The "science" of Miracles

You're again repeating an old already rebutted argument and still failing to grasp the concept of a "what if". Well now you're just forgetting or purposefully misunderstanding what's been said. Standard practice is to follow the evidence where it leads. You're again repeating an old already rebutted argument and still failing to grasp the concept of unprecedented. Need anything really be said about what your constant repetition of old rebutted arguments tells us? I do understand what you're trying to say, I guess the terms you used just strike me as odd, describing it as understanding breaking down, or in this message as tearing down old understandings. I don't think Kuhn ever described paradigm shift this way. Though his book *was* titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and revolution does imply (using your words) a tearing down of the existing order, Kuhn felt that the replacement of one paradigm by another was often a long process that had much to do with the passage of time and the gradual replacement of one generation of scientists (and their consensus) by the next, rather than the current generation becoming persuaded (of course, some would be), probably because of their knowledge investment in the original paradigm. Relativity was like that, as was plate tectonics, and evolution, too. Relativity and quantum mechanics are refinements of known physical laws, not contraventions. Newtonian physics still rules the day, being sufficiently accurate in most contexts, since for low velocities the behavior of Einsteinian physics is indistinguishable from Newtonian for many decimal places. And classical mechanics works just fine in all but the most microscopic contexts. For dramatic contraventions (but not of known physical laws) I think you'd have to look to something like plate tectonics, which completely contravened concepts of static continents.What you're thinking of as revolutionary is new theory, while what Tangle and I are describing as unprecedented in our what-ifs are new phenomena. In things like relativity and quantum mechanics and the expanding universe the anomalies or discrepancies of some phenomena were minor compared to the revolutions in theory they eventually led to. In our what-ifs the new phenomena are violations of known physical laws in ways that are dramatically, flagrantly and glaringly far beyond anything science has experienced before. They couldn't in any way be described as mere anomalies or discrepancies. We've described the opposite, that the evidence leads to the conclusion that known physical laws were violated. How that happened might lack explanation for some possibly considerable time, but that doesn't mean the evidence doesn't lead anywhere. Where does the scientific method allow or disallow any possibility? It's a process, not a set of rules about what possibilities scientists are allowed to consider. You're repeating yourself again. Same answer as immediately above. Not on my diet. Because that's where the evidence led. You argued this already just above - same answer, just look four or five inches above this point (your incheage may vary). Gee, why does this sound familiar? What would your estimate be of the number of times I've said that scientists would continue working hard to find explanations? You've made this mistake before. This is the fallacy of believing that because an analogy is accurate in one respect that it is therefore required that it be accurate in all respects, which isn't analogy but identity. I explain that you're arguing religion in a science thread, and you reply by arguing religion in a science thread? Good show! Tangle realized this quite some time ago, first in Message 210, and in more detail in Message 251, to which you replied in Message 257, calling it irrelevant. If whether it's local or not was irrelevant to you then, why do you care now?--Percy

No, you accused me of placing insufficient emphasis on attribution. You said (and I quoted it), "It's Percy who is ignoring the importance of attribution in the definition that he himself quoted." Since you said I was "ignoring the importance of attribution," that's the point I replied to. Replying again to your Message 532, this time making it even more clear that I'm responding to what you said about attribution: This point about attribution has already been addressed. Someone forthright would say, "Now I know Percy has said that attribution isn't an essential quality of scientific phenomena, citing the two-slit experiment, entanglement and radioactive decay as examples, but...", and then go on to explain why that is wrong, something you haven't yet done despite repeated opportunities, always instead merely repeating your original argument unchanged.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

What if you don't know what to believe? Did someone already mention the definition of agnosticism from Widipedia:

quote:

---

Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.

---

That's the way I think scientifically, but one doesn't always get to choose one's beliefs, and I do believe in God.--Percy

Responding to you last two messages to me:Responding to your Message 547: You're pulling words out of context and avoiding the point. What you said was in Message 537 was: You *have* made this argument over and over again, and it *has* been rebutted over and over again. Of course the scenarios presented are not events that have actually taken place. That's the nature of a "what if". You simply fail or refuse to grasp the concept of a "what if". Presenting a caricature of a position, also known as a straw man, is a form of fallacy.What you actually argued was that they wouldn't consider miracles a possibility, so I replied that there's no way to know what term scientists would adopt to describe violations of known physical laws. 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. You also argued that scientists would never conclude that phenomena are unexplainable, and I replied that unexplainable at present doesn't mean unexplainable forever and doesn't mean efforts at finding explanations should cease. You also argued that scientists would never consider the possibility of violations of known physical laws, to which I replied that scientists would follow the evidence where it leads. And you finally argued that there have never been examples in the past where scientists have concluded that known physical laws were violated, to which I replied that not only was that not true (your own examples of relativity and quantum mechanics argue against you), but that again science would follow the evidence where it leads, which might very well be to the conclusion that known physical laws were violated, in the case of our scenarios only locally. Except that I have given you plenty of reasons. Instead of discussing them you repeat your original arguments again and again. You're so literal. I only meant that they'd call it by a name that had the definition I've been using: events that inexplicably violate known physical laws. I've said many, many times since that we don't know what term scientists would eventually fix upon, but I'm going to continue to use the term miracle, and in the context of this discussion it means an event that inexplicably violates known physical laws. Yes, precisely, I just said that. So since the old paradigm works just fine in most contexts it obviously hasn't been contravened or (to use terms you seem to prefer) torn down. Sure, that's a possibility. Why do you think so? Really? Didn't the anomaly in the orbit of Mercury turn out to be a violation of Newtonian physics, requiring a new theoretical paradigm? Here ya go, Einstein's paper on the subject: Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity TheoryOur knowledge is always incomplete. That's the nature of science. You asked a question, I answered it, then instead of responding you just asked your question again. Do you even understand what the scientific method is and how it works? This is untrue. I *have* provided answers many times. You've just chosen to repeat the same questions and arguments over and over again, instead of discussing the answers and rebuttals. But that's what you did, object to an analogy by ignoring the point it made to focus on a point it was not intended to make. This fallacy can be performed with any analogy. No analogy can be perfectly like the thing it is an analog to, else it would be that thing. An analogy is meant to make clear a point through similarity to something more familiar.If I were to say, "Working at Bob's Pizza was like riding a roller coaster," you wouldn't argue that's false because roller coasters ride on wheels and Bob's Pizza doesn't. That would be silly in the same way as your objection to the analogy that a scientist saying something hasn't yet been explained would be like an astronaut saying we can't yet go to Mars. This analogy was offered as counterpoint to the analogy you suggested in Message 531: This analogy was weak and misframed the argument to make your position look better. Specifically, it was never said that scientists would say an event can't be explained. Rather, they would say the event remains unexplained according to known physical laws. In other words, you were inventing another straw man. Yes, it was obvious, that it was a straw man. If you're going to rebut arguments then I suggest you rebut arguments actually made instead of ones you make up yourself. How many times would you guess I've said it's unimportant that what term science ultimately chooses to refer to phenomena unexplained by known physical laws. It's the concept that's important, not the particular word. I propose you drop your religious arguments in this science thread. Huh? Are you blind? The sentence just before what you quoted said, "Tangle realized this quite some time ago, first in Message 210, and in more detail in Message 251, to which you replied in Message 257, calling it irrelevant." You're either oblivious or purposefully evasive. As Tangle explained in Message 251: You next say: The Miracle of the Sun is a religious miracle, but you pose a legitimate question about locality, so let me address that.But before I do let me note that you're incorrect to say the Miracle of the Sun "would not have been a local phenomenon" because it "would have been visible from wherever the sun was visible." Obviously it wasn't visible wherever the sun was visible. 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.About locality, assuming for the sake of discussion that the sun actually did dance around its position in our solar system 93 million miles away, whatever phenomena caused this to happen were local to the region around our sun. Nothing else was dancing around. Known physical laws on Earth continued to behave as they always had. Waffle words? Is that what they say in Canada? Down here we call them weasel words. Anyway, you're again making a religious argument. Stick to science, and respond to arguments actually made instead of ones you make up.Responding to your Message 548: The existing definition of miracle includes a religious or supernatural or at least non-natural origin. If you're not willing to consider "what ifs" that include the premise of a natural origin then Tangle's "what if" should suit you. 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? Again, how many times would you guess I've pointed out how the particular term isn't important? The proposed scenarios describe unexplained violations of known physical laws that leave behind scientific evidence that can be studied. No attribution is uncovered, which is fine because science doesn't require attribution, and the two-slit experiment, entanglement and radioactive decay are examples. So we won't call them miracles. We'll call them unexplainables. Actually it just means that I should have been more detailed in describing what you should have said, which would be, "Now I know Percy has said that attribution isn't an essential quality of scientific phenomena, citing the two-slit experiment, entanglement and radioactive decay as examples, but I pointed out that those phenomena aren't called miracles, and he replied that we don't have to call violations of known physical laws miracles, we could call them something else, but...", and then go on to explain why that is wrong.Saying in Message 532 that, "It's Percy who is ignoring the importance of attribution in the definition that he himself quoted," was a woefully incomplete and misleading characterization.--Percy

Uh, all over the place many times? I found a version of it in the very first message I checked, Message 492: And again in Message 502: Need I go on?Back to the current message: There's nothing in scientific procedure specific to anything about where the evidence can lead. Even when science finds something it keeps looking. Tentativity. I'm just posing a simple "what if". It's nothing complicated. Again, you're too literal. How many times would you guess I've said that it wasn't the term that's important but the concept? Now you're just being dense. Scientists could invent whatever term they liked for phenomena that flagrantly violate known physical laws. What you're calling a "waffle" is actually an attempt to accommodate your objections to use of the term miracle. It's NosyNed's thread, not mine. I only change titles when someone asks for help or there's a typo or sometimes during the thread proposal process.In Message 1 NosyNed quotes Arkathon stating that science doesn't "grasp" how God performs miracles. We're attempting to discuss how science would react in trying to "grasp" what happened were an actual scientifically studyable miracle to occur. But you were talking about paradigm shifts, which to Kuhn were synonymous with scientific revolutions. Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement? Not actually. That's why I asked. 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. These are not the anomalies or discrepancies that Kuhn discusses, but actual flagrant violations. 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, but only at that time and location, nowhere and nowhen else. There's nothing unprecedented in anomalies or discrepancies. And rather than reacting differently I think scientists would follow the evidence where it leads, just as they always do. What's different isn't the reaction of scientists but that the posed "what if" scenarios might lead scientists in directions never before considered. This argument has such a big hole in it that you must have known it even as you were typing it. Newtonian physics were the scientific laws of the time. And what is this with the "tweaked" terminology? The anomalies required a paradigm shift, not a tweak. 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? But Einstein obviously did consider the possibility that Newtonian physics had been violated, though the usual term is anomaly. I just did that. I hope you're not arguing that unless Einstein used the word "violated" that it wasn't really a violation - scientific papers are generally understated and tend toward the passive voice. Anyway, here's a quote from the paper:

quote:

---

This calculation leads to the planet Mercury to move its perihelion forward by 43′′ per century, while the astronomers give 45′′5′′, an exceptional difference between observation and Newtonian theory. This has great significance as full agreement.

---

There can be no doubt today that the precession of the orbit of Mercury was violating the laws of Newtonian physics, but at the time other possibilities were considered, like an undiscovered planet or uneven distributions of mass within the sun. That's why Einstein's general relativity was so momentous - it not only found a solution, but proved that the rock solid laws of Newtonian physics wouldn't work outside of mundane scenarios. So what? We're considering how science would react if faced with phenomena fitting the definition of miracle. Plus you've been offered religious scenarios, like Tangle's scenario of a shaman waving his hand and causing a missing limb to reappear in a lab full of analysis equipment. No, he didn't make it up. It was based upon how miracles are defined to behave. You should reply to the explanation Tangle offered (Message 251). Once there's been some discussion you can decide how seriously to take it. Then in that case consider Tangle's scenario of a shaman waving his hand and causing a missing limb to reappear in a lab full of analysis equipment. Because it fits the concept of miracles, right down to the presence of a religious figure. Einstein definitely didn't say it. My recollection is that the first known occurrence was a murder mystery from around a half century ago. You got it. The George Washington Bridge gently lets loose from its moorings, floats up into the sky, drifts slowly north 50 miles up the Hudson, then gently sets down again at West Point. Scientists rush equipment into airplanes and helicopters and study the phenomena as it is happening. Later the original approaches and moorings to the bridge are studied, and the bridge is studied, and the people and cars on the bridge at the time are studied, and after years of analysis the conclusion is reached that the event was unexplainable by known natural and scientific laws, actually being in violation of a number of them. The event is deemed, for the time being, an unexplainable, but research continues.--Percy

And don't forget that they can grant immortality and spin straw into gold.--Percy

How do you know scientists would even care about so-called "religious baggage"? For Tangle's scenario involving a shaman, how does one even avoid the "religious baggage"? Why do you even care what term they use? It's the concept that's important, and by the way, the word "miracle" already has the definition for that concept.But you don't like the word miracle, and even though I find your arguments spurious I've been trying to accommodate you. No we don't. That wasn't scientifically studied. What evidence? There was no scientific evidence. Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift? You're describing multiple simultaneous miracles that are each local. The laws of physics continue to operate normally throughout the rest of space-time. Ringo refuses to take in information about "what ifs". Now you're just being purposefully thick again. 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. They're reacting to phenomena, not a definition. "Miracle" just happens to be the word most closely matching the phenomena. 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"?--Percy

This has different answers depending upon which scenario we're considering, but one thing the answers have in common is, no, it's not standard practice - it's only the way things have worked out so far. Following the evidence where it leads is standard practice.For the bridge scenario, how do you know how much scientists would care about the "religious baggage" of the term miracle when choosing a term for the phenomena and giving it a scientific definition that has no "religious baggage." That's a rhetorical question - you can't know the answer.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. Given that a shaman performed an obvious miracle, how does your answer even make sense? There's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as miracles or gods. What *is* in science is acceptance of what the evidence says. You're playing dumb again. The whole point of the "what ifs" was to present science with scientific evidence of a type of phenomena never before observed. We've discussed my characterization of unprecedented, why are you forgetting it now? Well now you're just making stuff up. There was no scientific evidence of the Miracle of the Sun, and no scientific study was performed. What does anecdotal evidence have to do with scientific evidence? The proposed "what ifs" include the gathering of scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by "beforehand," so taking a guess the question becomes why, before we know the results of the scientific analysis of the bridge "what if", do you think it would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift? What is it about that scenario that leads you to that conclusion? Depends upon the scenario. 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. The shaman scenario suspends the laws of conservation of matter, energy and entropy, which also seems pretty deadly if it weren't local and focused to the new limb. Making a spurious claim doesn't change the fact that you gave a non-answer and failed to consider the provided information. I guess you're determined to plumb the depths of absurdity. If you want to make Forum Guidelines violation claims take them to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. You asked for citations to papers about a violation of known physical laws, I gave you one. You asked for a quote from the paper about the violation, I provided it. You're repeating yourself again. If you were honest you would say, "Only by using your specially-tailored definition. Now I know you've argued that it's a common practice of science to adopt an existing term and provide a scientific definition, but...", and then continue on to explain how my position is wrong. Go to Google Scholar and type in "unidentifiable". You'll get over 90 thousand results.--Percy

Well, you see, human beings, which is what scientists are, use language to communicate, and it is helpful to have words with clear meanings to refer to things like cars and trees and light and entanglement and so forth.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. And round and round you go. Nice to see Tom Hanks getting it right where you couldn't. If you want to equate the lack of scientific evidence of the two phenomena then I have no objections. Your objections to "what ifs" are nonsense. Why don't you read the Wikipedia article on thought experiments? Quoting just the opening portion:

quote:

---

A thought experiment (German: Gedankenexperiment,Gedanken-Experiment or Gedankenerfahrung) considers some hypothesis, theory, or principle for the purpose of thinking through its consequences. Given the structure of the experiment, it may not be possible to perform it, and even if it could be performed, there need not be an intention to perform it.

​

The common goal of a thought experiment is to explore the potential consequences of the principle in question: "A thought experiment is a device with which one performs an intentional, structured process of intellectual deliberation in order to speculate, within a specifiable problem domain, about potential consequents (or antecedents) for a designated antecedent (or consequent)" (Yeates, 2004, p. 150).

​

Examples of thought experiments include Schrdinger's cat, illustrating quantum indeterminacy through the manipulation of a perfectly sealed environment and a tiny bit of radioactive substance, and Maxwell's demon, which attempts to demonstrate the ability of a hypothetical finite being to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

---

The type of thought experiment we're engaging in here is described in the In philosophy section:

quote:

---

In philosophy, a thought experiment typically presents an imagined scenario with the intention of eliciting an intuitive or reasoned response about the way things are in the thought experiment. (Philosophers might also supplement their thought experiments with theoretical reasoning designed to support the desired intuitive response.) The scenario will typically be designed to target a particular philosophical notion, such as morality, or the nature of the mind or linguistic reference. The response to the imagined scenario is supposed to tell us about the nature of that notion in any scenario, real or imagined.

---

Moving on: Maybe scientists would choose the term "islands of anomaly." The nature of the phenomena remains as described in the "what ifs". There you go making things up again. Not a "regenerated limb" such as might happen (to some extent) with a lizard or salamander, but a "missing limb suddenly reappearing." Or in Tangle's original words from Message 265, "A human doing it instantly [growing back a limb] on the command of a shaman (or a god) would be miraculous."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? Yes, of course. That's why the "what if" includes the presence of a great deal of scientific analysis equipment. 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. Or maybe you want to argue the limb has no mass, though matter with no mass would be a very interesting and novel phenomenon. But in your Message 562 that I was replying to, and I quoted it, you said, "In actual fact, scientists use the term "unidentified" instead of "unidentifiable" because "unidentifiable" would tend to connote forever." It turns out that in actual fact scientists use both terms, and you're wrong yet again.--Percy

Yes, it very well might, but 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? 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." I pointed that out when you first brought this up. You continue to recycle old rebutted points and be wrong yet again. How many times now have I mentioned all the scientific instruments in the room? Yes, of course. What if the scientific instruments indicated the new limb "had just poofed out of nowhere"? Yes, of course. Has it been mentioned about the scientific instruments in the room recording and measuring what is happening? What if they find that in an instant the total mass of the person increased by the mass of the new limb? A lot of things that aren't true seem clear to you, but more to the point, that's not what you said. 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.--Percy

No, I said clear communication is important but that the particular term chosen doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees on the definition then clear communication should be possible. How any particular term is defined in non-scientific contexts doesn't matter as long as scientists agree on the definition they're using. 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. Duckspeak. I changed nothing. 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. Nothing I've said since has changed that. Repetition was part of Tangle's shaman scenario, that he could make lost limbs reappear at will. See above, the event is repeatable. It would be you changing your claim from one that was obviously wrong to one that is only of questionable accuracy and definitely an exaggeration. I'm just asking the question, "How would science react were it to encounter an actual miracle?" Yes, of course they would. I disagree with your opinion that there should be no discussion of a thought experiment about how science would react to an actual miracle.--Percy

You keep asking the same questions over and over again. The answer hasn't changed. The phenomena fit the definition of miracle (or whichever term scientists agree upon to refer to events that inexplicably violate known physical laws), and scientists would continue studying the phenomena. I see the same difference that everyone but you can see:

• You: "Everything is unprecedented until it happens."
• Tom Hanks: "Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time."

I agree with what Tom Hanks said and disagree with what you said. Perhaps in your mind there's an implicit "for the first time" on the end of what you said. You asked this before and the answer hasn't changed. No, I did not make up a change in the mass reading that you missed. 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. Equally obviously it was an increase in mass since a limb obviously has more mass than no limb. Non-repeatability is not part of any definition of miracle I've seen. Certainly a possibility. Certainly. I think they'd undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena, that naming the phenomena would not require a "pause", and that ordering Chinese food would happen. Oh, is that what you call what you're doing. Well, I'm glad to hear you don't object to the discussion. Nope, no interest at present, not since Stile jumped in, none of whom's posts you responded to, lending doubt to your claim that you've been discussing the thought experiment at length.--Percy

I understand and accept your argument in that I think it one valid way of looking at it, but I look at it another way. The term "everything" is in essence a blank in which anything can be filled in. What we have in effect is these two fill-in-the-blank statements:

• ______ is unprecedented until it happens.
• ______ is unprecedented until it happens for the first time.

I don't believe there's nothing that could be plugged into that blank that could render those two statements non-synonymous. Probably the key difference in our views is that you consider "for the first time" redundant. It doesn't feel redundant to me.But this is a familiar situation for me, to feel uncomfortable with a degree of precision others feel perfectly comfortable with. I'm often surprised at the inaccuracy and imprecision of some legal documents - I'm thinking of certain ones I've had experience with, for employee termination (I took an early retirement package, which falls into the category of employee termination, an imprecision I also disagree with) and real estate closings. The response to my concerns have taken a variety of lines that rarely alleviated them:

• "No, it means what we said, not what you think it says."
• "It does say that, but it is never interpreted that way."
• "This is standard language, it never causes a problem."
• "The situation is unlikely to arise."
• "It doesn't apply to this situation, so just ignore it."
• "Yes, the two documents make contradictory statements, but they're provided by the state and both have to be signed or we can't complete the closing. It's nothing to worry about."
• "We don't have all the information for that document yet, but let's complete the closing anyway. When we have the information we'll send you the document to sign. This isn't a problem."
• "Yes, we understand that's information that shouldn't be disclosed to the other party, but if they don't see this document so they can sign it then we can't complete the closing."

One of the weirdest conversations I ever had with a lawyer concerned dates for signing documents. The process we agreed to required that we sign document A before signing document B, but document A wasn't going to be made available until after document B was signed. I argued up and down with the lawyer that this was contradictory and needed to be resolved, and he argued equally vehemently that there was no contradiction and he wasn't changing anything (it would have required making the same change for around 80 other people also taking early retirement, so he had good motivation for taking an irrational position). In the end it still worked. We signed the documents in the inverse order specified by the process document we signed, and it didn't seem to matter at all.But when I read one of those documents from my bank or credit card company or investment firm, they read like they're locked up tight with every possible contingency anticipated and appropriate processes described. I think the best lawyers must work for financial companies while the average lawyers do real estate closings or are attached to personnel departments or work for state and local government.Sorry, long way around to say that the way my mind works leads me to seek precision. Maybe sometimes I seek too much precision, but like I said, that's the way my mind works, so it doesn't seem that way to me. That is, I understand I could be wrong, but I don't think so myself.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

We'll just have to disagree. You're confused. In case you didn't notice, saying that they'd "undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena" isn't specific about what term they'd adopt, and how many times now have I said that what term they adopt isn't important, that it's the nature of the phenomena that's important? Wrong again. In Message 433 Stile wrote: And in Message 434 Stile wrote: I think you might want to reexamine your logic that Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you.--Percy

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. You stand logic on its head. By no logic can anyone's lack of response indicate lack of disagreement. I quoted him making statements that disagree with you. Here they are again. In Message 433 Stile wrote: And in Message 434 Stile wrote: Your "logic" of Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you is illogical.--Percy