The Antecedent Probability Principle, the Proportional Principle & Carl Sagan

I know nothing about string theory and less about the historicity of Einsten's work but I do know that both Einstein and the guys working on string theory were/are trying to solve a problem in physics that exists or existed. They use mathematical tools and knowledge that pre-existed to create models of our world which can be tested by others.In modern times the string theory guys need to provide evidence to the funders that pay their salaries that their work is worth continuing and may provide more information about our world. It's a rational process.

I have no idea what evidence there is for string theory, luckily if you need to know the answer, you can check the wiki on it. But do you doubt that the process being used to build the theory is rational? Do you think that it's likely that the models, mathematics and physics that they use to establish it lack evidence? Or that the problems they are trying to solve are real?Now apply the same tests to miracles.

All of the above plus the prior history of investigating related problems. For a miracle I'd start by calling James Randi. So far that has prevented a lot of time and money being wasted. After that you use whatever technique is apprpriate. But first you have to catch your miracle in order to gather the evidence for it. Unfortunately, miracles don't seem to want to be caught or even give us a clue that they exist..

Not miraculously, no. Are you saying they have been?

Nothing. Yet. Well exactly. But they never have. A miracle would be if the guy that came back to life had been decapitated, burned to a cinder, shot 10 times in the heart etc etc. funny how the uncontroversially dead NEVER come back to life isn't it?

I don't know enough about Einstein and relativity to argue whether his pursuit was evidence based or otherwise, I still say it's irrelevant.The outcome of his work can be tested and whether we accept his results or not IS evidence based. My original point is that we can't accept a claim without evidence. Einstein could have been a nutter rather than a genius who's theory was equivalent to our sponge on a stick man in another thread - he has to be able to prove his theory to others using evidence before it can be accepted. Again so what? I assume that there's enough evidence for the ideas for them to get funding to do the research but that again is irrelevant. For anyone to finally accept the outcome of their work, they will need to provide enough evidence - in whatever form - to convince others with equivalent knowledge that it's true.

It's not my position that it is necessary to know whether an individual pursuing an interest is behaving rationally or otherwise. (Although I would contend that Einstein was, whilst Sponge on Stick man wasn't.)My point is that when the outcome of those pursuits is a statement about our world, before we can accept it, it must have sufficient evidence to support it. So do I. But so what? It's not my contention that the pursuit of knowledge is always rational. It would be irrational of me to accept that statement without evidence.
My position is that if there was no rational basis for the enquiry into string theory, there would be no funding for it. Moreover, a cursory glance at the 'theory' throws up many reasons why it's a reasonable thing to consider given the evidence, and may indeed have testable outcomes - albeit difficult/contentious. String theory - WikipediaI am not qualified to comment any further on this - I simply do not have the knowledge to contribute and must rely on those that have.

Then do put me right. Give me an example of a miracle that is worthy or capable of rational investigation.

The evidence is in the Wiki. I can do no more for you than that.But - once again - it's not my position that the pursuit of knowledge about our world needs to be rational (although in the case of String Theory, it clearly is); my position is that any claims made about our world must be evidence based in order for us to rationally accept them.So if String Theory ever produces anything, those that know about these things will demand evidence and eventually proof. If it can not mach that standard, it will not be accepted as fact - it will remain a hypothesis.
(It's clearly not a theory at the moment - that's just loose language.)

No. You need to read my next sentence."I'm sure this begs the question. Maybe someone who has properly studied this can take the argument further?"It's my BELIEF that miracles do NOT exist. My belief can be changed by the facts. That would require a miracle to be proven. Again No. By definition, SN must defy natural laws. It's my BELIEF that miracles do NOT exist. My belief can be changed by the facts. That would require a miracle to be proven.

I'm happy with any normal definition. Try this one:miracle |ˈmirikəl|
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency: the miracle of rising from the grave. Recovery from illness is not miraculous - it's a known and largely understood biological process. Had you been dead and buried for a month and THEN healed yourself, I'd be more interested.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I doubt this will help, because I still have no idea what you're trying to get at but:As a general principle, anybody doing research into the nature of our world (which I assumed was what we were talking about and which I also assume includes Einstein and String Theory) - will be using rational, evidence based approaches. If they aren't then they can never convince another scientist of their results.(And this last is why I don't need to understand either String Theory or Einstein's methods myself to be able to say that they are rational - because they are supported by the scientific community as legitimate for their purposes)On the other hand our man with the sponge on a stick, was not using any kind of rational process - even though, by a loose definition, he could conceivably be said to be searching for knowledge.But I really don't care about the pursuit of the knowledge, it doesn't matter a damn whether Einstein was doing what Sponge on Stick man is doing or whether String Theory physicists are secretly using crystal balls to get their answers. It's the answers themselves that matter.If Einstein had said that E=MC^2 arrived as a message from god, we'd demand evidence of it's truth before we accepted it. Of course that evidence would, in the main, be in the form of his methodology - in Dr A's words, he would be required to show his workings.If you want to move this forward, you're going to have to say why you think Einsteins methods and beliefs matter to whether we can accept claims without sufficient evidence.

No.