Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


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 replied

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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 603 of 696 (829947)
03-18-2018 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by Phat
03-17-2018 4:06 PM


Re: Po-tay-toe Po-tah-toe
Phat writes:
So evidently ringo proclaims that no scientist ever would dare use that word.
No. As I have said before, they don't use the word in a scientific context.

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 601 by Phat, posted 03-17-2018 4:06 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 604 of 696 (829948)
03-18-2018 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by Percy
03-17-2018 4:26 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles.
How is that not a conclusion? "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla," is a conclusion, isn't it?
Percy writes:
But what if it did?
What if water flowed uphill? What do you accomplish by just asking the question? And if you make up the answer too, how is that not a conclusion?
Percy writes:
You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses.
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?"
The fact is that science doesn't define miracles. Religion does.

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 602 by Percy, posted 03-17-2018 4:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Percy, posted 03-18-2018 4:28 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 606 of 696 (830046)
03-20-2018 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 605 by Percy
03-18-2018 4:28 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
No, it's simply correct.
How can it be correct if it's not a conclusion? Doesn't correctness imply that other conclusions would be incorrect?
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
What if water flowed uphill?
Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws?
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.
Percy writes:
What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up?
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".
Percy writes:
But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it.
I'm dismissing your conclusion, not your what-if.
Percy writes:
But what if science did encounter a miracle.
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."

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 605 by Percy, posted 03-18-2018 4:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by Percy, posted 03-21-2018 9:18 AM ringo has replied
 Message 608 by Phat, posted 03-21-2018 12:03 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 609 of 696 (830110)
03-21-2018 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 607 by Percy
03-21-2018 9:18 AM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
You're again preordaining what science would conclude.
And again, I'm basing my conclusion on the entire history of science. I have asked you to give examples of when science has had a different reaction and you've provided nothing.
Percy writes:
But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous.
We can't, because "miraculous" is a purely religious concept.
Percy writes:
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?
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?

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 607 by Percy, posted 03-21-2018 9:18 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Percy, posted 03-21-2018 4:12 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 610 of 696 (830111)
03-21-2018 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 608 by Phat
03-21-2018 12:03 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:
First of all, we use terms like "what if science" and "what if religion".....but we are talking about people. Individuals. And they may or may not be religious. And they may or may not be scientific.
In the case of science, we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about consensus.
Phat writes:
Seeing as how this topic is The science of miracles we are faced with both qualities.
Yes indeed. Science and miracles are separate concepts.

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 608 by Phat, posted 03-21-2018 12:03 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 612 of 696 (830121)
03-21-2018 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 611 by Percy
03-21-2018 4:12 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads...
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."
Percy writes:
But I don't think science would have a different reaction.
Then you agree with me that the concept of miracles would never enter the discussion.
Percy writes:
What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations?
How could it? Your scenario is about a lack of evidence. When all of the evidence has been followed, it still doesn't lead to a conclusion. What is needed is more evidence, not woo.

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 611 by Percy, posted 03-21-2018 4:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 9:03 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 614 of 696 (830139)
03-22-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 613 by Percy
03-22-2018 9:03 AM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid.
Not if that's the answer.
Percy writes:
... you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning.
I've been trying to figure out what the @#$% your meaning is. In one post you say, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." Then you change it to, "or something else." You agree that nothing in their procedure would change but when I ask why the notion of miracles would come up at all, you just repeat, "It's a what-if."
What is your meaning?
Percy writes:
How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"?
And how many times did you admit that nothing in the scientific method would change? So what's the point of the what-if?
Percy writes:
What if the evidence leads to miracles?
How could it? Does the what-if evidence include video of God lifting the bridge?
All the evidence can lead to is, "We don't know (yet)." It can't lead to woo.

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 613 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 9:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 12:35 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024