|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No. As I have said before, they don't use the word in a scientific context. So evidently ringo proclaims that no scientist ever would dare use that word.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How is that not a conclusion? "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla," is a conclusion, isn't it?
I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles. Percy writes:
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?
But what if it did? Percy writes:
You're the one who's ignoring the responses. You keep asking "What if?" and I keep answering and you keep repeating, "Yeah, but what if?" You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How can it be correct if it's not a conclusion? Doesn't correctness imply that other conclusions would be incorrect?
No, it's simply correct. Percy writes:
If it did, and it does, it is not in violation of known physical laws. The question for scientists is, "Why is that water flowing uphill?" The answer for religion might be, "It's a miracle!" but for science it isn't.
ringo writes:
Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws? What if water flowed uphill? Percy writes:
In Message 266 you said, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." That seems like a conclusion to me. Since the whole scenario is made up, it can't just be "correct".
What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up? Percy writes:
I'm dismissing your conclusion, not your what-if.
But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it. Percy writes:
Asked and answered many times: the same as if science encountered a unicorn or an angel or a living dinosaur. The reaction would be, "Hmm... this is going to require some adjustments in our thinking." But what if science did encounter a miracle.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
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.
You're again preordaining what science would conclude. Percy writes:
We can't, because "miraculous" is a purely religious concept.
But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous. Percy writes:
As I've said, the same as all the adjustments that science has made in the past. Is the evidence reliable? Does it really fall outside what we understand? How can we adjust the explanation to fit the evidence? I agree that reactions would include, "Hmm... this is going to require some adjustments in our thinking." What do you think those adjustments would be?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
In the case of science, we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about consensus.
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. Phat writes:
Yes indeed. Science and miracles are separate concepts. Seeing as how this topic is The science of miracles we are faced with both qualities.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Exactly. Which is why miracles are not part of science. There is no such thing as "violation" of scientific laws. There's only, "We need more evidence to figure this out."
Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads... Percy writes:
Then you agree with me that the concept of miracles would never enter the discussion.
But I don't think science would have a different reaction. Percy writes:
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. What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Not if that's the answer.
Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid. Percy writes:
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." ... you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning. What is your meaning?
Percy writes:
And how many times did you admit that nothing in the scientific method would change? So what's the point of the what-if?
How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"? Percy writes:
How could it? Does the what-if evidence include video of God lifting the bridge? What if the evidence leads to miracles? 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024