Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-22-2018 9:27 PM
274 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones*, Faith, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (5 members, 269 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,585 Year: 15,408/29,783 Month: 1,352/1,502 Week: 109/241 Day: 62/47 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3940
41
42434445Next
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
Phat
Member
Posts: 11328
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 601 of 671 (829918)
03-17-2018 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by ringo
03-15-2018 11:41 AM


Po-tay-toe Po-tah-toe
Percy writes:

If the evidence leads to a miracle, watcha gonna do?


ringo 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.

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?


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by ringo, posted 03-15-2018 11:41 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 603 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 2:35 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17751
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 602 of 671 (829919)
03-17-2018 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 600 by ringo
03-15-2018 11:41 AM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

Providing clarifying examples is stating conclusions?


No, saying, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous," sounds like a conclusion to me, not a "clarifying example."

I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles.

Percy writes:

If the evidence leads to a miracle, watcha gonna do?


The evidence can't lead to a miracle any more than it can lead to Narnia.

But what if it did? It's the same as Stile posited.

Miracles and Narnia are not defined by science.

You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses. Again, the exchange was:

Percy writes:

You're dodging the issue. Trying again, the exchange was:

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

Percy writes:

Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions.


And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined miracles.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 600 by ringo, posted 03-15-2018 11:41 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 604 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 2:45 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 603 of 671 (829947)
03-18-2018 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 601 by Phat
03-17-2018 4:06 PM


Re: Po-tay-toe Po-tah-toe
Phat writes:

So evidently ringo proclaims that no scientist ever would dare use that word.


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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 601 by Phat, posted 03-17-2018 4:06 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 604 of 671 (829948)
03-18-2018 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 602 by Percy
03-17-2018 4:26 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles.


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

Percy writes:

But what if it did?


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?

Percy writes:

You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses.


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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 602 by Percy, posted 03-17-2018 4:26 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 605 by Percy, posted 03-18-2018 4:28 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17751
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 605 of 671 (829959)
03-18-2018 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 604 by ringo
03-18-2018 2:45 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles.


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

No, it's simply correct.

Percy writes:

But what if it did?


What if water flowed uphill?

Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws?

What do you accomplish by just asking the question?

You get to engage in a thought experiment about the philosophy of science.

And if you make up the answer too, how is that not a conclusion?

What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up?

Percy writes:

You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses.


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?"

But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it.

The fact is that science doesn't define miracles. Religion does.

But what if science did encounter a miracle.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by ringo, posted 03-18-2018 2:45 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 606 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 12:27 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 606 of 671 (830046)
03-20-2018 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 605 by Percy
03-18-2018 4:28 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

No, it's simply correct.


How can it be correct if it's not a conclusion? Doesn't correctness imply that other conclusions would be incorrect?

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

What if water flowed uphill?


Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws?

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.

Percy writes:

What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up?


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".

Percy writes:

But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it.


I'm dismissing your conclusion, not your what-if.

Percy writes:

But what if science did encounter a miracle.


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."

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 605 by Percy, posted 03-18-2018 4:28 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 607 by Percy, posted 03-21-2018 9:18 AM ringo has responded
 Message 608 by Phat, posted 03-21-2018 12:03 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17751
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 607 of 671 (830090)
03-21-2018 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 606 by ringo
03-20-2018 12:27 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

Percy writes:

I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles.


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

No, it's simply correct.

How can it be correct if it's not a conclusion? Doesn't correctness imply that other conclusions would be incorrect?

Some things about the universe are just inherently true.

Percy writes:

ringo writes:

What if water flowed uphill?


Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws?

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.

You're again preordaining what science would conclude.

Percy writes:

What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up?


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".

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.

Percy writes:

But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it.


I'm dismissing your conclusion, not your what-if.

No, you're dismissing both my "what if" and my opinion about that scientists would accept the suggested examples as miracles.

Percy writes:

But what if science did encounter a miracle.


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."

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 12:27 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 609 by ringo, posted 03-21-2018 3:25 PM Percy has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11328
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 608 of 671 (830092)
03-21-2018 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 606 by ringo
03-20-2018 12:27 PM


Re: Consensus
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.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 606 by ringo, posted 03-20-2018 12:27 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 610 by ringo, posted 03-21-2018 3:29 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 609 of 671 (830110)
03-21-2018 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 607 by Percy
03-21-2018 9:18 AM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

You're again preordaining what science would conclude.


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.

Percy writes:

But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous.


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

Percy writes:

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?


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?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 607 by Percy, posted 03-21-2018 9:18 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 611 by Percy, posted 03-21-2018 4:12 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 610 of 671 (830111)
03-21-2018 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 608 by Phat
03-21-2018 12:03 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:

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.


In the case of science, we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about consensus.

Phat writes:

Seeing as how this topic is The science of miracles we are faced with both qualities.


Yes indeed. Science and miracles are separate concepts.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Phat, posted 03-21-2018 12:03 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17751
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 611 of 671 (830118)
03-21-2018 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by ringo
03-21-2018 3:25 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

You're again preordaining what science would conclude.


And again, I'm basing my conclusion on the entire history of science.

Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads, not in preordaining conclusions.

I have asked you to give examples of when science has had a different reaction and you've provided nothing.

But I don't think science would have a different reaction. I think they would follow the evidence where it leads.

Percy writes:

But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous.


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

So let's add this view to the "what if". What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations?

Percy writes:

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?


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?

These don't really seem like "adjustments in our thinking."

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by ringo, posted 03-21-2018 3:25 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 612 by ringo, posted 03-21-2018 4:49 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 612 of 671 (830121)
03-21-2018 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 611 by Percy
03-21-2018 4:12 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads...


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."

Percy writes:

But I don't think science would have a different reaction.


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

Percy writes:

What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations?


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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 611 by Percy, posted 03-21-2018 4:12 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 613 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 9:03 AM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17751
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 613 of 671 (830134)
03-22-2018 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 612 by ringo
03-21-2018 4:49 PM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads...


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."

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.

Percy writes:

But I don't think science would have a different reaction.


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

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.

Percy writes:

What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations?


How could it? Your scenario is about a lack of evidence.

How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"?

When all of the evidence has been followed, it still doesn't lead to a conclusion.

And you know this how?

What is needed is more evidence, not woo.

What if the evidence leads to miracles?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by ringo, posted 03-21-2018 4:49 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 614 by ringo, posted 03-22-2018 11:47 AM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15423
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 614 of 671 (830139)
03-22-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 613 by Percy
03-22-2018 9:03 AM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:

Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid.


Not if that's the answer.

Percy writes:

... you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning.


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?

Percy writes:

How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"?


And how many times did you admit that nothing in the scientific method would change? So what's the point of the what-if?

Percy writes:

What if the evidence leads to miracles?


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.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 613 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 9:03 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 615 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 12:35 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17751
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 615 of 671 (830144)
03-22-2018 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 614 by ringo
03-22-2018 11:47 AM


Re: Consensus
ringo writes:

Percy writes:

Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid.


Not if that's the answer.

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."

Percy writes:

... you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning.


I've been trying to figure out what the @#$% your meaning is.

The idea behind a "what if" isn't all that complicated.

In one post you say, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." Then you change it to, "or something else."

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.

You agree that nothing in their procedure would change...

Yes, because following the evidence where it leads and the scientific method should not change just because the object of study changes.

...but when I ask why the notion of miracles would come up at all, you just repeat, "It's a what-if."

Yes, of course. People can devise whatever "what ifs" they like.

What is your meaning?

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.

Percy writes:

How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"?


And how many times did you admit that nothing in the scientific method would change? So what's the point of the what-if?

Why do you think the scientific method should change for different objects of study?

Percy writes:

What if the evidence leads to miracles?


How could it? Does the what-if evidence include video of God lifting the bridge?

I'm willing to consider the "what if" defined in that way.

All the evidence can lead to is, "We don't know (yet)." It can't lead to woo.

But what if it did?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 614 by ringo, posted 03-22-2018 11:47 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by ringo, posted 03-22-2018 1:01 PM Percy has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3940
41
42434445Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018