|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,423 Year: 3,680/9,624 Month: 551/974 Week: 164/276 Day: 4/34 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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". Percy writes:
As I've said from the beginning, I'm using the definition as written.
Can there be anything more problematic to discussion than disagreement over the definition of terms fundamental to the topic? Percy writes:
Did you use the word "if"? I thought you were pretty adamant that your definition is the only possible one.
Here's where what you say doesn't add up:Stile: "If you define miracle to be 'going against known standards of science' (or something like that)..." Me: "If you define miracle to be 'inexplicable violations of known physical laws..." Stile you don't disagree with, me you do. Explain. 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. If anything, you're the one who refuses to discuss your scenario. Instead, you demand that it be accepted as a QED.
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. 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? 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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"? 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. 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. 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. Again, scientists deal with unprecedented observations all the time.
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? 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." 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" 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.
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".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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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? Percy writes:
I'm arguing that scientists are not confronted by miracles because they have no formal definition of the phenomenon. And they have no need for a definition because their method treats every phenomenon the same way.
You're arguing that if scientists were confronted with a miracle that they still wouldn't need a formal definition of the phenomena. 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". 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". 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. Percy writes:
Nope. I'm objecting to your answer to the question.
You're objecting to "What if Germany won WWII?" Percy writes:
That makes no more sense than "What if scientists encountered a real leprechaun?" There's nothing in science that would allow them to react differently than if they encountered somebody who claimed to be Napoleon. The "what if" is "What if scientists encountered a true 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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 saying that Stile not disagreeing with me is equivalent to me not disagreeing with Stile.
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. 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? 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." So you're saying, What if scientists decided to call flying bridges a miracle? Then other scientists would peer-review them back to the Stone Age.
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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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. 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. Percy writes:
I can't disagree with an if.
... if you don't disagree with Stile when he says, "If you define miracle... 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. If your scenario is, "What if scientists called something a miracle," I've answered that too: Other scientists would correct them.
... why do you disagree with me when I say, "What if.... 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. 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?"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You did say in Message 266, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." That sound 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. 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.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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.... 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."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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? Percy writes:
The evidence can't lead to a miracle any more than it can lead to Narnia. Miracles and Narnia are not defined by science. If the evidence leads to a miracle, watcha gonna do?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