The "science" of Miracles

Have you recently changed your mind on this?

quote:

---

when John says that Jesus turned the water into wine we know that isn't true

---

Message 718

quote:

---

quote:

---

How do you know it isn't true?

---

Because it's a miracle.

---

Message 735

quote:

---

Regarding John and the miracles specifically, I think I've already explained this. The suspension of natural laws renders it false immediately.

---

Message 753

quote:

---

You think tentativity argues that the probability of anything lies in the range 0 < p <=1. I think some things are impossible

---

Message 908Scientists tend to go for 'anomalous'. The precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for example was an anomaly in the 19th Century. It didn't seem to conform to Newtonian laws (ie., the known natural laws of the time).

I was mostly concerned with your state of mind regarding tentativity. You said in this thread:

quote:

---

Hume is arguing that past experience is proof that miracles can't exist. My own reaction is that this violates tentativity

---

You took the 'Humean' position in the other thread, and I retorted tentativity back to you. It certainly seems like an entirely contrary position.

I see. It explains your reasoning perfectly well. The reason for my confusion is that I see fallibilism (the notion that knowledge is tentative) as a philosophical position not exclusive to science but instead is an approach to epistemology. One that science has adopted in its epistemology, but can be found elsewhere - including in religious thought.