The "science" of Miracles

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

Let's say we did do that. Isn't that just equivocating? Supposedly the word miracle has some meaning and isn't just "new scientific terminology." Absent some reason to tolerate equivocation, then no we wouldn't use "miracle" as scientific terminology.

Exactly. Miracles are not referred to by science because miracles are religion. But science doesn't define miracles any more than it defines gods or leprechauns. I'm willing to consider evidence on any subject. But evidence can not point to a "miracle".

No it doesn't. "Miracle" doesn't distinguish between flying bridges and dark matter and Bigfoot, etc. If science was going to introduce new terminology for flying bridges, ir would be more likely to call them "flying bridges" than to borrow religious terminology. Well, you're proposing "miracle" for the phenomenon of flying bridges, which have not been observed.

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

Ringo, we all know - including you - that miracles haven't happened. Most of us - including you - 'know' that they never will. As you also know, we're trying to put all that aside and try to imagine what would actually happen if something looking like an actual miracle actually happened.If you don't want to play just say so.

Yeah, this is how I see it playing out:*something going against known processes occurs*1 - Science investigates the phenomenon
2 - Science is unable to explain it within the current framework
3 - Science continues to study and attempt to understand the phenomenon
4 - Science double checks current framework against other parts of reality again - lets say this is all confirmed
5 - Science makes no progress in understanding the phenomenon
6 - Science labels the phenomenon as an "outlier" and does not involve it in the framework that still works for everything else
7 - Science continues to study and attempt to understand the phenomenon and still makes no progress
8 - Some scientists refer to the phenomenon as "a miracle," some scientists refer to the phenomenon as "currently inexplicable"
9 - All scientists (regardless of the terminology they use to refer to the phenomenon) understand that it goes against the current framework, should not exist according to the current framework, does not add any useful knowledge to the current framework, if it was incorporated into the framework (in its unknown and undefined state) it would make other otherwise-useful knowledge defunct and unreliable, all science continues to ignore this phenomenon while continuing to use the current framework for any other investigation.
9 - The media always refers to the phenomenon as "a miracle"
10 - Most scientists don't care if the media or anyone calls the phenomenon a miracle... they simply study things according to #9 and they understand the pragmatisms involved.
11 - Certain scientists don't mind calling the phenomenon a miracle, but when speaking of specifics will always refer to "possibly understanding it at sometime in the future"
12 - Certain scientists will adamantly refuse to call it a miracle and scoff at anyone that does
13 - Science continues to study and attempt to understand the phenomenon regardless of making any progress or not
14 - Rest of science continues to ignore the phenomenon and not incorporate it into the otherwise-understood-current-framework until the phenomenon is understood (and they realize this may be "never")

or something like thatTMBut what if the 'miracle' was repeated? What if a real faith healer appeared who could, in fact, make limbs grow back on demand, always?

And it still doesn't. And it still doesn't. I'm presuming to predict that scientists in the future will not throw up their hands and say, "it's a miracle!" I explained why it doesn't:

quote:

---

"Miracle" doesn't distinguish between flying bridges and dark matter and Bigfoot, etc. If science was going to introduce new terminology for flying bridges, ir would be more likely to call them "flying bridges" than to borrow religious terminology.

---

In the case of gravity, we have actual events observed by actual people. Apples fall every day. The case of the flying bridge is just a made-up fairy tale. There is no "phenomenon". Rumpelstiltskin was observed spinning straw into gold in exatly the same way. But the brothers Grimm didn't call it a thought experiment and scientists would not have called it a miracle. That's an absurd analogy. We have a long list of anecdotal evidence about what "might" happen if somebody climbed a tree. We have no data on flying bridges or flying pigs. A "thought experiment" on non-existent data can produce any number of results but none of them are useful without a connection to reality.

In essence, are you saying that we are never allowed to speculate? Or present a hypothetical scenario that has not actually occurred?

Of course we're allowed to speculate. We can speculate all we like about what if pigs could fly. What we should not do is claim that scientists would call flying pigs a miracle.A test pilot in an experimental aircraft in an uncontrolled spin will not go screaming to his death. He'll be trying this and trying that - "What if I flip this switch? What if I turn left?" - until he augers into the ground. The embarrassment of not being able to figure it out is worse than death. It's been called "the right stuff".Scientists are the same. Let's be more precise in out use of the word "hypothesis". Every tale about flying pigs or fairies is not a hypothesis. Unless we can test it, we shouldn't be calling it a "hypothesis".

Yeah, for sure.
It's just what I think/hope would happen. I think it would be treated in generally the same way.Instead of "the phenomenon" being one healing... "the phenomenon" would be defined as something like "this woman, and her ability to perform such healings."And then she would be continually studied/ignored by the rest of science accordingly (and as long as she's willing, I suppose... since as a person she would have certain rights).The line-of-thought can be extended, though.What if she had children and they could all do it?
What if 10 000 years passes, and other can also do such things, and we end up with most of the world being able to do it?It would still be unexplainable in the sense that science can't explain (say) where the atoms are coming from... or the energy requirement seems to be either nil or limitless...Given such a scenario... I would expect Science to create a new ward for studying such things.It would be acknowledged that they do not necessarily comply with the "rest of the normal-framework"
And as much as there are no limitations to the regrowth of the limb... perhaps there are some limitations... maybe it only works with arms/legs and they can't (say) regrow an elephant's trunk. Or maybe they can regrow one limb, but not an entire lower torso. Or maybe they can regrow mammal tissue but cant do jack for trees. Or maybe they can regrow any living carbon-based tissue, but can't put a metal wire back together if it's cut.Whatever information can be gained, would be gained.
Whatever information cannot be gained, would continue to be studied in the hopes of one day gaining more. Regardless of any amount of past failure to do so....which, really, is the same "science spirit" applied to everything.And again, some people would use words like "miracle" or "supernatural" or "X-Man" or "witch" or "magic" or maybe multiple terms used by different communities... maybe even a scientific term created to reference such phenomenon.
Some people using "magic-ish" words would even be scientists, I'm sure.
But scientists would always know (on some level) that names of things are of secondary-importance.
Names of things are only for ease-(or-attempt)-of-classification-and-organization.Primary importance is gaining what information you can, and continuing to record and study the information you don't know how to gain in order to make whatever-progress-you-can.

And now for the question-of-the-day:Let's say we have most the world going around re-growing limbs... as I described in my previous post... is it a real "miracle?"I would say, that if you define miracle to be "going against known standards of science" (or something like that) then, yes, it would be a miracle absolutely. And no scientist would really care. They would continue to study as much as they can, to gain whatever they can, even though they may never get an answer.If the phenomenon forever remains unknown, it will remain in the "miracle" pile.
If it ever does become known, it will shift over into the "normal-framework-of-science" pile where everything else ends up.Whether or not individual scientists use the term "miracle," however, would be irrelevant.
They're still going to consider it as "unknown to the current standards of science."
They're still going to study it and try to learn what they can... forever. After all, there would be a Nobel prize and plenty of fame and money given to the one who could figure it out. That carrot would always be there, and scientists would always chase it. To infinity, and beyond!

I think that the appearance of a *real* faith healer - one that the Amazing Randi finally paid out his $1m out to - would change everything, from science to belief. It would have devastating results for our society and our religions.It wouldn't just be a difficult problem that's currently stumping a few dusty specialists, it would be a global phenomenon that would rock both magisteria.