The "science" of Miracles

quote:

---

Come all of you cowboys all over this land,
I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command:
To hold a six shooter, and never to run
As long as there's bullets in both of your guns.

​

-- Woody Guthrie

---

And also something about, "cold dead hands."

As you seem to understand, there is no point at which scientists stop. Nothing panned out yesterday but they keep looking today. Explain why you think it doesn't support my contention. It's called a miracle by the Catholic Church but it's explained by scientists. My contention is that scientists don't call events miracles. I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to figure out why you don't understand your own words. You say that scientists would work very hard to understand the phenomenon and than you say that they would stop working and call it a miracle.Or are you saying that they would call it a miracle and go on working anyway? in that case, why call it a miracle at all? Why not just call it something they're working on? No it doesn't. The comic shows a lot of figures on the blackboard which clearly took a lot of effort. Huh? The sun rising is not unprecedented. When they come to the end of the trail, they don't just stand there. They ask, "Where to now?" More tentative explanations.Please make up your mind. Do they stop looking or not? It indicates my inability to move you forward. But you're the guy who denied that the word "attributed" was there, even though you quoted it. And you're the guy who refuses to acknowledge that attribution is important in miracles even though it's mentioned in virtually every definition. And you're the guy who doesn't see that actual events are called miracles by believers but not by scientists. That's exactly the point. I don't care. The people who aren't discussing you flying bridge scenario decided on their own to not discuss it. I'm like the janitor here. I clean up your mess. If you make the same mess tomorrow, I have to clean it up again tomorrow. That's the nature of the job. Like the scientists, I don't at some point decide that the mess is a miracle and can't be stopped. Like the scientists, I just keep going. Absence of evidence for fairies, absences of evidence for the Loch Ness Monster, absence of evidence for UFO abductions, etc. Yup, sometimes. Then why are you suggesting that scientists would run out of possible explanations for your flying bridge? From previous experience with pigs. They see mud and they wallow. They don't need a definition.Scientists see questions and they propose answers. I would expect them to wallow in that too. I would not expect them to care whether it was "unprecedented" or whether it violated any pig laws.

There's only so much that can be invented, so let's close the Patent Office?Or, as we often tell creationists, questions usually produce more questions than answers. Or their grandchildren would solve the mystery. It isn't as if every scientist on earth would be studying the phenomenon in the first place. The vast majority of them would leave it to somebody else to figure out - which is another reason why there could never be a consensus calling it a miracle. They could privately call it Pinocchio. That has nothing to do with the topic.

When doing science, I think they are. Can all drivers see? It's kind of a prerequisite. How? Agnosticism is not a step on the road to atheism. It's a constant state, like the curiosity of scientists. You can "declare atheism" but you're still really agnostic. A scientist can be temporarily stumped but he/she is still looking for answers. There is no reason for scientists to consider the concept of "inexplicable" at all.

It's hard to nail your jello to the wall. If research wouldn't come to a halt, why would scientists take time out to call something a miracle? It seems redundant. Well, where did all of those figures come from? Thin air? The sun rising every day in the past is well-documented. That's why we can comfortably predict that it will rise tomorrow.On the other hand, scientists haven't labelled things as miracles, even when they were temporarily inexplicable. (If you have examples of scientists labelling things as miracles in the past, feel free to cite them.) That's why we can comfortably predict that they won't do it tomorrow. The thread is about miracles and you keep calling them miracles. No it hasn't. It has been established that events that are called miracles are only called miracles in a religious context, not in a scientific context. The attribution to unnatural causes is the only thing that distinguishes a "miracle' from any other event. That isn't going to change just because you don't like it. How so? The analogy is that scientists wallow in all types of questions, including the inexplicable ones. We have no reason to think they would handle a "new" question differently.

If you define miracles as "a violation of the laws of nature", then as far as science is concerned they can't exist because science works only within the laws of nature (sometimes amending those laws as necessary).But as far as believers are concerned, they do exist. That fact has to be included in the definition. "Something we can't currently explain." I'm imagining that the authors intent was to say that the scientists, after much effort, had given up. Of course not. Just the opposite. It implies that the scientists, after much effort, had given up. Scientists haven't encountered it before because they don't recognize that it can happen. If something appears to "violate" known natural or scientific laws, they conclude that either the appearance is deceptive or the laws need to be tweaked. I don't think it has any relevance. Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Scientists deal with unprecedented observations every day. Do you need to be reminded of the Miracle of the Sun? It's only a miracle because it's attributed to unnatural causes. We have no reason to think scientists would change their MO. Again, you're the one who is making the claim that pigs would suddenly change their behaviour if confronted by a new kind of mud. You need to back up that claim.Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

The definition defines away the argument.

It isn't a scientific definition. Why should science define a word that it doesn't use? The cartoon is making fun of people like creationists who use Goddidit as a "reason". Exactly, which is why scientists wouldn't change their MO, no matter how flagrant the "violation". You keep asking the same question.

quote:

---

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.
-- attributed to Albert Einstein

---

No matter how many times you ask, the scientific method doesn't change. It's still a closed loop, with no escape hatch if the questions get too hard. The level of flagrancy is irrelevant. There's no such thing in science as a "violation". There's only insufficient understanding. But it is a necessary part of the definition of miracles. That's why miracles are not science. I used the word "unnatural" specifically because it is broader than "supernatural". Any event that is attributed to causes which can not be explained (by the attributor) is called a miracle, whether it can be explained by somebody else or not. That's the analogy I used. To a pig, mud is mud. What kind of analysis do you expect them to do?

I'm not crafting anything. I'm using the definition as written - the definition that you quoted yourself. As far as science is concerned, a violation of natural laws can't exist. An event is only attributed to a "violation" of natural laws by people who believe they can.

Science doesn't create the definition or even use the word. Then what the @#$% are you saying? Why would the notion of 'inexplicable" or "violating natural laws" or "miracles" come up at all if it was just business as usual? I did say that it was attributed to Einstein. But of course it doesn't matter who said it. It would indicate that our understanding of natural laws was breaking down, not that the laws themselves had been "violated". Right back atcha: Why would there be some point at which scientists were "more baffled" than ever before? How would they measure the level of violation-flagrancy and bafflement so that they could switch into "miracle mode". And bear in mind that you have agreed that nothing would change in their approach to the problem. Where does it say there is such a thing? If they leave evidence behind that science can study, how are they miracles? The question is: How would the pigs interpret "something different"? Since pigs habitually wallow, their natural response would be to wallow.The analogous question would be: How would the scientists interpret "something different"? Since scientists habitually investigate phenomena and find explanations for them, their natural response would be to investigate the phenomenon and explain it. I'm saying that miracles do exist in the minds of people who believe in miracles. Things are inexplicable in the minds of people who can't explain them.But to scientists, they are just things that happened. A scientist saying something can't be explained would be like a pilot saying an aircraft can't fly. It's the only context in which miracles are defined. The consensus would be that there was a need for a paradigm shift in our understanding of the laws.

But I'm not defining anything. I'm using the definition as written. It's Percy who is ignoring the importance of attribution in the definition that he himself quoted.

So you're making up the scenario, making up the evidence and making up the scientists' reaction. That's the nice thing about fiction: you don't have to have any rationale at all for your claims. If you think considering the possibility of a miracle is part of the standard practice, you shouldn't have any trouble citing scientific papers that do so. I've been asking you to do that. Why no response? I can't tell whether you're being deliberately evasive or not. Deal with what was said and quit quibbling about who said it. Every time we add something to our knowledge, the old understanding changes. A paradigm shift constitutes a major change in the old understanding - i.e. we tear down the old understanding to replace it with a newer, better one. Relativity. Quantum mechanics. But you keep saying that the evidence in your fairy tale doesn't lead anywhere. You claim that scientists would react differently because the evidence doesn't lead anywhere. Where does the scientific method allow for "violations"? Then show us in the MO - i.e. the scientific method - where there is consideration of "violations". But you keep waffling. If they follow the evidence where it leads, why do they need to consider violations or miracles at all? If the evidence leads nowhere, they look for more evidence; they don't say, "You can't get there from here." Scientists are people who look for explanations, not people who think things are inexplicable. And he wouldn't say it would take a miracle to get to Mars. He'd continue business as usual until the problem was solved,. I'm pointing out that scientists don't have a perspective on miracles. Given the same event - e.g. the Miracle of the Sun - only religious people interpret it as "inexplicable" or a "miracle". Scientists explain it. Ergo, miracles are not part of their perspective. Are they? Who made up that rule and why?

Huh?Nobody is calling the two-slit experiment or entanglement or radioactive decay a miracle. How are they relevant to events that are called miracles?We're talking about the definition of "miracle" here. I keep asking you: if attributing an event to an unnatural cause is not an important part of the definition of miracle, why does practically every definition mention it?

You're not rebutting anything. You're claiming that scientists would somehow react differently to your what-if scenario but you admit that their behaviour would be business as usual. I ask for any possible rationale for their reaction being different and all you say, "it's unprecedented." You have given us no reason to think that your claim is true.You say that scientists would certainly call it a miracle and then you turn around and add, "or something else." You might as well say that planetary motion is caused by gravity, or something else. The old paradigm still works in "most contexts", not all contexts. Conventional aerodynamics still works in most contexts. Flying bridges would require something like relativity or quantum mechanics to refine the paradigm. Again, scientists don't conclude that physical laws have been "violated". (Again, feel free to cite scientific papers that correct me.) They conclude that their current understanding of the physical laws is incomplete. Where does the process accommodate violations? Where is the step in the process that allows for, "insert miracle here"? An unprecedented phenomenon might slow the turning of the wheel or even stop it temporarily but it doesn't add spokes to the wheel. About the same number of times as I've asked you why they would call it a miracle if they were still working on it. The number of answers I've gotten: zero. And I never said it was. It was supposed to be a simple analogy, obvious to anybody. I'm not the one who's arguing religion. You are. Miracles are religion, not science. For example, the Miracle of the Sun is called a miracle by religion, not by scientists. Similarly, a flying bridge might be called a miracle by religion but not by science. You didn't answer the question: Who made up the rule that miracles are local?Take the Miracle of the Sun, for example. If the sun really did dance around in the sky, it would not have been a local phenomenon. It would have been visible from wherever the sun was visible. That's one reason why scientists had to look for another explanation than "miracle".The claim that miracles are "local" sounds like religious waffle words, similar to the claim that God doesn't reveal Himself because He wants us to have faith.

Humour me. If attribution is not an important part of the definition, why is it mentioned in practically every definition? I did. I pointed out that the two-slit experiment, entanglement and radioactive decay are not called miracles. They're not attributed to unnatural causes, even if we don't have an understanding of the causes. If they were called miracles, it would be because they were attributed to unnatural causes.I keep repeating the argument because you keep repeating that I didn't make it.And I can keep asking the question until you answer it: If attribution is not an important part of the definition of a miracle, why does practically every definition mention it? Do you think people just pepper their definitions with random irrelevant words?