|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
No, it's the extraneous epithet "miracle" that science ignores. A phenomenon is a phenomenon is a phenomenon. They're not categorized as "red phenomena" or "warm and fuzzy phenomena". One phenomenon is not treated differently from another.
I mean, if you're not including miraculous phenomena within science, then you must be ignoring them, right? 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"? Percy writes:
That's the whole problem with your scenario; it's science fiction, not science. Science is not effected 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. Percy writes:
So if we can never understand the natural laws completely, we can never say that they have been violated. All we can say is that our current understanding is inadequate to explain the phenomenon. I think tentativity rules out the possibility of ever understanding natural laws completely.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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
~1.6 writes:
What I was taught is that out-lying data is kept but it is not included in the conclusion - e.g. if all of your data points but one forms a nice straight line, you draw the straight line - but you leave the outlier on the graph. IF a miracle occurred and was investigated by scientist and found to be inexplicable. Would the scientist then throw away all data pertaining to this event as not worthy of further investigation because it is inexplicable?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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Not at all. Scientists should think as scientists when they're doing science. They're perfectly free to think as football players when they're playing football and to think as cooks when they're making chili.
The only issue that I have is that based on your suggested definition of how a scientist should think, no scientist would ever become a believer. Phat writes:
You have it backwards. They should always separate belief from science. They would never separate belief from science and thus all scientists would be atheists or agnostics.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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
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... 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. 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? Percy writes:
I don't think we can. We can tentatively state what is possible - e.g. that physical laws somehow allow bridges to fly. In your scenario, we saw the bridge fly so we know it's possible. The only question is how. It makes no sense to say it might tentatively be impossible. Of course we can tentatively state that scientific laws have been violated.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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy 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.
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. 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? 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. 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. This may be our main point of contention. You're talking about philosophy and I'm talking about 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
It's not a contradiction. It's a probability. You can't have it both ways, and you shouldn't avoid resolving the contradiction by suddenly reinvoking your aversion to the term miracle. There's a probability that science would include miraculous phenomena and a probability that it would not. There is a probability that miracles would be placed beyond the purview of science and a probability that they would not. In both cases, I'm betting on not.
Percy writes:
That's where peer review steps in. The minute somebody suggests "miracle" or "violation of physical laws", their peers would say, "Nah, it's just a really big anomaly."
ringo writes:
Because in the "what if" they didn't. Why would the scientists not just say, "This is a really big anomaly." Percy writes:
The only one who seems to be obfuscated is you. I'm exploring a hypothetical, you're engaged in obfuscation.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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What? It has been introduced.
although you won't allow Percys hypothetical to even be introduced. Phat writes:
I'm just pointing out how scientists would approach the situation. Percy's terms are an attempt to fill all of the loopholes but the approach of science would be to look for more loopholes. You seem to be defining the terms of the hypothetical rather than going with his terms.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 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
vimesey writes:
He might be one of the cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant. Well, first off old chap, learn to spell "Archangel"....And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Arkangel Daniel writes:
Forced perspective and trompe l'oeil. For example how did we part the Red sea: In order to carry this out the Sea was not parted(too dangerous) what happened instead was.... I just saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade again the other day. The bridge across the chasm was there all along. It was painted to blend in with the walls of the chasm. And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Arkangel Daniel writes:
You might want to try a new invention of mine; I call it "paragraphs". The types of Angels in Heaven: the 1st type are batch Angels and they are just under 4 feet tall. The first Batch were called "Gabriel". How Angel's are created in batches is the same as how God was created, a similar process involving elements including worm hole element and gravity element and a chamber. There are 5000 Angels per batch. Satan was originally from the 2nd Lucifer batch. I'm a natural born Angel my Father is Non and my Mother is Rebecca and my oldest brother is Joshua who also came to Earth during the Exodus. Arkangels are soldiers/police in heaven and are 12-15 feet tall, slim or solid build. Arkangels can pick up any weapon and use it and have a lot of capabilities. The technology is very advanced in Heaven although early history everyone was living in caves. Some other interesting details God is just under 4 feet(exactly the same height as all the Angel's from the Batches), Jesus is 6 foot 7, Mary is from the Angela Batch and just under 4 feet. There is no such thing as a 'cherubim' or 'seraphim'. The Humankind were created in batches exactly like the Angels Batches and delivered to Earth by Spaceship after Noah's flood, prior to that only Angels were on Earth. I am the Arkangel Daniel and I am from Heaven. You might also want to back up some of your nonsense with facts. Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tanypteryx writes:
I was going to give him comedy advice. To me, his writing style is troll rarher than crazy. Am I a bad person if some of the things he writes evokes a spontaneous laugh?And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024