Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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 550 of 696 (828353)
02-16-2018 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 549 by Percy
02-15-2018 2:41 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
What you actually argued was that they wouldn't consider miracles a possibility....
Where did I argue that?
What I've been arguing is that there is nothing in scientific procedure that would accommodate 'inexplicable" or "violation of physical laws". There's only "keep looking until you find something." You even seem to understand that, so it's hard to grasp what you're position actually is.
Percy writes:
You also argued that scientists would stop working to understand phenomena they called miracles, which has the same answer, that scientists wouldn't necessarily call them a miracle.
And you argued in Message 266 that "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." I'm not sure how you think they can concede they're miraclulous without calling them miracles. To be fair, you did waffle later on by saying they'd call them miracles, or something else. But it's still pretty hard to grasp what you're position actually is.
Percy writes:
I only meant that they'd call it by a name that had the definition I've been using....
Maybe you should change the topic title to "The science of Miracles or something else".
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
Flying bridges would require something like relativity or quantum mechanics to refine the paradigm.
Sure, that's a possibility. Why do you think so?
Because that's the way science is done. And you seem to understand that. So what's different when there's a temporary inability to come up with a satisfactory explanation? Where is the need to call something a miracle (or something else) when there has never been a need before? How is your unprecedented scenario different from all of the other unprecedented scenarios so that scientists would react differently?
Percy writes:
Didn't the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury turn out to be a violation of Newtonian physics, requiring a new theoretical paradigm?
Newtonian physics is not a law of nature. The anomaly showed that Newton's understanding of the laws was not adequate and had to be tweaked.
Percy writes:
Here ya go, Einstein's paper on the subject: Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory
That's a bare link. I said, "Again, scientists don't conclude that physical laws have been "violated". (Again, feel free to cite scientific papers that correct me.)" So please quote Einstein where he said that physical laws have been violated.
Percy writes:
It's the concept that's important, not the particular word. I propose you drop your religious arguments in this science thread.
The concept is a religious one.
Percy writes:
Huh? Are you blind? The sentence just before what you quoted said, "Tangle realized this quite some time ago....
Huh? you're saying that Tangle made up the rule? And we should take Tangle's Rule seriously because...?
Percy writes:
It was only "visible" near Ftima, Portugal, and only to followers of those children. I would say this argues extremely strongly against the possibility that the sun ever moved, let alone that there was a miracle.
Exactly. It's called a miracle by the Catholoc Church and not by scientists because miracles are a religious concept, not a scientific one.
Percy writes:
Waffle words? Is that what they say in Canada? Down here we call them weasel words.
Waffles are less egregious than weasels.
Percy writes:
The existing definition of miracle includes a religious or supernatural or at least non-natural origin.
That's what I'm saying.
Percy writes:
What if a shaman waved his hands and made a missing limb reappear, right in a medical laboratory with tons of scientific analysis equipment to record evidence of what transpired?
Scientists would try to figure out how it happened. You seem to understand that, so I don't know why you feel the need to insert the concept of miracles.
Percy writes:
Again, how many times would you guess I've pointed out how the particular term isn't important?
If it's not important, you could stop using it and see how I respond. As Einstein - or somebody else - said, you shouldn't keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result.
Percy writes:
So we won't call them miracles. We'll call them unexplainables.
Call them unexplained and you've finally caught up with me.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 549 by Percy, posted 02-15-2018 2:41 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by Phat, posted 02-16-2018 1:04 PM ringo has replied
 Message 555 by Percy, posted 02-17-2018 4:15 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 553 of 696 (828403)
02-17-2018 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 551 by Phat
02-16-2018 1:04 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:
So in other words, you prefer the term unexplained or unexplainable because to you, the word miracle is alluding to an explanation?(an unscientific one at that)
A miracle is an event that is attributed to an unnatural cause. When believers can not explain an event in terms of natural causes they "explain" it in terms of supernatural causes - i.e. a "miracle".

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Phat, posted 02-16-2018 1:04 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 554 by Phat, posted 02-17-2018 12:54 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 558 of 696 (828500)
02-20-2018 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Phat
02-17-2018 12:54 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:
So the term is one that believers use, then? What if the scientist happened to be a believer?
We've been through this before. A scientist doesn't use religious terms when doing science. Objectivity requires leaving subjective beliefs at the lab door.
Phat writes:
They may keep looking, but they most certainly would use the term miracle...personally if not professionally.
We're not talking about personal here.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Phat, posted 02-17-2018 12:54 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 559 of 696 (828502)
02-20-2018 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 555 by Percy
02-17-2018 4:15 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
Scientists could invent whatever term they liked for phenomena that flagrantly violate known physical laws.
Exactly. So why would they use one with such obvious religious baggage?
Percy writes:
We're attempting to discuss how science would react in trying to "grasp" what happened were an actual scientifically studyable miracle to occur.
But we already know how science would react. The Miracle of the Sun was an actual scientifically studyable miracle. Science reacted the same way as it always does, even if the available evidence didn't lead to a definitive explanation.
Percy writes:
Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement?
If it seems to violate what we think we know, we need to adjust what we think we know.
Percy writes:
What's different in the proposed "what ifs" is the flagrancy of the violations of known physical laws and the fact that the violations are local to where the miracle occurred and do not affect the behavior of known physical laws anywhere else.
So, what if it wasn't local? What if every bridge in the world conspired to flout the laws of physics? What if the Forth Bridge soared over to span the Volga? What if the Bridge of Sighs took a romatic turn and went up to Paris to gaze longingly at Notre Dame? What if the George Washington Bridge strolled over to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, to visit its buddy, Governor Bigfoot? What if the Golden Gate Bridge landed on the moon piloted by three pigs, who proceeded to enjoy a wallow in the dust?
How would a spate of bridge aviation be less flagrant than your local scenario?
Percy writes:
For example, Tangle's "what if" about a missing limb suddenly reappearing violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy, and probably entropy, too....
Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food.
Percy writes:
Of course it's a bare link, that's what you asked for. You said, "Feel free to cite scientific papers that correct me," so that's what I did, cited a scientific paper that corrects you. What did you expect?
I expected you to follow the forum rules: "Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references."
Percy writes:
We're considering how science would react if faced with phenomena fitting the definition of miracle.
Why would science react to a religious definition?
Percy writes:
... after years of analysis the conclusion is reached that the event was unexplainable by known natural and scientific laws....
UFOs are called Unidentified, not Unidentifiable.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Percy, posted 02-17-2018 4:15 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Percy, posted 02-20-2018 1:40 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 561 of 696 (828596)
02-21-2018 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 560 by Percy
02-20-2018 1:40 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
How do you know scientists would even care about so-called "religious baggage"?
Objectivity requires leaving religious baggage at the door. It's standard practice.
Percy writes:
For Tangle's scenario involving a shaman, how does one even avoid the "religious baggage"?
By not talking about miracles or gods.
Percy writes:
Why do you even care what term they use?
It isn't what I care about. It's about the terms they actually use. I've given you ample opportunity to cite examples of scientists using the terminology you advocate. So far, it appears I'm right that they don't. If you want to know why they care, ask them.
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
The Miracle of the Sun was an actual scientifically studyable miracle.
That wasn't scientifically studied.
It was, to the extent that was possible, given the evidence available.
Percy writes:
What evidence? There was no scientific evidence.
The anecdotal evidence was similar to the anecdotal evidence in UFO investigations. Scientists consider UFOs to be unidentified, not unidentifiable.
Percy writes:
Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift?
How do you distinguish between a refinement and a shift beforehand?
Percy writes:
You're describing multiple simultaneous miracles that are each local. The laws of physics continue to operate normally throughout the rest of space-time.
How do you know that? Why is it even important whether or not the effects are localized?
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
Percy writes:
For example, Tangle's "what if" about a missing limb suddenly reappearing violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy, and probably entropy, too....
Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food.
Ringo refuses to take in information about "what ifs".
Percy avoids the issue (where he is demonstrably wrong).
Percy writes:
You expressed skepticism about the existence of papers about violations of natural laws, saying I should feel free to cite scientific papers correctly you, so of course providing a link to one such paper was an effective and also the most appropriate counter-argument.
It's a violation of the forum rules. If your citation did support your claim, you would still have to show how it supported your claim.
Percy writes:
"Miracle" just happens to be the word most closely matching the phenomena.
Only by using your specially-tailored definition.
Percy writes:
How many times now would you guess I've explained that in a scientific context where tentativity reigns that "unexplainable" doesn't mean "unexplainable forever"?
You've made the claim before and it's still wrong. In actual fact, scientists use the term "unidentified" instead of "unidentifiable" because "unidentifiable" would tend to connote forever. It's a clearer, hence better, term.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by Percy, posted 02-20-2018 1:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by Percy, posted 02-22-2018 2:35 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 563 of 696 (828740)
02-23-2018 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 562 by Percy
02-22-2018 2:35 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
For the shaman scenario, the term miracle fits pretty well, and the scientists might find the "religious baggage" of the term miracle to be an advantage rather than a deficit.
How would calling it a miracle help them follow the evidence?
Percy writes:
There's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as miracles or gods.
And there's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as leprechauns - but scientists still don't label things as leprechauns.
Percy writes:
We've discussed my characterization of unprecedented, why are you forgetting it now?
Because it's still nonsense.
quote:
"Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time."
Tom Hanks in "Sully"
Percy writes:
There was no scientific evidence of the Miracle of the Sun, and no scientific study was performed.
There's the same evidence that there is for UFOs and scientists study that evidence all the time. It may not be good evidence but it's still evidence.
Percy writes:
What does anecdotal evidence have to do with scientific evidence? The proposed "what ifs" include the gathering of scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence.
Your what-ifs have made up evidence. You might as well use Star Wars as evidence of UFOs. Made-up evidence is even worse than anecdotal evidence.
Percy writes:
For the bridge scenario, if suspension of the laws of physics were not local but extended everywhere then they would be observed everywhere, except of course we wouldn't be around to observe this since we'd be dead.
You're making the same mistake as ICANT. The flying-bridge scenario could be caused by islands of anomaly in an ocean of standard physics.
Percy writes:
Making a spurious claim doesn't change the fact that you gave a non-answer and failed to consider the provided information.
I did consider the provided information. I pointed out that you're wrong to assume that a regenerated limb would violate conservation of matter and energy. You'd need to weigh the subject before and after the regeneration to find out whether or not there was any change in mass. No change in mass = no violation.
Percy writes:
Go to Google Scholar and type in "unidentifiable". You'll get over 90 thousand results.
I also typed in "unidentified" and got 748 thousand results.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Percy, posted 02-22-2018 2:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by Percy, posted 02-23-2018 5:30 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 565 of 696 (828795)
02-24-2018 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by Percy
02-23-2018 5:30 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
I never said that calling it a miracle would help scientists follow the evidence, that's just something you made up, but certainly clear communication couldn't hurt.
How would calling it a miracle be clear communication? It would say to religious people that God did it.
Percy writes:
Nice to see Tom Hanks getting it right where you couldn't.
I said the same thing as he did: Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Since it hadn't happened before it happened, "for the first time" is clearly implied.
Percy writes:
Not a "regenerated limb" such as might happen (to some extent) with a lizard or salamander, but a "missing limb suddenly reappearing."
How would you tell the difference?
Percy writes:
What is it about the shaman "what if" that leads you to conclude it couldn't be a violation of conservation of matter and energy?
You don't know whether there was a change in mass until you measure it. A conclusion that the limb had just poofed out of nowhere would be pretty far down the list. The obvious line of inquiry would be to see whether it had formed out of existing matter.
Percy writes:
Since a limb very definitely has more mass than no limb, I think it's safe to say there would be an increase in mass.
But you also have to consider the mass of the person that the limb is attached to. I can grow hair or fingernails without increasing my mass.
Percy writes:
It turns out that in actual fact scientists use both terms, and you're wrong yet again.
It seems pretty clear that "unidentified" is the preferred term.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by Percy, posted 02-23-2018 5:30 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by Percy, posted 02-24-2018 1:01 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 567 of 696 (828856)
02-25-2018 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 566 by Percy
02-24-2018 1:01 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
... how many times now have I said that the particular term chosen by the scientific community is unimportant, that it's the nature of the phenomena that counts?
You say that in response to a comment about communication. In one sentence you say that clear communication is a good thing and in the next sentence you say it doesn't matter. In one sentence you say that scientists would definitiely call something a "miracle" and in the next sentence you back-pedal and say they might call it "something else". I wish you'd make up your mind.
Percy writes:
But Tom Hanks didn't say, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens." That's what you said. What Tom Hanks said, assuming you quoted him accurately, is, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time."
It's the same thing. It's unprecedented until it stops being unprecedented.
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
How would you tell the difference?
How many times now have I mentioned all the scientific instruments in the room?
You haven't told us what evidence you made up. Did you make up a change in mass reading that I missed?
Percy writes:
What if the scientific instruments indicated the new limb "had just poofed out of nowhere"?
That reading would not be trusted. The instruments would have to be re-calibrated - but unfortunately, the event can not be repeated, so the reading could not be verified.
Percy writes:
What if they find that in an instant the total mass of the person increased by the mass of the new limb?
See above. We don't throw all of science out the window because of one anomalous reading.
Percy writes:
You said, "In actual fact, scientists use the term 'unidentified' instead of 'unidentifiable' because 'unidentifiable' would tend to connote forever," yet it turns out the scientists use both terms, and so you turn out to be wrong yet again.
If I said the vast majority of scientists don't say "unidentifiable", would that be clearer to you?
Aside from all of the silly nit-picking, I don't know what point you're trying to make. You agree with me that scientists observing your fairy tale would just keep plugging away at trying to solve the mystery. So what is it exactly that you're trying so hard to disagree with?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by Percy, posted 02-24-2018 1:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 568 by Percy, posted 02-25-2018 8:45 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 569 of 696 (828884)
02-26-2018 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 568 by Percy
02-25-2018 8:45 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
In one sentence you say that scientists would definitely call something a "miracle" and in the next sentence you back-pedal and say they might call it "something else". I wish you'd make up your mind.
I think you've got your own misimpressions in your mind of what I'm saying and are not paying attention to my actual words. Certainly there was nothing like you describe in any recent message from me.
quote:
Message 266And 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.
quote:
Message 481Where in this thread is anyone arguing that scientists would merely "insert miracle here"? It's been described many times how hard scientists would work to understand the phenomena and develop explanations.
What part of working hard to understand the phenomena and develop explanations involves conceding that the phenomena are miraculous?
Percy writes:
ringp writes:
It's unprecedented until it stops being unprecedented.
Duckspeak.
There you go again, evading the issue.
Let's think this through:
1. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented.
2. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented.
3. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented.
4. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented.
5. It happens. It's no longer unprecedented.
That's what Tom Hanks and I are saying. What difference do you think you see?
Percy writes:
I originally said that a shaman causing a lost limb to suddenly reappear would be a violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy.
But why did you make that assumption originally?
Percy writes:
Repetition was part of Tangle's shaman scenario, that he could make lost limbs reappear at will.
I thought miracles were supposed to be events that are not repeatable. If the event can be repeated at will and thus studied repeatedly, it seems even more clear that it is not a "violation" of any law but rather our understanding of the law is missing something.
Percy writes:
I'm just asking the question, "How would science react were it to encounter an actual miracle?"
You've answered that question yourself, with the same answer I've given: They'd keep studying the phenomenon, business as usual. Whether they'd pause to call it "something" or whether they'd order Chinese food is not relevant to science.
Percy writes:
I disagree with your opinion that there should be no discussion of a thought experiment about how science would react to an actual miracle.
I haven't said any such thing. I've been discussing your so-called "thought experiment" at length. It doesn't seem to be generating much interest among the other members but I would certainly welcome any of them jumping in.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Percy, posted 02-25-2018 8:45 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 02-26-2018 1:01 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 573 of 696 (828929)
02-27-2018 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by Percy
02-26-2018 1:01 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
Perhaps in your mind there's an implicit "for the first time" on the end of what you said.
Of course there is. When something unprecedented does happen, it has to be the first time. You don't have to specify "for the first time" any more than you have to specify losing your virginity for the first time.
Percy writes:
I originally said a shaman causing a lost limb to suddenly reappear would be a violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. Obviously a violation of the law of conservation of mass means that there was a change in the mass reading.
Your reasoning is circular. You say there was a violation of the conservation of mass and then you say there must have been a change in mass because there was a violation.
Percy writes:
I think they'd undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena....
Why wouldn't they just call it a flying bridge? The guy with big feet is called Bigfoot, the monster in Loch Ness is called the Loch Ness Monster, flying objects that have not been identified are called Unidentified Flying Objects, etc. That's clear communication. Why would scientists use a term that doesn't clearly describe the phenomenon and clearly distinguish it from other phenomena?
Percy writes:
... not since Stile jumped in, none of whom's posts you responded to....
Since Stile didn't respond to me, I have no reason to think he disagrees with me.
Edited by ringo, : "reading" --> "reasoning"

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Percy, posted 02-26-2018 1:01 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 02-27-2018 12:04 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 575 of 696 (828936)
02-27-2018 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Percy
02-27-2018 12:04 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
You're confused.
So be less confusing. What is it that you're actually trying to disagree with?
Percy writes:
I think you might want to reexamine your logic that Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you.
My logic stands. If Stile disagrees with me, he's perfectly capable of saying so.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 02-27-2018 12:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by Percy, posted 02-28-2018 9:01 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 579 of 696 (829009)
02-28-2018 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by Percy
02-28-2018 9:01 AM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
I disagree with your position that science would not consider the possibility of phenomena that inexplicably violate known physical laws when that's what the evidence indicates.
My position is that science wouldn't treat those phenomena any differently than they treat any other phenomena. You seem to agree with that.
Percy writes:
By no logic can anyone's lack of response indicate lack of disagreement.
Nor does silence indicate disagreement. I, for one, don't often post, "Good answer! Good answer!" to posts I agree with. Neither do you, as far as I can tell. I have no reason to think that Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me.
Percy writes:
I quoted him making statements that disagree with you.
Nothing you quoted disagrees with me. You me be seeing differences that aren't there again, such as in the discussion of "unprecedented".
Stile writes:
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.
Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. I have said repeatedly that miracles have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to do with miracles. I define a miracle as an event that is attributed to unknown causes by some people - but not by others who know what the standards of science are. That definition is in line with dictionaries, Wikipedia, etc. An example is the Miracle of the Sun, which is a genuine miracle to religious minds but simply an unexplained phenomenon to scientific minds.
Percy writes:
Your "logic" of Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you is illogical.
Here's another example of the same logic: In a restaurant, I ask a group of people, "Does anybody mind if I take this chair?" Nobody responds. According to my logic, nobody minds, so I take the chair. That logic works pretty well in real life.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by Percy, posted 02-28-2018 9:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by Percy, posted 02-28-2018 4:20 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 580 of 696 (829010)
02-28-2018 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Phat
02-27-2018 2:12 PM


Re: Defining The Issue
Phat writes:
It is not simply thrown into a generic unexplained for now file that science keeps.
Why not?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Phat, posted 02-27-2018 2:12 PM Phat has not replied

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


Message 582 of 696 (829044)
03-01-2018 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 581 by Percy
02-28-2018 4:20 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
So you're saying that because Stile said "if" that means he doesn't disagree with you.
It means I don't disagree with him.
If Fred Flintstone was real, Stile might think he'd be a good neighbour. I don't disagree.
Percy writes:
In that case, since I'm also using the word "if" (we're engaging in a "what if") that means you and I don't disagree, either.
I can agree with some ifs and disagree with others. I disagree with your conclusion that the scientists would react differently to your scenario than to other phenomena. I agree with your waffling "something else" conclusion that they would react the same. If you can't make up your mind, it's easier to agree with one of your opinions.
Percy writes:
But what if (note the word "if") science were to encounter a miracle?
Science is no more likely to encounter a miracle than it is to encounter Fred Flintstone. A miracle is the same as a cartoon character as far as science is concerned.
Percy writes:
The Miracle of the Sun is not a phenomenon at all to scientific minds.
Of course it is. Why else would they try to explain it?
Percy writes:
How is you addressing a question to a group of people an accurate analogy to you not addressing Stile at all?
How is it not? If there are no objections, what difference does it make how many people don't object?

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by Percy, posted 02-28-2018 4:20 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by Percy, posted 03-01-2018 1:53 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 584 of 696 (829063)
03-02-2018 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 583 by Percy
03-01-2018 1:53 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"?
You claimed that your quotes show him disagreeing with me. I don't think they do.
I can only surmise from Stile's posts whether or not he disagrees with me. I don't see where he does. I can be pretty sure whether or not I disagree with him. I don't. Sometimes I express it one way, sometimes the other. The only place they are different is in your imagination.
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
If Fred Flintstone was real, Stile might think he'd be a good neighbour. I don't disagree.
Can you explain how this example clarifies your position?
If X is true, then Y. I can't disagree with that.
But if X is patently false, then I can disagree that Y necessarily follows. Fred Flintstone is not real, so I can disagree that he would make a good neighbor. Similarly, if you define a miracle as a kind of pie, I can disagree with conclusions based on that definition. Or I can disagree with the definition.
Percy writes:
Stile's definition of miracle is an "if" you disagree with, but you don't disagree because he used the word "if".
Again, I can't disagree with the conclusion he draws from his premise. I can, however, disagree with his premise.
Percy writes:
I guess you're one of those people who can hold two opposing opinions at the same time.
When you put an "if" in front of something, it isn't an opinion.
Percy writes:
You haven't been discussing the thought experiment but have instead been arguing that it could never happen.
I haven't said any such thing. I've said that if your fairy tale did come true, scientists wouldn't treat it any differently than they would treat the discovery of a new species of beetle.
Percy writes:
Rephrasing in case you didn't understand, how is asking a question an accurate analogy to where you ask no question?
The lack of an objection is an accurate analogy to the lack of an objection. Whether it was phrased as a question or asked in Swahili is irrelevant. If nobody objected when I took the chair, then nobody objected.
My posts here are not super-top-secret so Stile can freely read them. I do not have the power to repress my fellow-members' posts so Stile can freely respond to them. If he has any objections, he can express them. If he expresses no objection, I have no reason to think he objects.

An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by Percy, posted 03-01-2018 1:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by Percy, posted 03-03-2018 10:56 AM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024