|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: 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. If by this you mean that they would follow the evidence where it leads, then sure, we agree.
Percy writes:
Nor does silence indicate disagreement. By no logic can anyone's lack of response indicate lack of disagreement. Yes, of course that's true, it's just that you're assuming the only possibility is that "silence == lack of disagreement." There are others. He may not have been interested in your particular line of argument. He may not find you worth discussing with. He may not have had time.
I have no reason to think that Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me. But you have no reason to think it doesn't, either.
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 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. So you're saying that because Stile said "if" that means he doesn't disagree with you. 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. Interesting logic.
I have said repeatedly that miracles have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to do with miracles. But what if (note the word "if") science were to encounter a miracle? Since I used the word "if" it can't be a possibility we disagree about.
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. But what if (note the word "if") instead of using your definition we were to use the one I suggested. Since I used the word "if" it can't be something we disagree about.
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. The Miracle of the Sun is not a phenomenon at all to scientific minds.
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. How is you addressing a question to a group of people an accurate analogy to you not addressing Stile at all? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: 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. Well, this makes no sense. How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"? And why are you objecting to me saying, "he doesn't disagree with you", since that's exactly how you've been expressing it, for instance in your Message 573, "...he disagrees with me," and Message 575, "If Stile disagrees with me,...", and Message 579, "...Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me." Why are you suddenly insisting on flipping it to, "I don't disagree with him"? And again, if they're meaningfully different, how? Your arguments often seem equivalent to, "Let's throw random stuff up against the wall and see what sticks."
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?
Percy writes:
I can agree with some ifs and disagree with others. 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. But in Message 579 you explicitly stated that you didn't share Stile's definition of miracle, but because of the word "if" it meant there was no disagreement. Here you are saying it:
ringo in Message 579 writes: You may be seeing differences that aren't there again, such as in the discussion of "unprecedented".
Stile writes:
Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. 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. So repeating your position back to you, some "ifs" you agree with, some you don't. Stile's definition of miracle is an "if" you disagree with, but you don't disagree because he used the word "if". I guess you're one of those people who can hold two opposing opinions at the same time. Back to the current message:
I disagree with your conclusion that the scientists would react differently to your scenario than to other phenomena. "React differently" only in the sense that following the evidence where it leads might end up in places unexpected by science, such as that the phenomena did indeed inexplicably violate known physical laws.
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. I've said the same thing from the beginning, expressing an interest in exploring how science would react when faced with evidence of phenomena inexplicably violating known physical laws. See the end of Message 491. I do think scientists would be willing to accept different conclusions for phenomena that in effect seem to suspend known physical laws, rather than those that just seem mildly anomalous like the examples mentioned earlier of the spectrum of black body radiation and the precession in the orbit of Mercury. AbE: I originally intended to reply to the last few comments, replying to them now:
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? You earlier claimed in Message 569 that, "I've been discussing your so-called 'thought experiment' at length," but you really haven't. This is just another expression of your unwillingness to consider the "what if". You haven't been discussing the thought experiment but have instead been arguing that it could never happen.
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. Explain it scientifically, you mean? Where? What journal? Do you have a citation? [AbE2]I looked it up in Google Scholar and did find some citations, but they're just speculation about what might have happened, not examination of scientific evidence from the miracle, which doesn't exist, e.g.: Modelling of the Phenomenon Known as the Miracle of the Sun as the Reflection of Light from Ice Crystals Oscillating Synchronously[/AbE2] 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? Good non sequitur response. Rephrasing in case you didn't understand, how is asking a question an accurate analogy to where you ask no question? --Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE. Edited by Percy, : AbE2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: 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"? You ignored the question about how "he doesn't disagree with me" differs 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. You just blasted right through waffle words and weasel words and into the realm of pure fabrication. Here you are in your Message 579 stating that you disagree with Stile over his definition of miracle:
ringo in Message 579 writes: Stile writes:
Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. 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. Can there be anything more problematic to discussion than disagreement over the definition of terms fundamental to the topic?
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". Here's where what you say doesn't add up:
Stile you don't disagree with, me you do. Explain.
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. "If" is in front of both Stile's and my opinions. I'm not agreeing with your reasoning based on use of the word "if", I'm just noting the inconsistency and contradictions in how you're applying the logic you've described.
Percy writes:
I haven't said any such thing. You haven't been discussing the thought experiment but have instead been arguing that it could never happen. What do you mean you haven't said any such thing? I just quoted you saying such a thing when I quoted from your Message 583, and here it is:
ringo in Message 583 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. You're not discussing the thought experiment - you're dismissing it. And here you are dismissing it again:
I've said that if your fairy tale did come true,... Comparing it to Fred Flintstone and a fairy tale is not discussion of something you're giving sincere consideration - it's dismissal.
...scientists wouldn't treat it any differently than they would treat the discovery of a new species of beetle. The discovery of a new species of beetle wouldn't involve a violation of known physical laws, so no, they would not treat the discovery like just a new species of beetle. The article about the new species of beetle would be buried in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, while papers about the discovery of violations of known physical laws would appear in journals like Science and Nature, and announcements of the discovery would appear on the front pages of every major newspaper around the world.
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? Whether it was asked in Swahili is irrelevant? How can there be an objection to a request no one understood? Your arguments, as is common, make no sense.
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. You don't know if Stile has even read any of your posts. You don't know that if he did read your posts whether he'd consider you worth responding to. The reality is that you have no reason to believe either way whether he objects. But that doesn't matter. We can read what you said, and we can read what Stile said. Obviously you disagree with his premise, but don't see that as a problem. Just as obviously you disagree with my premise which is very similar to Stile's, but do see that as a problem. It makes sense only in Ringo-land. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Percy writes:
You ignored the answer: If I don't disagree with him and he doesn't say he disagrees with me, why should I think he disagrees with me? You ignored the question about how "he doesn't disagree with me" differs from "I don't disagree with him". No, I didn't ignore it. You made the same point later in your post, and I addressed it then. And I'm doing the same in this reply. But you did ignore my question: How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"?
Percy writes:
As I've said from the beginning, I'm using the definition as written. ringo writes:
Can there be anything more problematic to discussion than disagreement over the definition of terms fundamental to the topic? Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. But that doesn't address the question. You state that you define miracle differently than Stile, but that you don't disagree with him. Can there be anything more problematic to discussion than disagreement over the definition of terms fundamental to the topic?
Percy writes: Here's where what you say doesn't add up:
Stile you don't disagree with, me you do. Explain. Did you use the word "if"? I thought you were pretty adamant that your definition is the only possible one. I've been calling it a "what if" all along. I'm pretty sure the word "if" appears in the term "what if". There's only a need for a scientific definition of miracle in the "what if" scenario.
Percy writes:
I do dismiss your conclusion - that scientists would somehow treat your "unprecedented" scenario differently. I have discussed why they would not. I have asked you to provide evidence that any scientist anywhere ever considered the possibility of miracles. You provided nothing. Comparing it to Fred Flintstone and a fairy tale is not discussion of something you're giving sincere consideration - it's dismissal. You're still having trouble with the concept of "unprecedented." Scientists confronted with indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws would be forced to consider hypotheses of a type unprecedented in the history of science.
If anything, you're the one who refuses to discuss your scenario. Instead, you demand that it be accepted as a QED. It's a "what if", not a scientific demonstration of principle.
Percy writes:
No discovery involves a violation of known physical laws. That's a conclusion, not an observation. And it isn't a conclusion that scientists would reach. The choices are, "We don't understand how to fit this into known physical laws," or "We may need to adjust our understanding of the physical laws." The discovery of a new species of beetle wouldn't involve a violation of known physical laws, so no, they would not treat the discovery like just a new species of beetle. But that's the "what if": What if science were confronted with evidence of a violation of known physical laws?
Percy writes:
They would have understood me taking the chair away. If they objected in Serbo-Croatian I would have understood that they objected. How can there be an objection to a request no one understood? How? Maybe they were saying, "Oh, he wants the chair, it's fine." If they objected in a language you do not know then you would only understand from gestures and actions and tone of voice, not from the mere fact they spoke. But you continue avoiding the point that your analogy was inaccurate. And the original point remains: You and Stile disagree about the definition of miracle in the "what if", yet you contradictorily claim you don't disagree, but you do disagree with my definition of miracle, which is pretty close to Stile's. And apparently the basis of your claim is that Stile said "if" while I said "what if".
Percy writes:
If he doesn't object, he doesn't object. The reason why he doesn't object is irrelevant. You don't know if Stile has even read any of your posts. You don't know that if he did read your posts whether he'd consider you worth responding to. The reality is that you have no reason to believe either way whether he objects. The fact remains, his silence on the matter is not an indication of either agreement or disagreement, but by your own words we already know you disagree on the definition of miracle. The bottom line is that your position is indefensible. You can't object to a "What if pigs could fly" by saying, "But pigs can't fly." You can't object to a "What if Germany won WWII" by saying, "But Germany didn't win WWII" (after all, The Man in the High Castle does exist, as does the book by the same name by Philip K. Dick). They're "what ifs". People can pose whatever they like in a "what if". --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
The answer is still the same: I don't disagree with him. He hasn't said he disagrees with me. The only disagreement is in your imagination. But you did ignore my question: How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"? You're giving the same answer, but it's still an answer to a different question than the one I asked. You switched suddenly from expressions of the form "he doesn't disagree with me" to "I don't disagree with him." Why the switch, and is there any significance to it?
Percy writes:
He said if we use that definition, we would arrive at conclusion X. I agree with that logic but I don't use that definition, so I don't have to agree with the conclusion. You state that you define miracle differently than Stile, but that you don't disagree with him. Yes, of course, that's fine. But except for Stile, no one's stated any conclusions yet.
Percy writes:
There is no need for a scientific definition of miracle, which is why scientists don't have a definition of miracle. There's only a need for a scientific definition of miracle in the "what if" scenario. Ah, I see. You're arguing that if scientists were confronted with a miracle that they still wouldn't need a formal definition of the phenomena. Sorry, don't see it.
Percy writes:
There's no such thing as "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws". There's only, "we haven't figured this out yet." Scientists confronted with indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws would be forced to consider hypotheses of a type unprecedented in the history of science. But you expressed a willingness to consider the logic of a what if, saying that you didn't feel that constrained you to agreeing with the conclusion. In my "what if" there is such a thing as "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws".
Again, scientists deal with unprecedented observations all the time. And how often would you say they encounter "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws".
Percy writes:
Already answered. Either the evidence needs to be reinterpreted or the laws need to be adjusted. You admit that there would be no pause in the scientific method, so there's no need to label a pause that isn't there as a miracle or unprecedented. What if science were confronted with evidence of a violation of known physical laws? This just reflects an unwillingness to consider the "what if," something you've said you were willing to do.
Percy writes:
That isn't what I'm doing. You're asking, "What if pigs could fly?" and answering your own question with, "It's a miracle." I'm saying we need to re-examine whether pigs really are flying and why we think pigs can't fly. You can't object to a "What if pigs could fly" by saying, "But pigs can't fly." Actually, no. In essence I'm asking, "What if scientists encountered a true miracle," but substituting an attempt at a scientific definition of miracle for the word "miracle."
Percy writes:
But if your conclusion is that Albania would definitely be ruling the world today, I can disagree with that conclusion. You can't object to a "What if Germany won WWII" by saying, "But Germany didn't win WWII" Sure, but that's not what you're doing. You're objecting to "What if Germany won WWII?"
And if you ask what if bridges could fly and conclude that scientists would call it a miracle (or something else), I can disagree with that conclusion. If the "what if" was posed that way, sure, but it wasn't. The "what if" is "What if scientists encountered a true miracle," and then when clarification was requested a more scientific definition or miracle was substituted and examples of phenomena science might consider a true miracle were provided. The "what if" is not "What if there were flying bridges?"
Percy writes:
They can. But they can't expect their answers to their own questions to be swallowed hook, line and sinker. People can pose whatever they like in a "what if". Stile is the only one who has provided any answers, not me. I'm still arguing that I'm posing a legitimate "what if". --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Since the "switch" is in your imagination, only you can imagine what the significance might be. Why the switch, and is there any significance to it? But it's not in my imagination. In my Message 583 I quoted your precise words. Repeating it again, why are you objecting to me saying, "he doesn't disagree with you", since that's exactly how you've been expressing it, for instance in your Message 573, "...he disagrees with me," and Message 575, "If Stile disagrees with me,...", and Message 579, "...Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me." Why are you suddenly insisting on flipping it to, "I don't disagree with him"? If they're meaningfully different, how?
Percy writes:
I'm arguing that scientists are not confronted by miracles because they have no formal definition of the phenomenon. You're arguing that if scientists were confronted with a miracle that they still wouldn't need a formal definition of the phenomena. That's a faulty argument. Sometimes theory drives discovery, in which case scientists may have a formal definition of a phenomenon before it's discovered. And sometimes discovery drives theory, in which scientists will likely not have a formal definition of a phenomenon before it's discovered. Such would be the case with miracles.
And they have no need for a definition because their method treats every phenomenon the same way. Another faulty argument. Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions.
Percy writes:
Then your what-if is outside the realm of science. In my "what if" there is such a thing as "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws". Science follows the evidence where it leads. If science encounters indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws then it will follow that evidence where it leads, and it will all be within the realm of science.
Percy writes:
About as often as they encounter anything that doesn't exist, such as leprechauns. And how often would you say they encounter "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws". But absence of evidence for leprechauns to this point in time is not evidence that leprechauns do not exist. What if leprechauns were discovered?
Percy writes:
I have considered the what-if. Your conclusion is patently wrong. The scientists would not treat it any differently than any other phenomenon. This just reflects an unwillingness to consider the "what if," something you've said you were willing to do. But I didn't reach a conclusion. What you're calling a conclusion is actually part of the "what if." I agree that scientists would not treat it any differently than any other phenomena, in the sense that they would employ the scientific method and follow the evidence where it leads.
Percy writes:
Nope. I'm objecting to your answer to the question. You're objecting to "What if Germany won WWII?" I don't have an answer to any question. I'm just posing a "what if".
Percy writes:
That makes no more sense than "What if scientists encountered a real leprechaun?" The "what if" is "What if scientists encountered a true miracle," What is it about these "what ifs" that you find doesn't make sense? Why was Stile's "what if" okay while mine is not, even though they're basically the same?
There's nothing in science that would allow them to react differently than if they encountered somebody who claimed to be Napoleon. In what sense do you think I'm saying scientists would react differently, because I'm pretty sure you're wrong. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
I'm not the one who says they're different. You are. Why are you suddenly insisting on flipping it to, "I don't disagree with him"? If they're meaningfully different, how? I'm never said they were different. I've been asking if there was any significance in your switch from expressing it one way to expressing it another. Your answer to the question why Stile's use of "if" meant he didn't disagree with you was that it meant you don't disagree with him, which seemed to me the same thing, so I asked how they were different.
I'm saying that Stile not disagreeing with me is equivalent to me not disagreeing with Stile. Finally, an answer. Thank you. So there is no difference and your original answer was just a non-answer. Getting back to the original question I asked in Message 581, if you don't disagree with Stile when he says, "If you define miracle to be 'going against known standards of science' (or something like that) then, yes, it would be a miracle absolutely," why do you disagree with me when I say, "What if science encountered a true miracle?"
Percy writes:
And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined miracles. Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions. In 1900 you could have said, "And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined entanglement." Or substitute any number of things. Continental drift. Black holes. Graphene.
Percy writes:
Same as if flying bridges were discovered. Business as usual. But absence of evidence for leprechauns to this point in time is not evidence that leprechauns do not exist. What if leprechauns were discovered? Sure, of course, but noting that I have repeatedly said that the George Washington bridge letting loose from its moorings and floating up the Hudson was the effect of the phenomena, not the phenomena itself. Think of it as the difference between a supersonic boom (the effect) and an aircraft breaking the sound barrier (the cause of the effect).
Percy writes:
That wasn't clear. But I didn't reach a conclusion. What you're calling a conclusion is actually part of the "what if." Oh, sorry.
So you're saying, What if scientists decided to call flying bridges a miracle? No. What I'm saying is, "What if scientists encountered a true miracle?"
Percy writes:
If you're not saying that scientists would react differently, then we don't disagree. Why are you trying so hard to find disagreement? In what sense do you think I'm saying scientists would react differently, because I'm pretty sure you're wrong. I thought disagreement found me. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
If you don't understand it one way, I try to express it another way. I've been asking if there was any significance in your switch from expressing it one way to expressing it another. That would be nice if that were what you did, but you didn't.
Percy writes:
I've said it several times - Message 586, Message 588 - and that's only going back one page. ringo writes:
Finally, an answer. I'm saying that Stile not disagreeing with me is equivalent to me not disagreeing with Stile. But you didn't say that in Message 586 and Message 588.
Percy writes:
I can't disagree with an if. ... if you don't disagree with Stile when he says, "If you define miracle... Except when you do.
Percy writes:
I was treating your scenario as, "What if there was a flying bridge?" with "Scientists would call it a miracle," as your conclusion. ... why do you disagree with me when I say, "What if.... I never said that. If you put words in my mouth that you disagree with then it's no surprise that you disagree with the words you put in my mouth.
If your scenario is, "What if scientists called something a miracle," I've answered that too: Other scientists would correct them. I never said that, either.
Percy writes:
They could have called them miracles but they didn't. In 1900 you could have said, "And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined entanglement." Or substitute any number of things. Continental drift. Black holes. Graphene. You're dodging the issue. Trying again, the exchange was:
Percy writes: ringo writes: Percy writes:
And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined miracles. Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions. In 1900 you could have said, "And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined entanglement." Or substitute any number of things. Continental drift. Black holes. Graphene. Back to your message:
Percy writes:
And I'm asking: How can they encounter a "true miracle" when they don't define miracles? What I'm saying is, "What if scientists encountered a true miracle?" See above. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
ringo writes: Percy writes:
You did say in Message 266, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." That sounds like a conclusion to me. ringo writes:
I never said that. I was treating your scenario as, "What if there was a flying bridge?" with "Scientists would call it a miracle," as your conclusion. That was from way last December, clarifying the "what if" with examples, which were the George Washington Bridge moving 50 miles up the Hudson River, a leg lost in Afghanistan being suddenly restored, and the water in the Nile River suddenly turning to blood. Providing examples of what might be considered miracles is not stating a conclusion. But why would it matter if I did state conclusions, or what I think are better described as consideration of the implications, of my "what if"? I wouldn't insist you agree with my musings, so why is that a bad thing?
Percy writes:
You did say in Message 266, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." ringo writes:
I never said that, either. If your scenario is, "What if scientists called something a miracle," I've answered that too: Other scientists would correct them. You're repeating yourself again. What I've actually been saying is, "What if scientists encountered a true miracle?" What you're saying is, in effect, "If scientists encountered a true miracle they would rule it out because science doesn't allow miracles." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
I didn't say there was anything wrong with stating conclusions. I said it seemed clear to me that you did state a conclusion while you vehemently denied saying any such thing. You clearly did say such a thing, whether you meant it as a conclusion or not. But why would it matter if I did state conclusions.... Providing clarifying examples is stating conclusions? Who knew!
Percy writes:
Yes. What you're saying is, in effect, "If scientists encountered a true miracle they would rule it out because science doesn't allow miracles." Science follows the evidence where it leads. If the evidence leads to a miracle, watcha gonna do? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
No, saying, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous," sounds like a conclusion to me, not a "clarifying example." Providing clarifying examples is stating conclusions? I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles.
Percy writes:
The evidence can't lead to a miracle any more than it can lead to Narnia. If the evidence leads to a miracle, watcha gonna do? But what if it did? It's the same as Stile posited.
Miracles and Narnia are not defined by science. You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses. Again, the exchange was:
Percy writes: You're dodging the issue. Trying again, the exchange was:
Percy writes: ringo writes: Percy writes:
And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined miracles. Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions. In 1900 you could have said, "And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined entanglement." Or substitute any number of things. Continental drift. Black holes. Graphene. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
How is that not a conclusion? "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla," is a conclusion, isn't it? I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles. No, it's simply correct.
Percy writes:
What if water flowed uphill? But what if it did? Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws?
What do you accomplish by just asking the question? You get to engage in a thought experiment about the philosophy of science.
And if you make up the answer too, how is that not a conclusion? What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up?
Percy writes:
You're the one who's ignoring the responses. You keep asking "What if?" and I keep answering and you keep repeating, "Yeah, but what if?" You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses. But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it.
The fact is that science doesn't define miracles. Religion does. But what if science did encounter a miracle. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
How can it be correct if it's not a conclusion? Doesn't correctness imply that other conclusions would be incorrect? ringo writes:
No, it's simply correct. Percy writes:
How is that not a conclusion? "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla," is a conclusion, isn't it? I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles. Some things about the universe are just inherently true.
Percy writes:
If it did, and it does, it is not in violation of known physical laws. The question for scientists is, "Why is that water flowing uphill?" The answer for religion might be, "It's a miracle!" but for science it isn't. ringo writes:
Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws? What if water flowed uphill? You're again preordaining what science would conclude.
Percy writes:
In Message 266 you said, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." That seems like a conclusion to me. Since the whole scenario is made up, it can't just be "correct". What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up? Yes, I know it seems like a conclusion to you. I think it's just my opinion, but give it whatever name you like. From my end it is open to discussion.
Percy writes:
I'm dismissing your conclusion, not your what-if. But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it. No, you're dismissing both my "what if" and my opinion about that scientists would accept the suggested examples as miracles.
Percy writes:
Asked and answered many times: the same as if science encountered a unicorn or an angel or a living dinosaur. The reaction would be, "Hmm... this is going to require some adjustments in our thinking." But what if science did encounter a miracle. I'm not sure a unicorn is miraculous, it would depend upon you providing more details. An angel I guess is miraculous. Also not sure that a living dinosaur is miraculous, it would depend upon you providing more details as I observe a nuthatch out my window. But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous. I agree that reactions would include, "Hmm... this is going to require some adjustments in our thinking." What do you think those adjustments would be? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
And again, I'm basing my conclusion on the entire history of science. You're again preordaining what science would conclude. Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads, not in preordaining conclusions.
I have asked you to give examples of when science has had a different reaction and you've provided nothing. But I don't think science would have a different reaction. I think they would follow the evidence where it leads.
Percy writes:
We can't, because "miraculous" is a purely religious concept. But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous. So let's add this view to the "what if". What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations?
Percy writes:
As I've said, the same as all the adjustments that science has made in the past. Is the evidence reliable? Does it really fall outside what we understand? How can we adjust the explanation to fit the evidence? I agree that reactions would include, "Hmm... this is going to require some adjustments in our thinking." What do you think those adjustments would be? These don't really seem like "adjustments in our thinking." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Exactly. Which is why miracles are not part of science. There is no such thing as "violation" of scientific laws. There's only, "We need more evidence to figure this out." Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads... You keep raising the same already rebutted objections. People can pose whatever "what ifs" they like. Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid.
Percy writes:
Then you agree with me that the concept of miracles would never enter the discussion. But I don't think science would have a different reaction. You've drawn a false equivalence, plus by leaving off the following sentence you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning. I think science would follow the evidence where it leads, and if the evidence leads to miracles then watcha gonna do.
Percy writes:
How could it? Your scenario is about a lack of evidence. What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations? How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"?
When all of the evidence has been followed, it still doesn't lead to a conclusion. And you know this how?
What is needed is more evidence, not woo. What if the evidence leads to miracles? --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024