Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 457 of 696 (827917)
02-05-2018 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by NoNukes
02-05-2018 11:22 AM


Re: Consensus
NoNukes writes:
So what should we make of the word 'miracle' then? Is a destitute single mom winning the lottery a miracle? Is a computer a modern miracle of science? Is remission of cancer a miracle?
The word "miracle' is used by the Catholic Church in an official capacity, attributing unusual events to a a supernatural cause. Presumably, other religious groups use the word similarly.
The word is also used colloquially, as in your examples. The events are certainly not "inexplicable". At best they are unexpected.
Calling something a "miracle" is entirely subjective, which is why scientists don't do it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2018 11:22 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2018 11:58 AM ringo has replied
 Message 459 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:10 PM ringo has replied
 Message 467 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2018 1:39 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 460 of 696 (827920)
02-05-2018 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 458 by Tangle
02-05-2018 11:58 AM


Re: Consensus
Tangle writes:
If a miracle - like the ones we've posited and you've refused to discuss - happened, they would be thoroughly open to objective analysis.
If scientists analyzed it, they'd propose explanations. By definition, it would not be "inexplicable" and it wouldn't be considered a miracle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2018 11:58 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2018 12:32 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 461 of 696 (827921)
02-05-2018 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by Phat
02-05-2018 12:10 PM


Re: Arguments From The Internet
Phat writes:
Granted you have framed the parameters of how science should think and of what science should or should never conclude.
If that isn't the way science does think, give us some examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:10 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 463 of 696 (827923)
02-05-2018 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by Phat
02-05-2018 12:13 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:
... some may use the M word and others would stick with currently unexplainable....
Show us some examples.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:13 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:37 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 469 of 696 (827945)
02-06-2018 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 464 by Tangle
02-05-2018 12:32 PM


Re: Consensus
Tangle writes:
And if they found no explanations, then what?
When have they ever found no explanations?
Tangle writes:
You're making the mistake of assuming that objective analysis must conclude with a natural explanation.
It's not an assumption. It's an observation. It's what scientists do. They propose explanations. Care to give any examples where scientists were completely stumped and could propose no explanations at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 464 by Tangle, posted 02-05-2018 12:32 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Tangle, posted 02-06-2018 1:20 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 470 of 696 (827946)
02-06-2018 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by Phat
02-05-2018 12:37 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:
The reason that the argument continues is that you stay on one side of it and refuse to use the M Word.
Why do you have to make it personal? Nothing I have said has anything to do with whether or not I believe in miracles or whether or not I use the word "miracle". The fact is that scientists do not use the word nor do they cop out with "insert miracle here".
Phat writes:
My point is that at least some of science would resort to using the word were a hypothetical scenario such as percy describes occur.
Your point is unfounded. There is no reason to think scientists would call anything a miracle. If for no other reason, they avoid the word because it has so much religious baggage.
Phat writes:
... you have failed to allow yourself to consider that hypothetically they may someday use it.
On the contrary, you have failed to show any reason why scientists would do a complete about-face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by Phat, posted 02-05-2018 12:37 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 471 of 696 (827947)
02-06-2018 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by NoNukes
02-05-2018 1:39 PM


Re: Consensus
NoNukes writes:
Scientist have a firm idea about what would be called a miracle.
Give examples.
NoNukes writes:
Lots of things we deal with in life are subjective. Those things are not to be avoided.
In science, the subjective parts are to be avoided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by NoNukes, posted 02-05-2018 1:39 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 472 of 696 (827948)
02-06-2018 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by Percy
02-05-2018 3:15 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
Only because one hasn't happened yet. "But what if...," as Tangle asks.
What if Bigfoot was elected Governor of Arizona? What if frying pans could sing opera? What do those what-ifs contribute?
Percy writes:
The more important issue is how would science would react were it to encounter phenomena that fulfilled all the criteria for a miracle, whether they called it that or not.
The problem is still that you're misunderstanding the criteria for a miracle. The criterion is not that it's "inexplicable" but that somebody thinks it's inexplicable (or at least that unnatural causes are the best explanation). That's why some people call an event a miracle and others don't call the same event a miracle.
Believers attribute UFOs to alien technology. Scientists do not. Believers attribute a dancing sun to supernatural causes. Scientists do not. It's all about who attributes it to what.
Percy writes:
He includes a list of possible scientific attitudes, something you insisted that you know what it would be.
I have never claimed to know what scientists think. I have asked for evidence of your claim that scientists would certainly call something a miracle. You have produced no evidence yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by Percy, posted 02-05-2018 3:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:19 AM ringo has replied
 Message 478 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 12:39 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 474 of 696 (827956)
02-06-2018 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 11:19 AM


Re: Consensus
NoNukes writes:
The believers would be wrong if they attributed UFOs to magic.
Why? What's the difference between miracles and magic?
NoNukes writes:
But if they believe it is alien technology, then they are not calling it a miracle anyway. So your comment would not seem to make sense.
The point is that what matters is who calls it what. A UFO may be attributed to alien technology or not. A phenomenon of some sort may be attributed to unnatural causes or not. To say that something "is" an alien spacecraft or to say that something "is" a miracle is just a subjective belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:19 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:54 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 476 of 696 (827961)
02-06-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 11:54 AM


Re: Consensus
NoNukes writes:
The distinction is between technology and magic or miracles.
So what's the difference between technology and magic or miracles? One man's technology is another man's magic.
NoNukes writes:
If nobody is attributing UFOs to magic, then you would not seem to have a point.
The point is that the attribution is what counts. One person attributes a UFO, etc. to unnatural causes and one person attributes the same phenomenon to (known or unknown) natural causes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:54 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Taq, posted 02-06-2018 12:24 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 480 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 6:37 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 481 of 696 (828015)
02-07-2018 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by Percy
02-06-2018 12:39 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
Your Bigfoot what-if contributes pretty much nothing to this discussion since it represents a false equivalence and has nothing to do with the topic.
How is it a false equivalence?
Percy writes:
How would science react?
With tentative explanations.
Percy writes:
We're not talking about something that someone just happened to see and who happened to have an opinion about whether it was a miracle or not. We're talking about scientific evidence of an event that violates known physical laws.
We're talking about a story that you made up. The "scientific evidence" is made up.
The Wikipedia article that contains your tweaked definition gives examples that don't support your definition. The real-life observations are not "inexplicable" to scientists.
Percy writes:
Should enough scientific evidence accumulate for miracles then a consensus would build around the concept of miracles (regardless of the term actually adopted within science).
How can you have evidence for miracles?
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
I have never claimed to know what scientists think.
Sure you have, repeatedly, plenty of times, here's a partial list:
The statements you quote are not me claiming to know something independently. They're about what we know about scientists. If I say the "we" have a pretty good understanding of how evolution works, that is not a statement about my personal level of knowledge.
We do know that scientists don't use "insert miracle here", don't we? I've asked for evidence of scientists invoking miracles and got none, so I'm assuming that you do understand that they don't. Feel free to correct that assumption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by Percy, posted 02-06-2018 12:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by Percy, posted 02-07-2018 4:10 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 482 of 696 (828016)
02-07-2018 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by Tangle
02-06-2018 1:20 PM


Re: Consensus
Tangle writes:
As you know, we're playing the what if game, if you don't want to, just say so.
I've already said it's a stupid game. That's my move. If you don't like it, throw the game board on the floor and run away.
Tangle writes:
How can it be an observation, no miracles have yet been detected?
That's the observation. No gods have been detected. No flying pigs have been detected. No miracles have been detected.
If flying pigs, etc. are detected, scientists will offer explanations. That's what they do.
Tangle writes:
But what if they can't?
According to all of our observations, they always can.
Tangle writes:
We agreed about a thousand posts ago that so far no miracles have been found.
Actually, no. We don't agree on that. Miracles have been found - by people who believe in miracles, not by scientists. It's a case of you gotta believe it to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by Tangle, posted 02-06-2018 1:20 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Percy, posted 02-07-2018 4:40 PM ringo has replied
 Message 487 by Tangle, posted 02-07-2018 5:35 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 483 of 696 (828017)
02-07-2018 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 480 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 6:37 PM


Re: Consensus
NoNukes writes:
If folks think that the ships are piloted by beings from another planet using technology they do not understand, they are not calling those things miracles.
Have you ever heard of analogies?
I'm saying that attributing UFOs to alien technology is equivalent to attributing miracles to magic. In both cases, the attributor is drawing a different conclusion than scientists would.
I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting that the two different examples should be mixed together. If I say that dogs prefer meat in the same way that rabbits prefer lettuce, I am not saying that dogs prefer lettuce.
NoNukes writes:
And it turns out that some of those folks are just flat out wrong.
Indeed. And scientists don't like to use the same terminology as people who are habitually wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 6:37 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 488 of 696 (828040)
02-08-2018 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by Percy
02-07-2018 4:10 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
What if no explanations are forthcoming? How would science react?
Are you seriously suggesting that scientists would propose no explanations at all?
Percy writes:
You don't say what particular examples you're referring to...
I thought I mentioned the Miracle of the Sun.
Percy writes:
... this just repeats your argument that no scientific miracle has ever been found to occur.
No, it repeats my argument that scientists don't call something a miracle and they're not at a loss for explanations.
Percy writes:
Where in this thread is anyone arguing that scientists would merely "insert miracle here"?
In Message 266 you said:
quote:
And there most certainly can be a consensus that something was a miracle. The George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson River. A leg lost in Afghanistan being suddenly restored. The water in the Nile River suddenly turning to blood. A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous.
There's no equivocation about terminology there either. If you say, "They would certainly call their daughter Suzan," there's no implied, "or something else."
So, what's the difference between, "no explanations are forthcoming," and "insert miracle here"?
Percy writes:
... the "what ifs" describe unprecedented events, so of course there are no miraculous events in the history of science.
Everything is unprecedented until it happens. There are no miraculous events because scientists don't consider anything inexplicable.
Percy writes:
But what if one of the described scenarios occurred? Should we assume you'll just repeat your non-answer of, "With tentative explanations," which doesn't address the actual question posed by the scenarios?
Of course it does. It would be business as usual for scientists. Do you seriously not know that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by Percy, posted 02-07-2018 4:10 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by Percy, posted 02-09-2018 10:24 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 489 of 696 (828041)
02-08-2018 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Percy
02-07-2018 4:40 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
The true puzzle is why you believe no one's allowed to play a game you find stupid.
What puzzles me is that you think I can prevent somebody else from playing. Is there a "Suppress Other Posters" button that I'm missing?
I don't see a lot of people rushing to discuss your flying bridges. You can't blame that on me.
Percy writes:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sometimes it is. That has been discussed in other threads.
Percy writes:
Why is there something instead of nothing? What explains quantum behavior? What explains entanglement? How do we unify Einsteinian and quantum physics? What is dark matter? What is dark energy?
Are you suggesting that scientists have not proposed explanations for all of those things?
Percy writes:
How would science react? And again, please, don't ignore the true question being asked with non-answers like, "With tentative explanations."
I'm sorry if you don't like the answer but that is the answer. You're the one who is making the positive claim that scientists would react differently, so you are the one who needs to back up your position. I'm saying that if pigs were confronted by an entirely new kind of mud, they'd react as they always do and wallow in it. You're saying that they'd put on suits and ties or some such thing. You have to back up your claim.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Percy, posted 02-07-2018 4:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024