The "science" of Miracles

I agree it would likely be a huge hullaballoo.On the science side, there would definitely be a very excited team dedicated to trying to figure out whatever they could.
As well, I think most other areas of science would continue on mostly-as-normal... I mean, they would definitely be more open to finding "something" that cannot be explained (as such a thing would now have precedence). But I think for the most part, science would continue (or try to continue?) on much as it does not.The religious/political/social side of things, though?
A freaking mess.How many different religions would fight over (kill over?) making sure this "miracle" is seen as confirmation for their select religion?
How many politicians would froth over the idea of saving billions in health care because it's all free an easy now?
How many countries would go to war over attempting to control such a power for, of course, "the good of their people." [/sarcasm]But, could be wrong about any of that.Maybe science would fall apart because "well, we can't trust anything we have now!"
(Or maybe funding for it would fall apart under the guise of such a push by the anti-science... causing science to fall apart against-it's-will anyway).Maybe people would be more "oh? that's nice, wish I could do that..." and then move on with paying their own mortgage and feeding their own kids, much as they always have.Generally, anyone who thinks some event will have "major implications!! The whole world will change!!!" is usually sorely mistaken.
But not always.Such is the way of predicting the future... I agree there are many possibilities. Which is more likely? I dunno

I think you underestimate the effect of a real life Jesus doing real miracles in the age of celebrity, TV, Twitter and FaceAche. We'd be lucky if there weren't wars.

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

Quite possibly, yes.There are many different possible ways such a thing could unfold.I think (hope?) you underestimate the ability of normal people to eventually advance the world in good ways.
After all, if it was impossible, then we never would have survived the Dark Ages.

Yes, it would definitely be possible for science to make progress. If science makes progress to explain parts (or all) of it... then those parts (or all) of it would no longer be considered miracles by any (reasonable) person.If science never makes progress to explain parts (or all) of it... then those parts (or all) of it could continue to be called a miracle by any (reasonable) person.Then we get into differentiating between a "miracle" being something-science-cannot-explain-how-it's-going-against-known-standards vs. something-that-is-common-in-the-world.
Which would, at that point, just be a semantics game on how you want to define "miracle." I'm sure some sort of scientific terminology would develop.
Perhaps something along similar lines as "Dark Matter/Energy" but with even less information around the idea.I doubt the scientific terminology would use the word "miracle" or "magic" or anything like that.I bet, though, that some scientists would use such terms when referring to the phenomenon, and others would not. Yes, you're right.
"Always" isn't quite the perfect word there. But it got my general idea across. I screwed up my numbers. I put in two 9s. I meant my first #9... the one talking about how I think scientists would study the phenomenon in the situation:

quote:

---

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.

---

Edited by Stile, : Changed something-science-cannot-explain to something-science-cannot-explain-how-it's-going-against-known-standards. Because without the last part... it's just something unknown. And things that are 'just unknown' are not called miracles (anymore) by any reasonable person.

There are but I think the least probable is that the world sits back quietly interested like someone was going around bending spoons. The world is capable of making stuttering progress and has been doing reasonably well for the last couple of centuries - with some major exceptions - but human nature is such that major change often breaks the veneer of civilisation. Power cuts create riots, disasters start looting, shortages start panic buying, mistakes create wars etc. It's a very fine balance.Many parts of the world and parts of our own societies are not rational or democratic. We really can't be complacent about future.

Asked and answered. If evidence for an event existed, scientists would examine the evidence and try to come up with an explanation. They would not declare it "inexplicable". I have no difficulty with the concept of pigs flying. What I'm disputing is your certainty (Message 266) that, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." I think the evidence shows that they most certainly would not. The objection is not on the grounds that your scenario has never been observed. The objection is on the grounds that your scenario, by your own description, is impossible according to everything we know about science. A person climbing a tree is repeatable. We can ask, "What if Bob climbed the tree?" and then watch him do it, or we can watch somebody else do it and extrapolate the results to Bob. Your analogy is bad because your "thought experiment" can not be tested, can not be connected to reality in any way. But we don't decide that, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous," (Message 266) based on data that is currently non-existent. Of course not. I'm predicting what scientists would do based on what they have done in the past. You have it backwards. You're the one who is predicting that, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." (Message 266) I'm just saying the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. If scientists didn't call something they didn't understand a "miracle" in the past, why would they do it in the future? Where you went wrong is in suggesting that they would stop at "miracle". They would not stop.

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

That isn't very long. Science develops tentative explanations pretty quickly, so they have no need to call something "inexplicable". Every scientific paper that doesn't fall back on "miracles". Sure there is. When scientists discovered that a lot of matter seems to be "missing" in the universe, that had never been observed before. What they did was hypothesize a new kind of "dark" matter that can not be observed by conventional methods - and they began to look for new ways to observe it. They did not call it a miracle. So you and Tangle are fine-tuning your preferred definition of miracles by dragging it even farther from reality.Real-life phenomena that have no current explanation are not miracles. Agreed.And events that are called miracles by some, such as the Miracle of the Sun, are beneath you so you refuse to discuss them.So the only "real" miracles are flying bridges. But what has that got to do with science?

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.

Your 'events' are not "unprecedented" - they're made up. In the real world of real events - including events like the Miracle of the Sun - the only place we have to look for guidance is the existing body of scientific research. Nothing has the qualities that you and Tangle proposed. You proposed a fairy tale, which is why science has no reason to deal with it. You don't have to make up fairy tales. You could look at real reports of "miracles, such as the Miracle of the Sun. And of course, science does not call them miracles. Of course it's relevant - because the Catholic Church is the only one calling it a miracle.

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

You're tailoring those "needs" to your preferred definition of miracle, which is incorrect.The point of the Miracle of the Sun is that the Catholic Church calls it a miracle while scientists do not. The only thing that makes an event a miracle is somebody attributing it to unnatural causes. Miracles are religion, not science.

All that I have read indicates that a miracle is simply defined as an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Though more commonly ascribed to religious events, religion itself does not seem to need to be attached to the definition.Personally, I think you have a sort of vendetta against religion to the point that you are campaigning to get science to distance itself from any vocabulary hinting at such. As I told Pressie, you (also) are overreacting.