decide to incorporate the miraculous phenomena into science, thereby changing the nature of science? Would science decide the miraculous phenomena were beyond the purview of science? But wouldn't that mean that science is ignoring some types of evidence, specifically, those it can't explain? In which case how does science tell the difference between phenomena it can't explain at present and phenomena it will never explain? How significant does a violation of natural physical laws have to be before it is no longer an anomaly but a true violation?
Percy writes:
You're kidding, right? If we tallied up the sarcasm and personal digs in this thread, you'd be miles out in front. Sarcasm rather than substance is your only response? What can I say, I'm precocious. Obviously each of us considers the other as dancing around what the other is saying, and just as obviously we both feel unjustly accused.
Percy writes:
I did ask questions. So help flesh it out if that's how you feel. Make suggestions, ask questions. Ask again - I must have missed them.
Recently I asked what you expect me to do to "discuss" your scenario. What's your answer? See above, but my own perspective is that you're pretty obviously avoiding discussing the "what if" while responding dismissively. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
What if a dog encountered something he had never encountered before? How would he react? But what if, now, science for the first time encountered a true miracle? How would science react?He'd react the same as he always reacts. He'd sniff it. He might bark at it. He might even mark it as part of his territory. You wouldn't expect him to react outside his repertoire of reactions, would you? So why would you expect scientists to react outside their repertoire of reactions? Given the number of times we've been over this, it's hard to see this as anything but a purposeful misunderstanding of what I mean when I ask, "How would science react," combined with an equally purposeful forgetting of prior explanations and clarifications. You keep circling back to the same objections as if they hadn't already been discussed. I'm not explaining this yet again. Wallow in your mental merry-go-round and amnesia.
Percy writes:
I don't agree with your nitpick. You made a conclusion, that scientists would "certainly" call your flying bridge a "miracle" Message 266. I don't think you're fooling anybody with your attempt to make a distinction between a conclusion and an inference. Whichever it is, it's wrong. So you didn't confuse "conclusion" and "inference"? You're ignoring the point. You have made many mistakes throughout this discussion. Did you not twice call attention to a mistake I made (that I readily acknowledged) as a way of implying that I make mistakes and you don't? Did you not use it to question things I said for which you had no rationale other than that earlier in the discussion I had made said mistake? Does it not explain why you fail to take this discussion seriously and instead subject the thread to endless repeats of the same arguments that have already been answered?
Percy writes:
See the dog above. What if science did encounter a true miracle? What then? See if you can search your memory, or if that fails you read the thread, and figure out what was actually meant.
Percy writes:
That's a disappointing statement from somebody I respect. Instead of even trying to clarify, you question my intelligence. Is that your idea of reading comprehension? Oh, wait, I get it, when you're losing an argument you pretend not to understand. Or am I giving you too much credit? Well, now I question your candor. There is no evidence of an attitude anything remotely like, "We've been going at this for some time, he keeps making the same obviously stupid and wrong point, but I respect this guy, so there is possibly some valid point in there, so I should make an effort to figure out what it is." Instead you've subjected the thread to the Ringo Round-a-Bout where nothing is understood or remembered while the same arguments endlessly flash by.
Never mind giving me any credit. Consider the possibility that somebody else might not have understood your convoluted mess of a sentence. It was plain English. It was just convenient for you at the time to ignore the point and feign incomprehension. I started the discussion giving you all the credit in the world, but over the past hundred messages or whatever it is there's been nothing new or original from you, just already-answered arguments previously raised at least a dozen times, plus many deliberate misinterpretations of points intended to stymie progress toward any mutual understanding.
Percy writes:
Then don't complain about what I contribute. I can't tell you what to contribute from your side of the discussion. That's up to you. You're not contributing anything. You're imitating a broken record.
Percy writes:
I haven't done anything "out of hand". I've explained that we have no reason to think scientists would react differently to one specific scenario than they always have reacted to every other scenario. You have given us no reason to think they would react differently. Just consider the "what if" instead of ruling it out-of-bounds out of hand. You've raised this misunderstanding of the scenario many times, I've explained it many times, I'm not explaining it again. Go back and read previous messages.
Percy writes:
Probably not. The "nature of science" has served humanity pretty well as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Would science decide to incorporate the miraculous phenomena into science, thereby changing the nature of science? So there's phenomena science would rule off-limits for its consideration and study? Really?
As I've said, scientists would be more likely to leave an unanswered question unanswered until they could find an answer. But what if the answer is that natural laws can be violated?
Percy writes:
Probably not. How can we predict what is "beyond the purview of science"? What hasn't been answered yet might only need another Einstein to come up with the answer tomorrow. Would science decide the miraculous phenomena were beyond the purview of science? Doesn't this contradict your answer above where you thought that science would decide against including miraculous phenomena within science?
Percy writes:
It doesn't. That's why science doesn't have a folder for "phenomena it will never explain". ... how does science tell the difference between phenomena it can't explain at present and phenomena it will never explain? We agree on this one.
Percy writes:
See above. There is no folder for "true violations". How significant does a violation of natural physical laws have to be before it is no longer an anomaly but a true violation? And disagree on this one.
Percy writes:
You quoted one: "Recently I asked what you expect me to do to "discuss" your scenario. What's your answer?" ringo writes:
Ask again - I must have missed them.
I did ask questions.ringo writes: Recently I asked what you expect me to do to "discuss" your scenario. What's your answer? You just did a slight bit of "discussing the scenario" by proffering brief answers to questions from within the scenario's context. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
ringo writes: Percy writes:
I didn't say any such thing. I said that science would not change the nature of science. So there's phenomena science would rule off-limits for its consideration and study? Really? Yes, of course you said words to that effect, but that isn't all you said. To summarize the other part of the conversation:
I mean, if you're not including miraculous phenomena within science, then you must be ignoring them, right? What other choices are there? Some side category of "not science but we're studying it scientifically anyway"?
Percy writes:
How can that be "the answer"? But what if the answer is that natural laws can be violated? That's part of the "what if." If it helps, imagine you're in a science fantasy novel where you've been transported to a universe where miracles have been recently discovered to be real, taking the form of violations of known physical laws.
That would imply that we understood the natural laws completely. That would preclude changes in our understanding for such things as quantum mechanics and relativity. I think tentativity rules out the possibility of ever understanding natural laws completely.
Percy writes:
Miracles, by definition, can not be explained. Science does not allow for anything being impossible to explain. Doesn't this contradict your answer above where you thought that science would decide against including miraculous phenomena within science? The key pieces of that part of the conversation went like this:
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024