|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
No, it's the extraneous epithet "miracle" that science ignores. I mean, if you're not including miraculous phenomena within science, then you must be ignoring them, right? Aw, shucks, and you were doing so well, but now you're back into broken-record mode. Go back and reread the thread.
A phenomenon is a phenomenon is a phenomenon. They're not categorized as "red phenomena" or "warm and fuzzy phenomena". Quantum phenomena, gravitational phenomena, electromagnetic phenomena...
One phenomenon is not treated differently from another. I was seeking clarification of what you said. You said you probably wouldn't include miraculous phenomena in science. Now you're saying you'd treat all phenomena the same, meaning that you would include them. Inconsistent much?
Percy writes:
We've been there already. If you're what-iffing that scientists throw science out the window, the whatif has even less value. ringo writes:
That's part of the "what if." How can that be "the answer"? Nice job making things up. I'm through repeating myself. Go back and read the thread.
Percy writes:
That's the whole problem with your scenario; it's science fiction, not science. Science is not affected by everything you can dream up. If it helps, imagine you're in a science fantasy novel where you've been transported to a universe where miracles have been recently discovered to be real, taking the form of violations of known physical laws. If you prefer the term science fiction to "what if", fine. So how might science incorporate miracles into the fabric of scientific philosophy in this science fiction world?
Percy writes:
So if we can never understand the natural laws completely, we can never say that they have been violated. I think tentativity rules out the possibility of ever understanding natural laws completely. Of course we can tentatively state that scientific laws have been violated.
All we can say is that our current understanding is inadequate to explain the phenomenon. This is true of many things within science, even some supposedly simple things. Why do gyroscopes point in a fixed direction with respect to the stars (see The Forgotten Mystery of Inertia, November/December issue of American Scientist magazine)? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Those are not categories in the same way that "miraculous phenomena" would be. There is evidence and theory for all of them. Quantum phenomena, gravitational phenomena, electromagnetic phenomena... To varying degrees. All phenomenon begin with zero evidence before that first observation. Sometimes observation leads theory, sometimes vice versa. In this "what if" observation comes first and there was no prior theory. An example of a similar case within current science is our discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, something observed before there was any theory predicting dark energy. Prior to its observation there was no evidence or theory.
Percy writes:
I thought it was pretty clear: I would treat all phenomena the same just as scientists treat all phenomena the same. I don't consider anything "miraculous" from the scientific point of view just as scientists don't consider anything miraculous from the scientific point of view. I was seeking clarification of what you said. You said you probably wouldn't include miraculous phenomena in science. Now you're saying you'd treat all phenomena the same, meaning that you would include them. Well now you're just returning to your old schtick of refusing to consider the term miraculous. Go back and reread the thread. How many times have I said the particular term chosen for the phenomenon is unimportant? We're talking about phenomena that violate one or more currently known laws of nature. Rather than write that out in full every time I am using the term miraculous. We've been over this. Why do you keep going amnestic on me? Are you afraid that when I use the term miraculous that I'm trying to put one over on you, that if you're not careful I'm going to go, "Aha! You do accept miracles." You don't have to worry about that. I don't accept miracles, either. This is a "what if". Another way of expressing it would be, "For the sake of discussion, our own edification and as a mental exercise (and not because we actually believe in this sort of thing), let us consider how miracles might be accommodated into the fabric of science were they discovered to be real." I was asking for a simple clarification. When asked if science would include miraculous phenomena, you answered probably not. Then when asked if science would decide miraculous phenomena were beyond the purview of science, you also answered probably not. You can't have it both ways, and you shouldn't avoid resolving the contradiction by suddenly reinvoking your aversion to the term miracle. We agree that scientists would treat all phenomena the same with regard to their study. But you cannot say in advance what might be discovered and what the ramifications might be, you can only speculate. Here we are asking what if phenomena are discovered that at first blush appear to violate known physical laws to a significant degree, and that when studied reveal that that actually seems to be the case. How might the study and philosophy of science change?
Percy writes:
Science doesn't work from fiction. It works from facts. The idea of going to the moon may have originated in science fiction but the process of getting there didn't depend on any what-if proposed by fiction writers. If you prefer the term science fiction to "what if", fine. So how might science incorporate miracles into the fabric of scientific philosophy in this science fiction world? You're avoiding the question. Had someone asked you a few hundred years ago, "What if we could go to the moon?" would you have answered, "That's fiction, science doesn't deal in fiction, it deals in facts"? No, of course not. So why are you doing it now? If you don't want to discuss the "what if" then no one is making you, but in that case you should stop repetitiously cycling through your stockpile of spurious objections and get off the thread.
Percy writes:
I don't think we can. Of course we can tentatively state that scientific laws have been violated. We've been over this. Anomalies are minor violations of physical laws as they are currently understood. Past examples have been provided, like the black body radiation spectrum and the precession in the orbit of Mercury.
We can tentatively state what is possible - e.g. that physical laws somehow allow bridges to fly. Sometimes theory leads discovery, sometimes discovery leads theory. In this "what if" discovery leads theory. There are no theoretical hints that such phenomena are possible, then one day suddenly they're observed.
In your scenario, we saw the bridge fly so we know it's possible. But we didn't think it possible before it was observed, so therefore this is a case of discovery leading theory.
The only question is how. Well, that's not really the pertinent question in this "what if". We're not interested in devising some fictional science of miracles. We're really interested in the impact on the philosophy of science. It's a little bit analogous to when we discovered we didn't live in a clockwork universe (where hypothetically if you knew the precise position and momentum of every particle in the universe that you could predict everything that would happen in the future), that we live in a probabilistic quantum universe where knowledge of position and momentum are inversely related. So what if we discovered we live in a miraculous universe? How might scientific philosophy adapt?
It makes no sense to say it might tentatively be impossible. I didn't say that, but upon considering this it seems to me that were science to deem something impossible, it could only say so tentatively. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Well, since you ignored the question, I'll just repeat it. When asked if science would include miraculous phenomena, you answered probably not. Then when asked if science would decide miraculous phenomena were beyond the purview of science, you also answered probably not. You can't have it both ways, and you shouldn't avoid resolving the contradiction by suddenly reinvoking your aversion to the term miracle. How do you resolve this contradiction?
ringo writes: You switch back and forth between "miraculous" and "something else" at your convenience. When you use the word "miraculous", I'm not going to try to divine what other "something" you might mean. If the term "miraculous" doesn't matter, just stop using it. You have failed to follow the course of the discussion.
Percy writes:
You keep saying the same thing over and over again and then you complain when my response is the same. Yes, one plus one is still two. Here we are asking what if phenomena are discovered that at first blush appear to violate known physical laws to a significant degree, and that when studied reveal that that actually seems to be the case. How might the study and philosophy of science change? So still no answer.
Percy writes:
Where is the dividing line between anomaly and miracle? Why would the scientists not just say, "This is a really big anomaly." Anomalies are minor violations of physical laws as they are currently understood. Because in the "what if" they didn't.
Percy writes:
You might be. I doubt that the scientist are. Their interest would be, as I said, in how did it happen. We're not interested in devising some fictional science of miracles. We're really interested in the impact on the philosophy of science. You can make up your own "what if" if you like, this one is as I described it.
This may be our main point of contention. You're talking about philosophy and I'm talking about science. I'm exploring a hypothetical, you're engaged in obfuscation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Actually, the Red Sea was parted using batteries Rocket stole from the Egyptians. The angel with the flaming sword was Yondu and his arrow. The pillar of smoke and fire was Ego. Moses and his people were assisted in crossing the Red Sea by Rocket, and protected from fear by Mantis. The Egyptian army was wiped out by Sovereign drones. I am Quill and can fill you in on anything else you need to know.
--Percy Edited by Percy, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024