|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Where did I argue that? What you actually argued was that they wouldn't consider miracles a possibility.... 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:
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.
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. Percy writes:
Maybe you should change the topic title to "The science of Miracles or something else".
I only meant that they'd call it by a name that had the definition I've been using.... Percy writes:
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?
ringo writes:
Sure, that's a possibility. Why do you think so? Flying bridges would require something like relativity or quantum mechanics to refine the paradigm. Percy writes:
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.
Didn't the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury turn out to be a violation of Newtonian physics, requiring a new theoretical paradigm? Percy writes:
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.
Here ya go, Einstein's paper on the subject: Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory Percy writes:
The concept is a religious one.
It's the concept that's important, not the particular word. I propose you drop your religious arguments in this science thread. Percy writes:
Huh? you're saying that Tangle made up the rule? And we should take Tangle's Rule seriously because...?
Huh? Are you blind? The sentence just before what you quoted said, "Tangle realized this quite some time ago.... Percy writes:
Exactly. It's called a miracle by the Catholoc Church and not by scientists because miracles are a religious concept, not a scientific one.
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. Percy writes:
Waffles are less egregious than weasels.
Waffle words? Is that what they say in Canada? Down here we call them weasel words. Percy writes:
That's what I'm saying.
The existing definition of miracle includes a religious or supernatural or at least non-natural origin. Percy writes:
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.
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? Percy writes:
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.
Again, how many times would you guess I've pointed out how the particular term isn't important? Percy writes:
Call them unexplained and you've finally caught up with me. So we won't call them miracles. We'll call them unexplainables.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
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". 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)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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
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.
So the term is one that believers use, then? What if the scientist happened to be a believer? Phat writes:
We're not talking about personal here. They may keep looking, but they most certainly would use the term miracle...personally if not professionally.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Exactly. So why would they use one with such obvious religious baggage?
Scientists could invent whatever term they liked for phenomena that flagrantly violate known physical laws. Percy writes:
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.
We're attempting to discuss how science would react in trying to "grasp" what happened were an actual scientifically studyable miracle to occur. Percy writes:
If it seems to violate what we think we know, we need to adjust what we think we know.
Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement? Percy writes:
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? 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. How would a spate of bridge aviation be less flagrant than your local scenario?
Percy writes:
Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food.
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.... Percy writes:
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."
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? Percy writes:
Why would science react to a religious definition?
We're considering how science would react if faced with phenomena fitting the definition of miracle. Percy writes:
UFOs are called Unidentified, not Unidentifiable. ... after years of analysis the conclusion is reached that the event was unexplainable by known natural and scientific laws....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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Objectivity requires leaving religious baggage at the door. It's standard practice.
How do you know scientists would even care about so-called "religious baggage"? Percy writes:
By not talking about miracles or gods.
For Tangle's scenario involving a shaman, how does one even avoid the "religious baggage"? Percy writes:
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.
Why do you even care what term they use? Percy writes:
It was, to the extent that was possible, given the evidence available.
ringo writes:
That wasn't scientifically studied. The Miracle of the Sun was an actual scientifically studyable miracle. Percy writes:
The anecdotal evidence was similar to the anecdotal evidence in UFO investigations. Scientists consider UFOs to be unidentified, not unidentifiable.
What evidence? There was no scientific evidence. Percy writes:
How do you distinguish between a refinement and a shift beforehand?
Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift? Percy writes:
How do you know that? Why is it even important whether or not the effects are localized?
You're describing multiple simultaneous miracles that are each local. The laws of physics continue to operate normally throughout the rest of space-time. Percy writes:
Percy avoids the issue (where he is demonstrably wrong).
ringo writes:
Ringo refuses to take in information about "what ifs". Percy writes:
Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food. 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.... Percy writes:
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.
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. Percy writes:
Only by using your specially-tailored definition.
"Miracle" just happens to be the word most closely matching the phenomena. Percy writes:
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. 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"?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How would calling it a miracle help them follow the evidence?
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. Percy writes:
And there's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as leprechauns - but scientists still don't label things as leprechauns.
There's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as miracles or gods. Percy writes:
Because it's still nonsense.
We've discussed my characterization of unprecedented, why are you forgetting it now?quote: Percy writes:
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.
There was no scientific evidence of the Miracle of the Sun, and no scientific study was performed. Percy writes:
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.
What does anecdotal evidence have to do with scientific evidence? The proposed "what ifs" include the gathering of scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence. Percy writes:
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.
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. Percy writes:
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.
Making a spurious claim doesn't change the fact that you gave a non-answer and failed to consider the provided information. Percy writes:
I also typed in "unidentified" and got 748 thousand results. Go to Google Scholar and type in "unidentifiable". You'll get over 90 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How would calling it a miracle be clear communication? It would say to religious people that God did it.
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. Percy writes:
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.
Nice to see Tom Hanks getting it right where you couldn't. Percy writes:
How would you tell the difference?
Not a "regenerated limb" such as might happen (to some extent) with a lizard or salamander, but a "missing limb suddenly reappearing." Percy writes:
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.
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? Percy writes:
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.
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. Percy writes:
It seems pretty clear that "unidentified" is the preferred term. It turns out that in actual fact scientists use both terms, and you're wrong yet again.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
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.
... 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? Percy writes:
It's the same thing. It's unprecedented until it stops being unprecedented.
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." Percy writes:
You haven't told us what evidence you made up. Did you make up a change in mass reading that I missed?
ringo writes:
How many times now have I mentioned all the scientific instruments in the room? How would you tell the difference? Percy writes:
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.
What if the scientific instruments indicated the new limb "had just poofed out of nowhere"? Percy writes:
See above. We don't throw all of science out the window because of one anomalous reading.
What if they find that in an instant the total mass of the person increased by the mass of the new limb? Percy writes:
If I said the vast majority of scientists don't say "unidentifiable", would that be clearer to you? 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
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. 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.quote: quote:What part of working hard to understand the phenomena and develop explanations involves conceding that the phenomena are miraculous? Percy writes:
There you go again, evading the issue. ringp writes:
Duckspeak. It's unprecedented until it stops being unprecedented. 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:
But why did you make that assumption originally?
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. Percy writes:
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.
Repetition was part of Tangle's shaman scenario, that he could make lost limbs reappear at will. Percy writes:
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.
I'm just asking the question, "How would science react were it to encounter an actual miracle?" Percy writes:
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. I disagree with your opinion that there should be no discussion of a thought experiment about how science would react to an actual 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
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.
Perhaps in your mind there's an implicit "for the first time" on the end of what you said. Percy writes:
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.
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. Percy writes:
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?
I think they'd undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena.... Percy writes:
Since Stile didn't respond to me, I have no reason to think he disagrees with me. ... not since Stile jumped in, none of whom's posts you responded to.... 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
So be less confusing. What is it that you're actually trying to disagree with?
You're confused. Percy writes:
My logic stands. If Stile disagrees with me, he's perfectly capable of saying so. I think you might want to reexamine your logic that Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
My position is that science wouldn't treat those phenomena any differently than they treat any other phenomena. You seem to agree with that.
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. Percy writes:
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.
By no logic can anyone's lack of response indicate lack of disagreement. Percy writes:
Nothing you quoted disagrees with me. You me be seeing differences that aren't there again, such as in the discussion of "unprecedented".
I quoted him making statements that disagree with you. Stile writes:
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.
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. Percy writes:
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. Your "logic" of Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you is illogical.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why not? It is not simply thrown into a generic unexplained for now file that science keeps.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
It means I don't disagree with him.
So you're saying that because Stile said "if" that means he doesn't disagree with you. If Fred Flintstone was real, Stile might think he'd be a good neighbour. I don't disagree.
Percy writes:
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.
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. Percy writes:
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.
But what if (note the word "if") science were to encounter a miracle? Percy writes:
Of course it is. Why else would they try to explain it?
The Miracle of the Sun is not a phenomenon at all to scientific minds. Percy writes:
How is it not? If there are no objections, what difference does it make how many people don't object? How is you addressing a question to a group of people an accurate analogy to you not addressing Stile at all?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You claimed that your quotes show him disagreeing with me. I don't think they do. How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"? 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:
If X is true, then Y. I can't disagree with that. ringo writes:
Can you explain how this example clarifies your position? If Fred Flintstone was real, Stile might think he'd be a good neighbour. I don't disagree. 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:
Again, I can't disagree with the conclusion he draws from his premise. I can, however, disagree with his premise.
Stile's definition of miracle is an "if" you disagree with, but you don't disagree because he used the word "if". Percy writes:
When you put an "if" in front of something, it isn't an opinion.
I guess you're one of those people who can hold two opposing opinions at the same time. Percy writes:
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.
You haven't been discussing the thought experiment but have instead been arguing that it could never happen. Percy writes:
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. Rephrasing in case you didn't understand, how is asking a question an accurate analogy to where you ask no question? 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024