The "science" of Miracles

Replying to a few of your messages...In Message 367 you said: I agree with you on this point. What gets called a miracle is generally something that a person or group can't explain, not what science can't explain.In Message 371 you said: More accurately, science accepts that for which it has sufficient evidence to form a consensus. Like the rabbit fossils in the Cambrian that we continually cite to creationists as the type of evidence that would call evolution seriously into question, if sufficient evidence is there, science is obligated to accept it. So it's not that "science...doesn't include the possibility of miracles," it's that there's insufficient evidence (approximately none) for miracles.In Message 373 you said: But if a scientific consensus calls it "inexplicable" that pretty much does mean it's inexplicable to everybody.--Percy

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. There should be an abundance of evidence, pretty much the evidence I described being gathered in my previous paragraph. 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. No, I'm pretty much only interested in phenomena that can be scientifically studied. 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. First you'd need scientific evidence for God. 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. If we're still talking science here, first you'd need scientific evidence of the supernatural.--Percy

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. 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

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

Even scientists are often not up to the task of separating science from flim-flam, a point The Amazing Randi made very clear.--Percy

Responding to your recent messages...Responding to your Message 405 to Phat: Of course science doesn't accept miracles. Science only accepts that for which there is sufficient evidence to form a consensus. This thread is attempting to ask the question, "What if there were scientific evidence of a miracle? How would science respond?"We understand you're not interested in addressing this question, indeed, are even hostile to the question being posed, so a better question for you is a rhetorical one: If you're not interested in the subject of this thread, why are you here?Responding to your Message 406 to me: Your two week absence has caused you to forget the context. The issue was attribution. You had incorrectly claimed that attribution was important. By way of arguing that attribution isn't important I asked you, "To what does he attribute the choice of slit?" The answer is obvious - the choice of slit has no attribution, no cause. If choice of slit requires no attribution, in other words, if some scientific phenomena require no attribution, why should a miracle? That's only one way "miracle" is actually used. In this thread we're discussing miracles in a scientific context by considering the question, "What if a phenomenon occurred that presented us sufficient scientific evidence to form a consensus within science that it was a miracle?" You've forgotten the context again, which is science. We're not talking about the conclusions of ignorant or unscientific observers. We're talking about a phenomenon studied scientifically. How would it make it any less a miracle if there were no attribution? You're still forgetting that we're talking science. From the perspective of science the sun is an entirely natural phenomenon, the Catholic Church notwithstanding. The sun is not a scientific miracle.And I did not provide a fairy tale. I described a phenomenon that were it to happen would be regarded as a miracle by science.Responding to your Message 407 to me: But science has never encountered a true miracle before. I described a phenomenon inexplicable according to natural or scientific law, i.e., a miracle. That the phenomenon is inexplicable according to science is part of the scenario.The actual problem is your refusal to consider a hypothetical miracle. Think of it like Isaac Asimov's thiotimoline. While a graduate student preparing to write his first scientific paper, as an exercise he first wrote a paper about a hypothetical substance that he made up that was so soluble in water that it dissolved 1.12 seconds before the water was added. He tried to consider all the scientific implications and include them in the paper.We're doing something similar here, considering a hypothetical phenomenon that has all the characteristics of a miracle.--Percy

Responding to your last two messages:Regarding your Message 412 to me: It does not follow that just because scientific evidence exists that scientific explanations exist. It also does not follow that just because possible scientific explanations exist that by definition it isn't a miracle - it isn't guaranteed that one of the possible scientific explanations will pan out, or that any scientific explanation will ever pan out. Your earlier two week vacation has still left you lost as far as the context of the discussion about attribution. No one ever claimed that the inability to attribute a cause means something is a miracle. Let's go back to where this started.
You said in Message 364: But the attribution is *not* inherent. There can be an absence of attribution. That's why I referenced the two-slit experiment, where there is no attribution of a cause for which slit an electron passes through. Events in science do not require a cause, and so if a miracle were to occur there is no requirement that there be a cause. Obviously you don't want to discuss it, so I don't even know why you're here. You don't seem to want anyone else to discuss it, either. Tentativity rules out such absolute declarations. You're drawing a false equivalence. This ancient question makes a point about the irrelevancy of arguing over things not known, while the question being considered here considers a hypothetical scenario where things *are* known.But if data about angels were to somehow come to light, we could meaningfully discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. No, you are wrong. In my bridge scenario there would be many scientific observers calling it a miracle. You seem to have forgotten that we've been over this attribution thing before. There is no requirement that a miracle have an attribution, and even among the possible attributions the supernatural is only one. Plus science would likely invent new terminology. Rather than the term "miracle" they might say "nonconforming phenomenon" or some such, but it would still be a miracle. Right. And we're looking at this from the point of view of science, not religion. You're repeating yourself. We've been over this. This is false. So can I guess that you'd also be unwilling to consider the hypothetical scenario of uncovering evidence for fairies? Sorry, but that's part of the scenario, that the phenomenon is inexplicable according to known science. If you don't feel like discussing that scenario that doesn't mean no one else can. You *could* just sit on the sidelines and sadly shake your head.I also think, as Tangle has noted, that you're too caught up in terminology. "Inexplicable" isn't a synonym for "inexplicable forever." Science is tentative and will change in light of new evidence or understanding. Boy, you really like this "miracle of the sun" business. Science is under no obligation to use the exact same definition of miracle as the Catholic Church. Defining miracle as inexplicable according to natural or scientific laws is a perfectly acceptable scientific definition. Of course science tries to explain it. Trying is not the same thing as succeeding. I created a thought experiment, which has a long and distinguished history. My bridge scenario is as legitimate as Einstein riding a light beam.Regarding your Message 414 to Phat: Not at present. But if the right phenomenon presented itself, one inexplicable by natural or scientific laws, then the terminology couldn't be avoided, could it. And as I said earlier, science would likely invent its own terminology, but the meaning would be the same. Not the contemplative type, I guess.--Percy

We're talking science, not religion, and the scenario is for something unprecedented in the history of science. There is no science to refer back to concerning miracles. I can refine my definition of miracle, this time using your preferred term of "unexplainable." Scientifically I'm defining miracle as "an event unexplainable according to natural or scientific laws." Consistent with the nature of science, any assignation of miracle to an event would be tentative.So the scenario goes like this: The George Washington Bridge gently lets loose from its moorings, floats up into the sky, drifts slowly north 50 miles up the Hudson, then gently sets down again at West Point. Scientists rush equipment into airplanes and helicopters and study the phenomena as it is happening. Later the original approaches and moorings to the bridge are studied, and the bridge is studied, and the people and cars on the bridge at the time are studied, and after years of analysis the conclusion is reached that the event was unexplainable by known natural and scientific laws, actually being in violation of a number of them. The event is deemed a miracle. Tentatively calling something a miracle doesn't rule out the possibility of some eventual other explanation.Also, I don't think we could call a scientific miracle unnatural. Science deals with the natural world, and since the evidence for the miracle all occurred in the natural world I think a scientific miracle would have to be natural. I don't understand your preoccupation with religion. Many words have different definitions in different contexts. Of course science will have a different and presumably more precise definition of miracle than religious groups, and we're talking science here. As said earlier, the scenario is for an event unprecedented within science, one that presents previously unknown phenomena. It is traditional within science to carefully define terminology for newly discovered phenomena, and I've provided a scientific definition of miracle. If I was referring to something that actually happened like the Cottingley Fairies I would have said so. I specifically said "hypothetical scenario of uncovering evidence for fairies." Was I correct to assume that you'd be unwilling to consider such a hypothetical scenario? I already said that "inexplicable" does not mean "inexplicable forever." Your word, "unexplainable," could as easily be used and it would mean much the same thing. There is no big difference between "temporarily inexplicable" versus "temporarily unexplainable". I used your terminology where I defined miracle above. Untrue, since Tangle and Phat are currently active and since there could easily be people who might become interested were the discussion to move forward. If you don't feel like discussing this thought experiment then don't. That's why I devised a thought experiment that does not merely introduce new phenomena that we can't currently explain, which has happened over and over again in the history of science, and which we can expect to continue to happen with regularity. Dark energy is a contemporary example of just such a phenomenon. My thought experiment describes behavior that introduces new phenomena that violate existing scientific laws in striking ways completely unlike past unexplainable phenomena like black body radiation, the ether, the precession of Mercury, and so forth.--Percy

So what. New terminology is introduced all the time in science. In 1998 Michael Turner suggested the term "dark energy" for the phenomenon responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe. Prior to 1998 the term "dark energy" did not exist in science. Were my hypothetical floating bridge scenario to happen we would need new scientific terminology, and the term "miracle" certainly fits the bill. If you know of examples of new scientific terminology being introduced before any observations or theoretical hints of the phenomenon, please post them. The term "quark" was proposed by Murray Gell-Mann in 1963 only after there was a theoretical basis for it (experimental verification came later). Though I would have said it differently I agree with the sentiments you express, but I think you misunderstand what Phat is saying. It would be wonderful if science could live in its own little black and white world where only evidence and objectivity mattered, but science is conducted by people, so while the ideals are noble, try as we might there can be no hard boundary between science and faith.Or to say it another way, science can not isolate itself from the qualities of the people who conceived it. Consensus plays a large role in making science as objective as possible, but in the end objectivity remains an ideal that like any ideal can only be approached and never achieved. This reality is one of the reasons for tentativity. I agree with you here, too, but I think Phat is struggling to express something different from what his words say, that there's an element of subjectivity in the assessment of evidence.--Percy

Responding to your last two messages to me...Regarding your Message 424: No. Miracles are not referred to by science because up until my thought experiment no scientific evidence for miracles existed. Science didn't define miracles up until my thought experiment. So you're presuming to know what the future will bring?Regarding your Message 425: Yes it does. It is the phenomena that caused the bridge to float 50 miles up the Hudson that are important. The bridge is not the phenomenon. We don't call gravity "apple" because it was first observed (by someone with sufficient scientific acumen) acting on an apple. As just explained, the bridge is not the phenomenon, and the George Washington Bridge floating 50 miles up the Hudson *was* observed in my thought experiment.This last objection is absurd. If someone said, "What might happen if Bob climbed that tree," it would be idiotic to object to consideration of that possibility on the grounds that as of that point in time Bob had not climbed the tree.--Percy

Responding to your last couple messages...Regarding your Message 430 to me: But we're asking, "What if it did?" But we're asking, "What if it did?" You're engaging in a rather conspicuous misrepresentation. There's no legitimate reason to object to posing a "what if," so you've made up an argument not made and replied to it. No one suggested scientists would throw up their hands and cry, "Miracle!" I have in at least several posts described how hard scientists would work to understand the new phenomena. And I explained why it does. It appeared right after your failed attempt to explain why it doesn't, and you just failed again: You seem to be having a great deal of difficulty understanding the concept of posing a "what if". The floating bridge in my scenario exhibited never before observed phenomena. But spinning straw into gold *could* be a thought experiment. Tangle just posed another one: What if a real faith healer appeared who could, in fact, make limbs grow back on demand, always? No, it was your objection that was absurd. My analogy made clear precisely why it was absurd to object to my thought experiment on the grounds that it had never before been observed to happen. Bob in my analogy had never been observed to climb the tree, but it would be absurd to object to the question, "What would happen if Bob climbed that tree," on the grounds that he had never been observed climbing the tree. Let's quote your precise words from your Message 424, shall we: Back to your current message: This is another absurd objection. Of course there are ways the analogy to your objection is different from your objection. That's inherent in the nature of analogies - they can never be identical to the thing being analogized without being the thing itself. The difference you've noted is irrelevant to the point made by the analogy. A legitimate objection to an analogy would that it's inappropriate, that it doesn't really make the point intended. Yet another absurd objection. Everything we know in science is based upon data that was at one time non-existent.Regarding your Message 432 to Phat: Now you're presuming to dictate to science which terms are off-limits for newly discovered phenomena? Galaxy once referred only to the Milky Way, but it was extended to refer to all galaxies after it was discovered that the Milky Way wasn't the only galaxy in the universe. Evolution originally referred to an unfolding of events. Entanglement never used to refer to particles until after Einstein (I couldn't find how use of term originated - it was originally called the EPR paradox).When naming newly discovered phenomena, sometimes science invents a new term, sometimes it borrows an existing term. For you to declare you know in advance that science would eschew the term "miracle" for these phenomena seems not just more than a bit arrogant and autocratic, but also misguided. You made this same misrepresentation in your message to me. As I already said above, I have in at least several posts described how hard scientists would work to understand the new phenomena, and now I done so again twice in this one. Again, I described that scientists would work hard to understand the phenomena. Some hypotheses about the phenomena could undoubtedly be tested by examination of the evidence the event left behind, other hypotheses would require studying a miracle while it was happening. Finding new miracles for testing these hypotheses might be difficult. An analogy (please look up "analogy" before replying this time) might be to studying the first stages of supernova, where before they could find supernova in their early stages mostly by luck, now survey telescopes sweep large sections of sky searching for new supernova so that telescopes with more resolution can be trained on them. Scientists would have to develop methods for identifying miracles in progress.You know, maybe this is working out okay. Even though you're unwilling to directly discuss the "what if", some of your objections do seem to be advancing the discussion.--Percy

Thanks for the good post. I see a discussion developed out of it, I haven't read those replies yet, I'll respond as I read forward. Just a few comments on this one: Wouldn't it be possible that science might make progress understanding the phenomena behind the miracle (I say phenomena on purpose, because of the possibility that more than one phenomenon could be responsible, the way both gravity and aerodynamics are involved in flight)? This would bring us back to that conundrum that's been mentioned a couple times. Science chooses the term "miracle" to describe the phenomena because they're unexplainable according to natural or scientific laws, but then we begin to understand at least a little bit, so is the term "miracle" still appropriate? Is it right not to mention the possibility of a consensus forming around what label to give the phenomena? This is reminiscent of something said in the thread a little while back, I think by Tangle, that miracles are local. Whatever phenomena are responsible for the miracle and whatever laws of nature they affect, they don't affect those laws of nature anywhere except where the miracle is happening. Everywhere else the laws of nature continue to operate as they always have. The media can be unpredictable. Did you really mean to refer to #9? Did you maybe mean #7?--Percy

For as long as they fail to develop an explanation the event remains inexplicable, or unexplainable, or whatever term is making you happy this week. Pigs flying would most certainly be unexplainable by natural and scientific laws, which would make it miraculous. What evidence? Really? Then why did you say it was? Really? Then why didn't you say that? Really? You still don't get the point of the analogy? Thought experiments (that's a link to the Wikipedia article, check it out) have to be testable and connected to reality? Who knew! How does this make any sense given that the data *does* exist in my thought experiment? But the thought experiment is about phenomena of a nature never before encountered by science. Ah, I just love being repeatedly quoted! Yes, that's what I said would happen were phenomena of the type described be observed, such as the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson River, or a leg lost in Afghanistan being suddenly restored, or the water in the Nile River suddenly turning to blood, or your own apparent favorite, flying pigs. For phenomena of a type never before observed? There's no past behavior to go on. We went over this just a couple days ago. I gave examples of past phenomena like black body radiation, the ether, and the precession of the orbit of Mercury that were things we didn't used to understand that were completely different in nature from the phenomena I've described. That's why they weren't called miracles. Also, as Tangle has pointed out, miracles are local phenomena (in both time and place), another difference. You just can't help yourself, can you, engaging in misrepresentation again. No one ever suggested they would stop at miracle. In fact I've said the opposite. Repeatedly.--Percy

Did you really mean to say "tentative" here? Or did you maybe mean "proposed" or "possible"? I'm just not sure if you mean this in the sense of the way that everything in science is tentative, or you're just saying that some scientists develop some ideas to explore.If the latter, then of course that's true. I've said a number of times now that scientists would work hard at figuring out the science behind the observed events, and naturally they'd have hypotheses to explore, but until something pans out the events remain unexplainable. Why are you repeating this rebutted argument again? It's already been pointed out to you several times that these events are without precedent, that you can't look to the existing body of scientific research for guidance, yet instead of addressing that aspect you just keep saying the same thing. Sure, add dark matter to the list I already gave you of black body radiation, the ether, and the precession of the orbit of Mercury. And you can add dark energy to the list. None of these phenomena have the qualities that Tangle and I proposed: a) breaking existing scientific laws in unexplainable ways; and b) locality of events. Same answer as Tangle's Message 427 to you: Besides, there are no requirements for how close or distant a thought experiment must be to reality. Schrdinger's Cat and Einstein riding a light wave aren't reality, either. The only requirement for a thought experiment is that it be helpful in answering some question, in this case how would science react were it to encounter a true miracle? In order to consider that question you have to propose some miracles.Maybe you need to open another thread: Can the Question of Science Encountering a True Miracle be Entertained?If phenomena not explainable by natural or scientific laws happened in real life, which are the qualities possessed by the events Tangle and I proposed, then they *would* be miracles. Why do you keep reintroducing the same rebutted arguments? The answer hasn't changed. We're doing science here, not religion, and the opinion of the Catholic Church about the Miracle of the Sun isn't relevant. If you want to move discussion on this point forward then you should explain why you think it *is* relevant, but just repeating your original argument over and over again is monotonous and unconstructive. The event of the George Washington Bridge floating 50 miles up the Hudson and the other proposed events help examine the question of how science would react were it confronted with a true miracle. That's what it has to do with science, but then, you knew that already.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Well, duh! Of course they're made up. It's an inherent quality of a thought experiment. Two points. First, there is such a thing as thought experiments that consider things that haven't or couldn't happen. Pretending that we can only think about "the real world of real events" is both false and unhelpful.Second, it is only sort of true that the existing body of scientific research is "the only place we have to look for guidance." It's one scientific resource, but we can also look to other sources of inspiration for guidance. In the end you follow the evidence. You're using mockery in place of substance, I'll just ignore it. When Faith was participating over at The Tension of Faith I asked her several times to suggest a past miracle to investigate, even pointing her to a webpage of possibilities (Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles). Concerning the Miracle of the Sun, it happened about a century ago, so I don't see how it could possibly be scientifically studied now since it left no evidence behind, and it seems just the sort of religious mumbo-jumbo nonsense that religion typically offers up. If you'd like to propose a miracle for us to consider it needs to have the same qualities provided by the thought experiments: a) break known natural or scientific laws in unexplainable ways; b) be local; c) leave behind evidence amenable to scientific analysis. Fail. We're still doing science here, not religion. Now, if the Catholic Church had scientific evidence of their miracle then it would be relevant.--Percy