|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Falls was obeying the law of gravity before there was a law and before gravity was defined as an idea. Thats because gravity is not an idea its a phenomenon. That we described using the idea that we can understand the universe by observing testing measuring. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Exactly. But science existed before we did. We just formalized it. Who are you referring to as "we". Mankind? Folks born in the 20th century? Folks born after the 17th century? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Did the Mona Lisa exist before Davinci?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 335 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
she did, well most likely a he and his gay lover. But if your talking about the painting no
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Mankind. But I get the counter-arguments, and they do make sense. My basic argument is that something can exist before humans get ahold of trying to define and explain it. But perhaps your point is that science had no name before humans defined and conceptualized it.
*looks around* How did I get on this rabbit trail anyway? Now, where was I?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: Ahhh now I get it. ringo and I were debating whether my hypothetical God was a better source than ringo. What better source can you name? Who will argue that he relies on science and human reasoning. Whereupon I will state that I believe in the Creator of humanity. Whereas we will drift off into a cosmological origins argument. Which by that time it will be time for dinner. Lets get back to Percys Bridge. Have we agreed that it is unexplainable and that it is up to the individual to label it a miracle or not? Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Percy writes: Thus your hypothetical bridge example is an event that occurs and is observed by a hypothetical group of people. Perhaps one question we can ask is how this group of observers responds to the bridge event.
What gets called a miracle is generally something that a person or group can't explain, not what science can't explain. Percy writes: And likely there would be no evidence for the floating bridge. Perhaps the question we would then address is how each observer reacted and whether the science-minded observers reached any other conclusions than did those who believed in miracles and in God (or even UFO's or other supernatural phenomena) it's not that "science...doesn't include the possibility of miracles," it's that there's insufficient evidence (approximately none) for miracles. Perhaps the purpose of your hypothetical event is to stir up a conversation as to how each one of us would hypothetically react were we to observe this bridge moving. Would we approach this event with a scientific mind or would we approach it with the awe that society might approach a hypothetical event such as The Rapture? As an added bonus question...what if we reframed your hypothesis and said plainly that God moved the bridge? Would that evoke a different reaction among our control group of observers? Would the science-minded approach the hypothesis in the same way or would they tend to laugh off the foregone conclusion? In other words is there any difference between an unnamed supernatural event and a named one? Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Perhaps the purpose of Percys hypothetical event is to stir up a conversation as to how each one of us would hypothetically react were we to observe this bridge moving.
Would we approach this event with a scientific mind or would we approach it with the awe that society might approach a hypothetical event such as The Rapture?
ringo writes: That makes sense. Thus if millions of people *suddenly* disappeared, leaving piles of clothes behind, and the evidence showed that many of them were wearing crosses, we would still not properly conclude that any sort of Rapture happened, correct? We would simply seek to better understand the natural law of gravity.
If something "breaks" natural law, we change our understanding of the natural law. ringo writes: So what if the observations were verified? What if many witnesses reported seeing someone in front of them who reportedly vanished? If the observations don't fit our understanding, the first thing we question is the observations. Unless the observations can be verified, we have no business calling it a miracle.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Phat writes: Percy writes: Thus your hypothetical bridge example is an event that occurs and is observed by a hypothetical group of people. Perhaps one question we can ask is how this group of observers responds to the bridge event. What gets called a miracle is generally something that a person or group can't explain, not what science can't explain. I think when you read my Message 390 that you thought I was saying something I wasn't. Rephrasing slightly, I was only agreeing with Ringo that people or groups have called certain events or phenomena miracles only because *they* can't explain them, not because *science* can't explain them. My interest in this discussion is only in events or phenomena that *science* can't explain. I interpret this thread as being about whether there can be such a thing as The "science" of Miracles. So because "a group of observers" isn't science, this group observing the George Washington Bridge gently separating from its moorings and floating up into the sky and northward does not qualify as science. You need scientific observations. That requires the data gathered by scientists who rushed equipment into helicopters and airplanes and made measurements (electrical, magnetic, gravitational, temperature, mass, length, width, height, effects on cars and trucks and people, etc.), as well as subsequent studies of the original location of the bridge and of the bridge itself at its new location at West Point.
Percy writes: And likely there would be no evidence for the floating bridge. it's not that "science...doesn't include the possibility of miracles," it's that there's insufficient evidence (approximately none) for miracles. There should be an abundance of evidence, pretty much the evidence I described being gathered in my previous paragraph.
Perhaps the question we would then address is how each observer reacted and whether the science-minded observers reached any other conclusions than did those who believed in miracles and in God (or even UFO's or other supernatural phenomena) I consider myself science-minded, but even if I happened to be driving north on the New Jersey Turnpike and approaching the bridge when the miracle occurred, I don't think my observations would be worth much. New York City has a population of about 9 million, more during a weekday, so there would be plenty of people to see it, but scientifically verifying it was a miracle (an event inexplicable by natural or scientific laws) and not just the work of a mad scientist or some DARPA program gone wrong would require scientific study.
Perhaps the purpose of your hypothetical event is to stir up a conversation as to how each one of us would hypothetically react were we to observe this bridge moving. No, I'm pretty much only interested in phenomena that can be scientifically studied.
Would we approach this event with a scientific mind or would we approach it with the awe that society might approach a hypothetical event such as The Rapture? But science and society are not synonymous. Much of society here in the states rejects evolution, and that has no effect on the science of evolution. In the same way, regardless how society views the bridge miracle, it is the scientific results that will be used to form a consensus pro or con regarding whether it was a real miracle.
As an added bonus question...what if we reframed your hypothesis and said plainly that God moved the bridge? First you'd need scientific evidence for God.
Would that evoke a different reaction among our control group of observers? Would the science-minded approach the hypothesis in the same way or would they tend to laugh off the foregone conclusion? If you look back through my replies to Ringo you'll see that in many of them I ask how would science react were a real miracle to occur. Every individual would decide for themselves whether to accept the scientific consensus.
In other words is there any difference between an unnamed supernatural event and a named one? If we're still talking science here, first you'd need scientific evidence of the supernatural. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Phat writes: Perhaps the purpose of Percys hypothetical event is to stir up a conversation as to how each one of us would hypothetically react were we to observe this bridge moving. No, that's not science. I'm interested in how science would react, not individuals. Science is a consensus activity constructed around experiment and/or observation followed by analysis, replication, and fitting into a theoretical framework. Since a miracle is something we can observe but not initiate, replication of the observations would depend upon whether more miracles occurred.
So what if the observations were verified? What if many witnesses reported seeing someone in front of them who reportedly vanished? Scientific observations would provide the necessary data to rule miracles in or out. Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. A million people swearing they saw something is still just anecdotal. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You need scientific observations. That requires the data gathered by scientists who rushed equipment into helicopters and airplanes and made measurements (electrical, magnetic, gravitational, temperature, mass, length, width, height, effects on cars and trucks and people, etc.), as well as subsequent studies of the original location of the bridge and of the bridge itself at its new location at West Point. Science does not require all of that stuff and it does not require scientists.Observations are required, but often the data used in science is stuff that anyone can see with the naked eye. For something like a floating human body in an auditorium, I believe an investigation to rule out natural causes could be conducted without anything more than observations, a couple of paper clips, some sticks, and some paper to take notes on. For a floating bridge, a bit more is requires because of the scale of the problem, but it is also the case because of the forces required, the natural candidates for such an event are extremely limited. But let's not make science and the scientific method anything more than what they are. One of your other posts contains an excellent description of the scientific method. It's not about getting a bunch of folks in lab smocks to participate. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: Science does not require all of that stuff and it does not require scientists.Observations are required, but often the data used in science is stuff that anyone can see with the naked eye. We'll just have to disagree on this one. Increasingly throughout the progress of the science, just as the ability of the layperson to work on his car or on the web has decreased over time, science has increasingly required specialized education, training and equipment, not to mention the ability to document for purposes of replication and to conceptualize for purposes of generalization into theory. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Increasingly throughout the progress of the science, just as the ability of the layperson to work on his car or on the web has decreased over time, science has increasingly required specialized education, training and equipment, not to mention the ability to document for purposes of replication and to conceptualize for purposes of generalization into theory. Working on the bleeding edge of science may require sophisticated tools. Determining whether there is a natural explanation for what appears to be a man floating in the middle of the room requires substantially less sophistication. I suspect that you can leave the LIGO's Interferometer at home for that task. The basics behind the scientific method haven't changed all that much since Galileo's day. You are right. We are going to disagree on this one. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: Determining whether there is a natural explanation for what appears to be a man floating in the middle of the room requires substantially less sophistication. Even scientists are often not up to the task of separating science from flim-flam, a point The Amazing Randi made very clear. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
The topic is the science of miracles. It's science that doesn't accept miracles.
Everyone is trying to get you to accept the possibility of miracles. Phat writes:
If there isn't enough evidence to decide one way or another, then one belief is as good as another.
I realize that evidence is not always available and is usually not plentiful even if available.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024