The "science" of Miracles

So evidently ringo proclaims that no scientist ever would dare use that word.In a way, he is claiming that the rules of being in the scientists club are tightly defined.But where is this topic going, anyway?

I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles. But what if it did? It's the same as Stile posited. You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses. Again, the exchange was: --Percy

No. As I have said before, they don't use the word in a scientific context.

How is that not a conclusion? "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla," is a conclusion, isn't it? 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? 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.

No, it's simply correct. Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws? You get to engage in a thought experiment about the philosophy of science. What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up? But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it. But what if science did encounter a miracle.--Percy

How can it be correct if it's not a conclusion? Doesn't correctness imply that other conclusions would be incorrect? 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. 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". I'm dismissing your conclusion, not your what-if. 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."

Some things about the universe are just inherently true. You're again preordaining what science would conclude. Yes, I know it seems like a conclusion to you. I think it's just my opinion, but give it whatever name you like. From my end it is open to discussion. No, you're dismissing both my "what if" and my opinion about that scientists would accept the suggested examples as miracles. I'm not sure a unicorn is miraculous, it would depend upon you providing more details. An angel I guess is miraculous. Also not sure that a living dinosaur is miraculous, it would depend upon you providing more details as I observe a nuthatch out my window.But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous. I agree that reactions would include, "Hmm... this is going to require some adjustments in our thinking." What do you think those adjustments would be?--Percy

I'm not sure whose side I take here...Percy's argument feels better, but maybe I just can't stand to see Ringo winning every argument! Let's break it down.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.Seeing as how this topic is The science of miracles we are faced with both qualities. Hypothetically we assemble a team of EvC patrons.Led by Percy, the team also includes ringo, Phat, Faith, Tangle, and jar.The first assignment is to examine a Bridge that mysteriously seemed to have changed location.
What would be each member's initial reaction to hearing the news of this event?Next question:
Who would be paying this team to investigate?What would be the expectations of the team?Even in science, the dollar often determines the direction that any given team will take regarding an investigation.

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. We can't, because "miraculous" is a purely religious concept. 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?

In the case of science, we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about consensus. Yes indeed. Science and miracles are separate concepts.

Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads, not in preordaining conclusions. But I don't think science would have a different reaction. I think they would follow the evidence where it leads. So let's add this view to the "what if". What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations? These don't really seem like "adjustments in our thinking."--Percy

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." Then you agree with me that the concept of miracles would never enter the discussion. 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.

You keep raising the same already rebutted objections. People can pose whatever "what ifs" they like. Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid. You've drawn a false equivalence, plus by leaving off the following sentence you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning. I think science would follow the evidence where it leads, and if the evidence leads to miracles then watcha gonna do. How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"? And you know this how? What if the evidence leads to miracles?--Percy

Not if that's the answer. 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? 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 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.

No, that's not an answer. That's a refusal to consider the "what if." We've been down this road just a short while ago where in addition to the flying pigs example there was, "What if Germany won WWII?" The response, "But Germany didn't win WWII" is not an answer but a refusal to consider the "what if." The idea behind a "what if" isn't all that complicated. I didn't change it to "or something else." You said it was a conclusion, I said it was an opinion, but call it what you like, from my end the examples of miracles that were provided are open to discussion. Yes, because following the evidence where it leads and the scientific method should not change just because the object of study changes. Yes, of course. People can devise whatever "what ifs" they like. I don't so much have a meaning as a hope or intention, which is to discuss how science might react were it to encounter a true miracle. Why do you think the scientific method should change for different objects of study? I'm willing to consider the "what if" defined in that way. But what if it did?--Percy