The "science" of Miracles

what's the evidence for miracles?what is the hypothesis for how they {occur \ act}?what is a testable prediction for the hypothesis that cannot be answered by scientific means?the foundation needed for science ....

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

untestable, ergo not scientific.heh

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The minute we can observe it, test it, and understand it, it becomes mundane (muggle) science.Enjoy

Mundane science is not necessarily tied to any scientific field of study ... rather it is defined by whether or not the scientific method can be applied: Mundane science doesn't necessarily take the last step of documenting in a scientific peer reviewed journal ... because the results are mundane, expected, normal.Every time we drop a pen on the desk we are testing whether gravity still applies. The expected results are that it does.Every time we sit in a chair we test that our observation of chairs as safe places to sit is tested. Sometimes that expectation is false and the chair collapses, but the chair can be inspected for causes of failure (load to heavy, stress cracked or decayed structure, it's a folding chair that was improperly opened, etc) -- and that too is mundane science.So we build up a worldview of pens, and chairs, and doors, and roads, etc etc from our experience and compare them to the experience of other people -- an unwritten peer review -- and by this method, we construct a view of reality that is then a fundamental element of our worldview.But this worldview reality is a hypothesis of actual REALITY, it is a filter through which we view things.This has advantages when new experiences fall inside our expectations, going new places and finding pens, and chairs, and doors, and roads, etc etc are similar enough to our experience that they are readily incorporated into our total experience of such observations, because we don't have to spend time on reinventing our understanding of how things work.Problems arise, however, when a new experience, observation or information, is in conflict with our worldview and contradicts our worldview hypothesis of reality. Then we have two choices:

1. Alter our worldview to include the new experience, observation or information,
   (this is like bubble 4 in yellow of the diagram)
   ​
   or
   ​
2. Deny, reject or ignore the new experience, observation or information, and claim it is false
   (which has no place in the diagram)

The first choice is our common way of adding to our worldview. Say we come to a door with a latching mechanism we have never seen before and don't immediately know how to operate it. We can find out by testing different actions or by getting shown how it works: thereafter it is easily incorporated into our worldview.The second choice only occurs when we have a strong, emotional, commitment to a core belief that is threatened by the new experience, observation or information, and it is emotionally less tumultuous to maintain the core belief than change it.It should be noted that in the formal practice of science such new experiences, observations or information, contrary to expectations are readily and actively sought, and that denial is not an option.This then gives us a measure of how well our personal worldview reality hypothesis matches actual REALITY by the inverse relationship of the degree of denial one must maintain.A second measure is how well our personal worldview reality hypothesis matches those of other people, with high agreement and consilience showing a positive relationship.Enjoy