The "science" of Miracles

It's scientists who don't use it, so ask them why they don't. My guess is that it has more immediately religious connotations than calling something "Neptune". Probably. You can feel free to cite examples of scientists referring to magic. I learned to read when I was six.If you've read anything that suggests that scientists consider the possibility of miracles or magic, feel free to cite examples. 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 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. The irresistible/immovable force/object scenario is nonsense because they're contradictory. Both can not be true. it's inherently impossible.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. 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.

The part that says "that is a refusal to consider the 'what if'" is referring to Ringo. He thinks the "what if" is nonsense. 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

OK here is one.
Professor Stephen Barr Interview
University Of Delaware
Evidently, Professor Barr has not only more scientific knowledge than most of us here but is unafraid to discuss miracles alongside science. Next question?

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. The evidence strongly suggests that scientists do not shy away from fictional, mythical or religious realms when choosing terms. 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. And when did you forget? Again, talking about nomenclature. See above. A great many relevant details have already been provided but if you think more is required then help flesh it out, or ask questions. 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. You seem so sure. And a person riding a light beam isn't? 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:

---

Thought experiments, which are well-structured, well-defined hypothetical questions that employ subjunctive reasoning (irrealis moods) — "What might happen (or, what might have happened) if . . . " — have been used to pose questions in philosophy at least since Greek antiquity, some pre-dating Socrates. In physics and other sciences many thought experiments date from the 19th and especially the 20th Century, but examples can be found at least as early as Galileo.

​

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. In Galileo’s thought experiment, for example, the rearrangement of empirical experience consists in the original idea of combining bodies of different weight.

---

Challenge to your heart's content, but you might want to challenge things I actually say.--Percy

The next question is: How do his religious views stand up under scientific peer review? He is, after all, a religious apologist and I've been saying all along that miracles are religion. So what do other scientists think of his views on miracles?

Or it may only be a matter of time before all scientists become creationists. Another useless what-if. The evidence is that they do shy away from "miracle". 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. How does your story gain new information? And didn't you deny drawing inferences?

Exactly. Why play silly equivocation games? Who cares if a biologist talks about the miracle of life if saying such things don't cause him to throw away his microscope and starting babbling creation science? Science is about looking for natural causes and is not so much about the exclamatory language that might or might not get used.

Yes, you did postulate exactly that. The "what if" was that a shaman suspended the laws of science. The "what if" was completely contrary to science. In that case, there would not be a scientific explanation and the scientist would not find one, and would not consider a non-scientific explanation.

Yet you're still unable to support this contention, or this one: 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? 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. 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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.Edited by Percy, : Typo.

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. 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. 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? 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? Or might how we look at science change?--Percy

When all the evidence you have points in one direction, that might be the right direction. Get back to us when the direction changes. If you claim that scientists "would certainly" call a flying bridge a toothbrush, you'll get the same argument from me. I said that your conclusion was wrong. You said you didn't draw any conclusion.

quote:

---

inference.
.

​

[ˈinf(ə)rəns]

​

NOUN
.

​

a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

​

synonyms: deduction conclusion reasoning conjecture speculation surmise thesis theorizing hypothesizing presumption assumption supposition reckoning extrapolation

---

Or is "conclusion" using the same cloaking device as "attributed"? We've been through the thinking exercise. What new information is derived/inferred/concluded from thinking that physical laws have been violated?

So far you've offered nothing in support of your opinion. 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." 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. No, we haven't. You've refused to engage in any discussion concerning the "what if", declaring it nonsense out of hand. You tell me, since in your fantasy world you think we discussed it already.--Percy

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. You keep claiming that you made something clear when you didn't. It seems unlikely that somebody would miss seeing a word like "attributed" when he quoted it himself - but it happened. So I don't take it too seriously when you say something is "unlikely". What exactly would constitute a "discussion" in your mind? What specifically do I have to do to "discuss" the flying bridges to your satisfaction? So none? Since when does a thought experiment require my participation? FYI, Einstein didn't consult me.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".

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?" 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? 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. 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. What you have to do needs no detailed characterization. You need merely engage in discussion instead of dismissal. Sarcasm rather than substance is your only response? So help flesh it out if that's how you feel. Make suggestions, ask questions.--PercyEdited 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.

I'm doing well thanks Phat buddy. Sorry for the late reply. I've been just so busy. Even now while we have a couple of weeks off for Easter there are still assignments that need to be done... LoLIts been quite a challenge so far. Like I thought I was good at Maths before this. Hahaha. How wrong I was.
But all in all I'm keeping up with it, learning heaps and doing well on exams and assignments. Money is something that concerns me a bit atm cos, well I don't have much of it. Yet.But I still come in here to have a read and a laugh once in a while but leave the debating to you guys. I'm still agnostic but (a rare species)LoL Iv written too much already. One thing I learnt here is the more u write the more things get twisted and taken out of context. I'll get attacked probs. LoLAnd yourself Phat one. How have u been travelling???