ringo writes:
Percy writes:
If science creates the definition then it is a scientific definition.
Science doesn't create the definition or even use the word.
It does in the "what if".
Percy writes:
Of course they wouldn't change their MO. They'd continue to follow the evidence where it leads.
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?
I'm saying they would follow the standard practices of science when confronted with unprecedented phenomena and creating new conceptual frameworks.
Percy writes:
Einstein never said this. You can find this misattribution explained on many webpages, e.g.....
I did say that it was attributed to Einstein. But of course it doesn't matter 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:
... the evidence could indefinitely indicate phenomena inexplicably breaking known natural or scientific laws.
It would indicate that
our understanding of natural laws was breaking down, not that the laws themselves had been "violated".
How can adding to our knowledge be equated to our understanding breaking down?
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
When in the history of science have known natural or scientific laws been violated as flagrantly as in the proposed scenarios?
The level of flagrancy is irrelevant.
How so?
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".
None of this sounds relevant or even scientific. You originally said back in
Message 502, "(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." I replied that the phenomena were unprecedented. That's still the answer. If you have examples of science encountering such dramatic contraventions of known physical laws in the past then feel free to cite them.
And bear in mind that you have agreed that nothing would change in their approach to the problem.
"Following the evidence where it leads" isn't terribly constraining.
Percy writes:
Where in science does it say there is no such thing as a violation?
Where does it say there is such a thing?
That's a silly thing to say. Where did science ever say something existed before it was either first observed or theory predicted it?
Percy writes:
If they leave evidence behind that science can study, then why are they not science?
If they leave evidence behind that science can study, how are they miracles?
"They leave no evidence behind that science can study" is not part of the definition of miracles, and the proposed "what ifs" all included evidence amenable to scientific study.
Percy writes:
A more appropriate analogy would be one where the pigs were presented something different than mud to wallow in.
The question is: How would the
pigs interpret "something different"? Since pigs habitually wallow, their natural response would be to wallow.
So pigs not only wallow in all types of mud, even new types of mud of unknown qualities, they also wallow in everything? There's no non-solid in which they would not wallow? If a significant component of your new type of mud were something like vinegar, turpentine or chlorine bleach, would pigs really wallow in it? I don't know much about pigs, but it is generally wise to question any overly ambitious claims.
But your original intent was to create an analogy between pigs wallowing in mud and scientists considering new phenomena. You're correct that they would follow their standard MO if by MO you mean following the evidence where it leads. You're incorrect if by MO you mean they'd refuse to consider the possibility of phenomena that violate known natural or scientific laws.
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.
Yes, of course. Isn't "follow the evidence where it leads" just a more succinct form of the same thought?
Percy writes:
You and Hume agree, right? That by definition miracles can't exist.
I'm saying that miracles do exist in the minds of people who believe in miracles.
But you and Hume agree, right? Your shared position is the very essence of defining the problem away.
Things are inexplicable in the minds of people who can't explain them.
Scientists are people.
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.
Once again you offer a weak analogy and misframe the argument to make your position look better. 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:
By the way, like you Hume considered miracles from a religious perspective, the only one you're willing to consider.
It's the only context in which miracles are defined.
Hume's consideration of miracles came when he stepped into an already ongoing debate about religious miracles. You're stepping into a science thread and insisting only religious perspectives on miracles are allowed.
Percy writes:
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?
The consensus would be that there was a need for a paradigm shift in our
understanding of the laws.
Possibly, but remember, miracles are local in time and space. Outside of when and where miracles are taking place, in the entire rest of space/time in the universe the laws continue to operate unchanged.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)