Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2018 9:49 AM
215 online now:
caffeine, Diomedes, Dr Adequate, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 210 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,369 Year: 19,192/29,783 Month: 1,137/2,043 Week: 182/507 Day: 10/83 Hour: 3/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3839
40
4142
...
47Next
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
ringo
Member
Posts: 15796
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 586 of 696 (829108)
03-03-2018 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 585 by Percy
03-03-2018 10:56 AM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

You ignored the question about how "he doesn't disagree with me" differs from "I don't disagree with him".


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?

Percy writes:

Can there be anything more problematic to discussion than disagreement over the definition of terms fundamental to the topic?


As I've said from the beginning, I'm using the definition as written.

Percy writes:

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.


Did you use the word "if"? I thought you were pretty adamant that your definition is the only possible one.

Percy writes:

Comparing it to Fred Flintstone and a fairy tale is not discussion of something you're giving sincere consideration - it's dismissal.


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.

If anything, you're the one who refuses to discuss your scenario. Instead, you demand that it be accepted as a QED.

Percy writes:

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.


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."

Percy writes:

How can there be an objection to a request no one understood?


They would have understood me taking the chair away. If they objected in Serbo-Croatian I would have understood that they objected.

Percy writes:

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.


If he doesn't object, he doesn't object. The reason why he doesn't object is irrelevant.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Percy, posted 03-03-2018 10:56 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by Percy, posted 03-04-2018 3:49 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 587 of 696 (829243)
03-04-2018 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by ringo
03-03-2018 11:44 AM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

You ignored the question about how "he doesn't disagree with me" differs from "I don't disagree with him".


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?

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:

ringo writes:

Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way.


Can there be anything more problematic to discussion than disagreement over the definition of terms fundamental to the topic?

As I've said from the beginning, I'm using the definition as written.

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: "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.

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:

Comparing it to Fred Flintstone and a fairy tale is not discussion of something you're giving sincere consideration - it's dismissal.


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.

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:

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.


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."

But that's the "what if": What if science were confronted with evidence of a violation of known physical laws?

Percy writes:

How can there be an objection to a request no one understood?


They would have understood me taking the chair away. If they objected in Serbo-Croatian I would have understood that they objected.

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:

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.


If he doesn't object, he doesn't object. The reason why he doesn't object is irrelevant.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by ringo, posted 03-03-2018 11:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by ringo, posted 03-06-2018 11:28 AM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15796
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 588 of 696 (829347)
03-06-2018 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 587 by Percy
03-04-2018 3:49 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

But you did ignore my question: How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"?


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.

Percy writes:

You state that you define miracle differently than Stile, but that you don't disagree with him.


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.

Percy writes:

There's only a need for a scientific definition of miracle in the "what if" scenario.


There is no need for a scientific definition of miracle, which is why scientists don't have a definition of miracle.

Percy writes:

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.


There's no such thing as "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws". There's only, "we haven't figured this out yet."

Again, scientists deal with unprecedented observations all the time.

Percy writes:

What if science were confronted with evidence of a violation of known physical laws?


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.

Percy writes:

You can't object to a "What if pigs could fly" by saying, "But pigs can't fly."


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.

Percy writes:

You can't object to a "What if Germany won WWII" by saying, "But Germany didn't win WWII"


But if your conclusion is that Albania would definitely be ruling the world today, I can disagree with that conclusion.

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:

People can pose whatever they like in a "what if".


They can. But they can't expect their answers to their own questions to be swallowed hook, line and sinker.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by Percy, posted 03-04-2018 3:49 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Percy, posted 03-09-2018 5:46 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 589 of 696 (829576)
03-09-2018 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by ringo
03-06-2018 11:28 AM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

But you did ignore my question: How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"?


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.

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:

You state that you define miracle differently than Stile, but that you don't disagree with him.


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.

Yes, of course, that's fine. But except for Stile, no one's stated any conclusions yet.

Percy writes:

There's only a need for a scientific definition of miracle in the "what if" scenario.


There is no need for a scientific definition of miracle, which is why scientists don't have a definition of miracle.

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:

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.


There's no such thing as "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws". There's only, "we haven't figured this out yet."

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:

What if science were confronted with evidence of a violation of known physical laws?


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.

This just reflects an unwillingness to consider the "what if," something you've said you were willing to do.

Percy writes:

You can't object to a "What if pigs could fly" by saying, "But pigs can't fly."


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.

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:

You can't object to a "What if Germany won WWII" by saying, "But Germany didn't win WWII"


But if your conclusion is that Albania would definitely be ruling the world today, I can disagree with that conclusion.

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:

People can pose whatever they like in a "what if".


They can. But they can't expect their answers to their own questions to be swallowed hook, line and sinker.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by ringo, posted 03-06-2018 11:28 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by ringo, posted 03-10-2018 11:08 AM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15796
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 590 of 696 (829602)
03-10-2018 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 589 by Percy
03-09-2018 5:46 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

Why the switch, and is there any significance to it?


Since the "switch" is in your imagination, only you can imagine what the significance might be.

Percy writes:

You're arguing that if scientists were confronted with a miracle that they still wouldn't need a formal definition of the phenomena.


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.

Percy writes:

In my "what if" there is such a thing as "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws".


Then your what-if is outside the realm of science.

Percy writes:

And how often would you say they encounter "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws".


About as often as they encounter anything that doesn't exist, such as leprechauns.

Percy writes:

This just reflects an unwillingness to consider the "what if," something you've said you were willing to do.


I have considered the what-if. Your conclusion is patently wrong. The scientists would not treat it any differently than any other phenomenon.

Percy writes:

You're objecting to "What if Germany won WWII?"


Nope. I'm objecting to your answer to the question.

Percy writes:

The "what if" is "What if scientists encountered a true miracle,"


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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Percy, posted 03-09-2018 5:46 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 03-10-2018 4:58 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 591 of 696 (829638)
03-10-2018 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 590 by ringo
03-10-2018 11:08 AM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

Why the switch, and is there any significance to it?


Since the "switch" is in your imagination, only you can imagine what the significance might be.

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:

You're arguing that if scientists were confronted with a miracle that they still wouldn't need a formal definition of the phenomena.


I'm arguing that scientists are not confronted by miracles because they have no formal definition of the phenomenon.

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:

In my "what if" there is such a thing as "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws".


Then your what-if is outside the realm of science.

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:

And how often would you say they encounter "indisputable evidence of violations of known physical laws".


About as often as they encounter anything that doesn't exist, such as leprechauns.

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:

This just reflects an unwillingness to consider the "what if," something you've said you were willing to do.


I have considered the what-if. Your conclusion is patently wrong. The scientists would not treat it any differently than any other phenomenon.

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:

You're objecting to "What if Germany won WWII?"


Nope. I'm objecting to your answer to the question.

I don't have an answer to any question. I'm just posing a "what if".

Percy writes:

The "what if" is "What if scientists encountered a true miracle,"


That makes no more sense than "What if scientists encountered a real leprechaun?"

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 590 by ringo, posted 03-10-2018 11:08 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by ringo, posted 03-11-2018 2:30 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15796
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 592 of 696 (829652)
03-11-2018 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 591 by Percy
03-10-2018 4:58 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

Why are you suddenly insisting on flipping it to, "I don't disagree with him"? If they're meaningfully different, how?


I'm not the one who says they're different. You are.

I'm saying that Stile not disagreeing with me is equivalent to me not disagreeing with Stile.

Percy writes:

Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions.


And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined miracles.

Percy writes:

But absence of evidence for leprechauns to this point in time is not evidence that leprechauns do not exist. What if leprechauns were discovered?


Same as if flying bridges were discovered. Business as usual.

Percy writes:

But I didn't reach a conclusion. What you're calling a conclusion is actually part of the "what if."


That wasn't clear.

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:

In what sense do you think I'm saying scientists would react differently, because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.


If you're not saying that scientists would react differently, then we don't disagree. Why are you trying so hard to find disagreement?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 591 by Percy, posted 03-10-2018 4:58 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 2:19 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 593 of 696 (829717)
03-12-2018 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by ringo
03-11-2018 2:30 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

Why are you suddenly insisting on flipping it to, "I don't disagree with him"? If they're meaningfully different, how?


I'm not the one who says they're different. You are.

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:

Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions.


And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined miracles.

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:

But absence of evidence for leprechauns to this point in time is not evidence that leprechauns do not exist. What if leprechauns were discovered?


Same as if flying bridges were discovered. Business as usual.

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:

But I didn't reach a conclusion. What you're calling a conclusion is actually part of the "what if."


That wasn't clear.

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:

In what sense do you think I'm saying scientists would react differently, because I'm pretty sure you're wrong.


If you're not saying that scientists would react differently, then we don't disagree. Why are you trying so hard to find disagreement?

I thought disagreement found me.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by ringo, posted 03-11-2018 2:30 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by ringo, posted 03-13-2018 12:05 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15796
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 594 of 696 (829759)
03-13-2018 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 593 by Percy
03-12-2018 2:19 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

I've been asking if there was any significance in your switch from expressing it one way to expressing it another.


If you don't understand it one way, I try to express it another way.

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

I'm saying that Stile not disagreeing with me is equivalent to me not disagreeing with Stile.


Finally, an answer.

I've said it several times - Message 586, Message 588 - and that's only going back one page.

Percy writes:

... if you don't disagree with Stile when he says, "If you define miracle...


I can't disagree with an if.

Percy writes:

... why do you disagree with me when I say, "What if....


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.

Percy writes:

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.


They could have called them miracles but they didn't.

Percy writes:

What I'm saying is, "What if scientists encountered a true miracle?"


And I'm asking: How can they encounter a "true miracle" when they don't define 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 593 by Percy, posted 03-12-2018 2:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 2:04 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 595 of 696 (829768)
03-13-2018 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 594 by ringo
03-13-2018 12:05 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

I've been asking if there was any significance in your switch from expressing it one way to expressing it another.


If you don't understand it one way, I try to express it another way.

That would be nice if that were what you did, but you didn't.

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

I'm saying that Stile not disagreeing with me is equivalent to me not disagreeing with Stile.


Finally, an answer.

I've said it several times - Message 586, Message 588 - and that's only going back one page.

But you didn't say that in Message 586 and Message 588.

Percy writes:

... if you don't disagree with Stile when he says, "If you define miracle...


I can't disagree with an if.

Except when you do.

Percy writes:

... why do you disagree with me when I say, "What if....


I was treating your scenario as, "What if there was a flying bridge?" with "Scientists would call it a miracle," as your conclusion.

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:

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.


They could have called them miracles but they didn't.

You're dodging the issue. Trying again, the exchange was:

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

Percy writes:

Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions.


And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined miracles.

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:

What I'm saying is, "What if scientists encountered a true miracle?"


And I'm asking: How can they encounter a "true miracle" when they don't define miracles?

See above.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by ringo, posted 03-13-2018 12:05 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 3:28 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15796
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 596 of 696 (829820)
03-14-2018 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 595 by Percy
03-13-2018 2:04 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

ringo writes:

I was treating your scenario as, "What if there was a flying bridge?" with "Scientists would call it a miracle," as your conclusion.


I never said that.

You did say in Message 266, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." That sound like a conclusion to me.

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

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.

You did say in Message 266, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by Percy, posted 03-13-2018 2:04 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by Percy, posted 03-14-2018 4:47 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 597 of 696 (829836)
03-14-2018 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by ringo
03-14-2018 3:28 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

I was treating your scenario as, "What if there was a flying bridge?" with "Scientists would call it a miracle," as your conclusion.


I never said that.

You did say in Message 266, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." That sounds like a conclusion to me.

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:

ringo writes:

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.

You did say in Message 266, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 3:28 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 4:59 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15796
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 598 of 696 (829837)
03-14-2018 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by Percy
03-14-2018 4:47 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

But why would it matter if I did state conclusions....


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.

Percy writes:

What you're saying is, in effect, "If scientists encountered a true miracle they would rule it out because science doesn't allow miracles."


Yes.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by Percy, posted 03-14-2018 4:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by Percy, posted 03-14-2018 5:58 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18004
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 599 of 696 (829840)
03-14-2018 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 598 by ringo
03-14-2018 4:59 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

But why would it matter if I did state conclusions....


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.

Providing clarifying examples is stating conclusions? Who knew!

Percy writes:

What you're saying is, in effect, "If scientists encountered a true miracle they would rule it out because science doesn't allow miracles."


Yes.

Science follows the evidence where it leads. If the evidence leads to a miracle, watcha gonna do?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by ringo, posted 03-14-2018 4:59 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by ringo, posted 03-15-2018 11:41 AM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15796
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 600 of 696 (829853)
03-15-2018 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by Percy
03-14-2018 5:58 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

Providing clarifying examples is stating conclusions?


No, saying, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous," sounds like a conclusion to me, not a "clarifying example."

Percy writes:

If the evidence leads to a miracle, watcha gonna do?


The evidence can't lead to a miracle any more than it can lead to Narnia. Miracles and Narnia are not defined by science.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by Percy, posted 03-14-2018 5:58 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by Phat, posted 03-17-2018 4:06 PM ringo has responded
 Message 602 by Percy, posted 03-17-2018 4:26 PM ringo has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3839
40
4142
...
47Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018