|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
The word "miracle' is used by the Catholic Church in an official capacity, attributing unusual events to a a supernatural cause. Presumably, other religious groups use the word similarly. So what should we make of the word 'miracle' then? Is a destitute single mom winning the lottery a miracle? Is a computer a modern miracle of science? Is remission of cancer a miracle? The word is also used colloquially, as in your examples. The events are certainly not "inexplicable". At best they are unexpected. Calling something a "miracle" is entirely subjective, which is why scientists don't do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
If scientists analyzed it, they'd propose explanations. By definition, it would not be "inexplicable" and it wouldn't be considered a miracle.
If a miracle - like the ones we've posited and you've refused to discuss - happened, they would be thoroughly open to objective analysis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
If that isn't the way science does think, give us some examples.
Granted you have framed the parameters of how science should think and of what science should or should never conclude.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Show us some examples.
... some may use the M word and others would stick with currently unexplainable....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
When have they ever found no explanations?
And if they found no explanations, then what? Tangle writes:
It's not an assumption. It's an observation. It's what scientists do. They propose explanations. Care to give any examples where scientists were completely stumped and could propose no explanations at all?
You're making the mistake of assuming that objective analysis must conclude with a natural explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why do you have to make it personal? Nothing I have said has anything to do with whether or not I believe in miracles or whether or not I use the word "miracle". The fact is that scientists do not use the word nor do they cop out with "insert miracle here".
The reason that the argument continues is that you stay on one side of it and refuse to use the M Word. Phat writes:
Your point is unfounded. There is no reason to think scientists would call anything a miracle. If for no other reason, they avoid the word because it has so much religious baggage.
My point is that at least some of science would resort to using the word were a hypothetical scenario such as percy describes occur. Phat writes:
On the contrary, you have failed to show any reason why scientists would do a complete about-face.
... you have failed to allow yourself to consider that hypothetically they may someday use it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Give examples.
Scientist have a firm idea about what would be called a miracle. NoNukes writes:
In science, the subjective parts are to be avoided.
Lots of things we deal with in life are subjective. Those things are not to be avoided.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
What if Bigfoot was elected Governor of Arizona? What if frying pans could sing opera? What do those what-ifs contribute?
Only because one hasn't happened yet. "But what if...," as Tangle asks. Percy writes:
The problem is still that you're misunderstanding the criteria for a miracle. The criterion is not that it's "inexplicable" but that somebody thinks it's inexplicable (or at least that unnatural causes are the best explanation). That's why some people call an event a miracle and others don't call the same event a miracle. The more important issue is how would science would react were it to encounter phenomena that fulfilled all the criteria for a miracle, whether they called it that or not. Believers attribute UFOs to alien technology. Scientists do not. Believers attribute a dancing sun to supernatural causes. Scientists do not. It's all about who attributes it to what.
Percy writes:
I have never claimed to know what scientists think. I have asked for evidence of your claim that scientists would certainly call something a miracle. You have produced no evidence yet.
He includes a list of possible scientific attitudes, something you insisted that you know what it would be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Why? What's the difference between miracles and magic?
The believers would be wrong if they attributed UFOs to magic. NoNukes writes:
The point is that what matters is who calls it what. A UFO may be attributed to alien technology or not. A phenomenon of some sort may be attributed to unnatural causes or not. To say that something "is" an alien spacecraft or to say that something "is" a miracle is just a subjective belief.
But if they believe it is alien technology, then they are not calling it a miracle anyway. So your comment would not seem to make sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
So what's the difference between technology and magic or miracles? One man's technology is another man's magic.
The distinction is between technology and magic or miracles. NoNukes writes:
The point is that the attribution is what counts. One person attributes a UFO, etc. to unnatural causes and one person attributes the same phenomenon to (known or unknown) natural causes.
If nobody is attributing UFOs to magic, then you would not seem to have a point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How is it a false equivalence?
Your Bigfoot what-if contributes pretty much nothing to this discussion since it represents a false equivalence and has nothing to do with the topic. Percy writes:
With tentative explanations.
How would science react? Percy writes:
We're talking about a story that you made up. The "scientific evidence" is made up. We're not talking about something that someone just happened to see and who happened to have an opinion about whether it was a miracle or not. We're talking about scientific evidence of an event that violates known physical laws. The Wikipedia article that contains your tweaked definition gives examples that don't support your definition. The real-life observations are not "inexplicable" to scientists.
Percy writes:
How can you have evidence for miracles?
Should enough scientific evidence accumulate for miracles then a consensus would build around the concept of miracles (regardless of the term actually adopted within science). Percy writes:
The statements you quote are not me claiming to know something independently. They're about what we know about scientists. If I say the "we" have a pretty good understanding of how evolution works, that is not a statement about my personal level of knowledge. ringo writes:
Sure you have, repeatedly, plenty of times, here's a partial list: I have never claimed to know what scientists think. We do know that scientists don't use "insert miracle here", don't we? I've asked for evidence of scientists invoking miracles and got none, so I'm assuming that you do understand that they don't. Feel free to correct that assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I've already said it's a stupid game. That's my move. If you don't like it, throw the game board on the floor and run away.
As you know, we're playing the what if game, if you don't want to, just say so. Tangle writes:
That's the observation. No gods have been detected. No flying pigs have been detected. No miracles have been detected. How can it be an observation, no miracles have yet been detected? If flying pigs, etc. are detected, scientists will offer explanations. That's what they do.
Tangle writes:
According to all of our observations, they always can.
But what if they can't? Tangle writes:
Actually, no. We don't agree on that. Miracles have been found - by people who believe in miracles, not by scientists. It's a case of you gotta believe it to see it.
We agreed about a thousand posts ago that so far no miracles have been found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Have you ever heard of analogies? If folks think that the ships are piloted by beings from another planet using technology they do not understand, they are not calling those things miracles. I'm saying that attributing UFOs to alien technology is equivalent to attributing miracles to magic. In both cases, the attributor is drawing a different conclusion than scientists would. I am not in any way, shape or form suggesting that the two different examples should be mixed together. If I say that dogs prefer meat in the same way that rabbits prefer lettuce, I am not saying that dogs prefer lettuce.
NoNukes writes:
Indeed. And scientists don't like to use the same terminology as people who are habitually wrong.
And it turns out that some of those folks are just flat out wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Are you seriously suggesting that scientists would propose no explanations at all?
What if no explanations are forthcoming? How would science react? Percy writes:
I thought I mentioned the Miracle of the Sun.
You don't say what particular examples you're referring to... Percy writes:
No, it repeats my argument that scientists don't call something a miracle and they're not at a loss for explanations.
... this just repeats your argument that no scientific miracle has ever been found to occur. Percy writes:
In Message 266 you said:
Where in this thread is anyone arguing that scientists would merely "insert miracle here"?quote:There's no equivocation about terminology there either. If you say, "They would certainly call their daughter Suzan," there's no implied, "or something else." So, what's the difference between, "no explanations are forthcoming," and "insert miracle here"?
Percy writes:
Everything is unprecedented until it happens. There are no miraculous events because scientists don't consider anything inexplicable.
... the "what ifs" describe unprecedented events, so of course there are no miraculous events in the history of science. Percy writes:
Of course it does. It would be business as usual for scientists. Do you seriously not know that?
But what if one of the described scenarios occurred? Should we assume you'll just repeat your non-answer of, "With tentative explanations," which doesn't address the actual question posed by the scenarios?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
What puzzles me is that you think I can prevent somebody else from playing. Is there a "Suppress Other Posters" button that I'm missing? The true puzzle is why you believe no one's allowed to play a game you find stupid. I don't see a lot of people rushing to discuss your flying bridges. You can't blame that on me.
Percy writes:
Sometimes it is. That has been discussed in other threads.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Percy writes:
Are you suggesting that scientists have not proposed explanations for all of those things?
Why is there something instead of nothing? What explains quantum behavior? What explains entanglement? How do we unify Einsteinian and quantum physics? What is dark matter? What is dark energy? Percy writes:
I'm sorry if you don't like the answer but that is the answer. You're the one who is making the positive claim that scientists would react differently, so you are the one who needs to back up your position. I'm saying that if pigs were confronted by an entirely new kind of mud, they'd react as they always do and wallow in it. You're saying that they'd put on suits and ties or some such thing. You have to back up your claim.
How would science react? And again, please, don't ignore the true question being asked with non-answers like, "With tentative explanations."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024