|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AlexCaledin Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 64 From: Samara, Russia Joined: |
What on earth can ever be unexplainable? Cosmic rays, all the known and unknown particles, are coming from the whole observable universe. They can, in principle, synthesize everything and move everything and stop the sun in the sky. It's hardly more improbable than that "evolution".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
AlexCaledin writes: Cosmic rays, all the known and unknown particles, are coming from the whole observable universe. They can, in principle, synthesize everything and move everything and stop the sun in the sky. And don't forget that they can grant immortality and spin straw into gold. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
We've been through this before. A scientist doesn't use religious terms when doing science. Objectivity requires leaving subjective beliefs at the lab door.
So the term is one that believers use, then? What if the scientist happened to be a believer? Phat writes:
We're not talking about personal here. They may keep looking, but they most certainly would use the term miracle...personally if not professionally.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 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Exactly. So why would they use one with such obvious religious baggage?
Scientists could invent whatever term they liked for phenomena that flagrantly violate known physical laws. Percy writes:
But we already know how science would react. The Miracle of the Sun was an actual scientifically studyable miracle. Science reacted the same way as it always does, even if the available evidence didn't lead to a definitive explanation.
We're attempting to discuss how science would react in trying to "grasp" what happened were an actual scientifically studyable miracle to occur. Percy writes:
If it seems to violate what we think we know, we need to adjust what we think we know.
Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement? Percy writes:
So, what if it wasn't local? What if every bridge in the world conspired to flout the laws of physics? What if the Forth Bridge soared over to span the Volga? What if the Bridge of Sighs took a romatic turn and went up to Paris to gaze longingly at Notre Dame? What if the George Washington Bridge strolled over to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, to visit its buddy, Governor Bigfoot? What if the Golden Gate Bridge landed on the moon piloted by three pigs, who proceeded to enjoy a wallow in the dust? What's different in the proposed "what ifs" is the flagrancy of the violations of known physical laws and the fact that the violations are local to where the miracle occurred and do not affect the behavior of known physical laws anywhere else. How would a spate of bridge aviation be less flagrant than your local scenario?
Percy writes:
Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food.
For example, Tangle's "what if" about a missing limb suddenly reappearing violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy, and probably entropy, too.... Percy writes:
I expected you to follow the forum rules: "Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references."
Of course it's a bare link, that's what you asked for. You said, "Feel free to cite scientific papers that correct me," so that's what I did, cited a scientific paper that corrects you. What did you expect? Percy writes:
Why would science react to a religious definition?
We're considering how science would react if faced with phenomena fitting the definition of miracle. Percy writes:
UFOs are called Unidentified, not Unidentifiable. ... after years of analysis the conclusion is reached that the event was unexplainable by known natural and scientific laws....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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Exactly. So why would they use one with such obvious religious baggage? Scientists could invent whatever term they liked for phenomena that flagrantly violate known physical laws. How do you know scientists would even care about so-called "religious baggage"? For Tangle's scenario involving a shaman, how does one even avoid the "religious baggage"? Why do you even care what term they use? It's the concept that's important, and by the way, the word "miracle" already has the definition for that concept. But you don't like the word miracle, and even though I find your arguments spurious I've been trying to accommodate you.
Percy writes:
But we already know how science would react. We're attempting to discuss how science would react in trying to "grasp" what happened were an actual scientifically studyable miracle to occur. No we don't.
The Miracle of the Sun was an actual scientifically studyable miracle. That wasn't scientifically studied.
Science reacted the same way as it always does, even if the available evidence didn't lead to a definitive explanation. What evidence? There was no scientific evidence.
Percy writes:
If it seems to violate what we think we know, we need to adjust what we think we know. Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement? Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift?
Percy writes:
So, what if it wasn't local? What if every bridge in the world conspired to flout the laws of physics? What if the Forth Bridge soared over to span the Volga? What if the Bridge of Sighs took a romantic turn and went up to Paris to gaze longingly at Notre Dame? What if the George Washington Bridge strolled over to Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, to visit its buddy, Governor Bigfoot? What if the Golden Gate Bridge landed on the moon piloted by three pigs, who proceeded to enjoy a wallow in the dust? What's different in the proposed "what ifs" is the flagrancy of the violations of known physical laws and the fact that the violations are local to where the miracle occurred and do not affect the behavior of known physical laws anywhere else. How would a spate of bridge aviation be less flagrant than your local scenario? You're describing multiple simultaneous miracles that are each local. The laws of physics continue to operate normally throughout the rest of space-time.
Percy writes:
Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food. For example, Tangle's "what if" about a missing limb suddenly reappearing violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy, and probably entropy, too.... Ringo refuses to take in information about "what ifs".
Percy writes:
I expected you to follow the forum rules: "Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references." Of course it's a bare link, that's what you asked for. You said, "Feel free to cite scientific papers that correct me," so that's what I did, cited a scientific paper that corrects you. What did you expect? Now you're just being purposefully thick again. You expressed skepticism about the existence of papers about violations of natural laws, saying I should feel free to cite scientific papers correctly you, so of course providing a link to one such paper was an effective and also the most appropriate counter-argument.
Percy writes:
Why would science react to a religious definition? We're considering how science would react if faced with phenomena fitting the definition of miracle. They're reacting to phenomena, not a definition. "Miracle" just happens to be the word most closely matching the phenomena.
Percy writes:
UFOs are called Unidentified, not Unidentifiable. ... after years of analysis the conclusion is reached that the event was unexplainable by known natural and scientific laws.... How many times now would you guess I've explained that in a scientific context where tentativity reigns that "unexplainable" doesn't mean "unexplainable forever"? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Objectivity requires leaving religious baggage at the door. It's standard practice.
How do you know scientists would even care about so-called "religious baggage"? Percy writes:
By not talking about miracles or gods.
For Tangle's scenario involving a shaman, how does one even avoid the "religious baggage"? Percy writes:
It isn't what I care about. It's about the terms they actually use. I've given you ample opportunity to cite examples of scientists using the terminology you advocate. So far, it appears I'm right that they don't. If you want to know why they care, ask them.
Why do you even care what term they use? Percy writes:
It was, to the extent that was possible, given the evidence available.
ringo writes:
That wasn't scientifically studied. The Miracle of the Sun was an actual scientifically studyable miracle. Percy writes:
The anecdotal evidence was similar to the anecdotal evidence in UFO investigations. Scientists consider UFOs to be unidentified, not unidentifiable.
What evidence? There was no scientific evidence. Percy writes:
How do you distinguish between a refinement and a shift beforehand?
Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift? Percy writes:
How do you know that? Why is it even important whether or not the effects are localized?
You're describing multiple simultaneous miracles that are each local. The laws of physics continue to operate normally throughout the rest of space-time. Percy writes:
Percy avoids the issue (where he is demonstrably wrong).
ringo writes:
Ringo refuses to take in information about "what ifs". Percy writes:
Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food. For example, Tangle's "what if" about a missing limb suddenly reappearing violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy, and probably entropy, too.... Percy writes:
It's a violation of the forum rules. If your citation did support your claim, you would still have to show how it supported your claim.
You expressed skepticism about the existence of papers about violations of natural laws, saying I should feel free to cite scientific papers correctly you, so of course providing a link to one such paper was an effective and also the most appropriate counter-argument. Percy writes:
Only by using your specially-tailored definition.
"Miracle" just happens to be the word most closely matching the phenomena. Percy writes:
You've made the claim before and it's still wrong. In actual fact, scientists use the term "unidentified" instead of "unidentifiable" because "unidentifiable" would tend to connote forever. It's a clearer, hence better, term. How many times now would you guess I've explained that in a scientific context where tentativity reigns that "unexplainable" doesn't mean "unexplainable forever"?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Objectivity requires leaving religious baggage at the door. It's standard practice. How do you know scientists would even care about so-called "religious baggage"? This has different answers depending upon which scenario we're considering, but one thing the answers have in common is, no, it's not standard practice - it's only the way things have worked out so far. Following the evidence where it leads is standard practice. For the bridge scenario, how do you know how much scientists would care about the "religious baggage" of the term miracle when choosing a term for the phenomena and giving it a scientific definition that has no "religious baggage." That's a rhetorical question - you can't know the answer. For the shaman scenario, the term miracle fits pretty well, and the scientists might find the "religious baggage" of the term miracle to be an advantage rather than a deficit.
Percy writes:
By not talking about miracles or gods. For Tangle's scenario involving a shaman, how does one even avoid the "religious baggage"? Given that a shaman performed an obvious miracle, how does your answer even make sense? There's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as miracles or gods. What *is* in science is acceptance of what the evidence says.
Percy writes:
It isn't what I care about. It's about the terms they actually use. I've given you ample opportunity to cite examples of scientists using the terminology you advocate. So far, it appears I'm right that they don't. If you want to know why they care, ask them. Why do you even care what term they use? You're playing dumb again. The whole point of the "what ifs" was to present science with scientific evidence of a type of phenomena never before observed. We've discussed my characterization of unprecedented, why are you forgetting it now?
Percy writes:
It was, to the extent that was possible, given the evidence available. ringo writes:
That wasn't scientifically studied. The Miracle of the Sun was an actual scientifically studyable miracle. Well now you're just making stuff up. There was no scientific evidence of the Miracle of the Sun, and no scientific study was performed.
Percy writes:
The anecdotal evidence was similar to the anecdotal evidence in UFO investigations. Scientists consider UFOs to be unidentified, not unidentifiable. What evidence? There was no scientific evidence. What does anecdotal evidence have to do with scientific evidence? The proposed "what ifs" include the gathering of scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence.
Percy writes:
How do you distinguish between a refinement and a shift beforehand? Why do you think my "what if" would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift? I'm not sure what you mean by "beforehand," so taking a guess the question becomes why, before we know the results of the scientific analysis of the bridge "what if", do you think it would only require a paradigm refinement and not a paradigm shift? What is it about that scenario that leads you to that conclusion?
Percy writes:
How do you know that? Why is it even important whether or not the effects are localized? You're describing multiple simultaneous miracles that are each local. The laws of physics continue to operate normally throughout the rest of space-time. Depends upon the scenario. For the bridge scenario, if suspension of the laws of physics were not local but extended everywhere then they would be observed everywhere, except of course we wouldn't be around to observe this since we'd be dead. The shaman scenario suspends the laws of conservation of matter, energy and entropy, which also seems pretty deadly if it weren't local and focused to the new limb.
Percy writes:
Percy avoids the issue (where he is demonstrably wrong). ringo writes:
Ringo refuses to take in information about "what ifs". Percy writes:
Nope. Humans take in matter and energy in the form of food. For example, Tangle's "what if" about a missing limb suddenly reappearing violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy, and probably entropy, too.... Making a spurious claim doesn't change the fact that you gave a non-answer and failed to consider the provided information.
Percy writes:
It's a violation of the forum rules. If your citation did support your claim, you would still have to show how it supported your claim. You expressed skepticism about the existence of papers about violations of natural laws, saying I should feel free to cite scientific papers correctly you, so of course providing a link to one such paper was an effective and also the most appropriate counter-argument. I guess you're determined to plumb the depths of absurdity. If you want to make Forum Guidelines violation claims take them to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread. You asked for citations to papers about a violation of known physical laws, I gave you one. You asked for a quote from the paper about the violation, I provided it.
Percy writes:
Only by using your specially-tailored definition. "Miracle" just happens to be the word most closely matching the phenomena. You're repeating yourself again. If you were honest you would say, "Only by using your specially-tailored definition. Now I know you've argued that it's a common practice of science to adopt an existing term and provide a scientific definition, but...", and then continue on to explain how my position is wrong.
Percy writes:
You've made the claim before and it's still wrong. In actual fact, scientists use the term "unidentified" instead of "unidentifiable" because "unidentifiable" would tend to connote forever. It's a clearer, hence better, term. How many times now would you guess I've explained that in a scientific context where tentativity reigns that "unexplainable" doesn't mean "unexplainable forever"? Go to Google Scholar and type in "unidentifiable". You'll get over 90 thousand results. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How would calling it a miracle help them follow the evidence?
For the shaman scenario, the term miracle fits pretty well, and the scientists might find the "religious baggage" of the term miracle to be an advantage rather than a deficit. Percy writes:
And there's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as leprechauns - but scientists still don't label things as leprechauns.
There's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as miracles or gods. Percy writes:
Because it's still nonsense.
We've discussed my characterization of unprecedented, why are you forgetting it now?quote: Percy writes:
There's the same evidence that there is for UFOs and scientists study that evidence all the time. It may not be good evidence but it's still evidence.
There was no scientific evidence of the Miracle of the Sun, and no scientific study was performed. Percy writes:
Your what-ifs have made up evidence. You might as well use Star Wars as evidence of UFOs. Made-up evidence is even worse than anecdotal evidence.
What does anecdotal evidence have to do with scientific evidence? The proposed "what ifs" include the gathering of scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence. Percy writes:
You're making the same mistake as ICANT. The flying-bridge scenario could be caused by islands of anomaly in an ocean of standard physics.
For the bridge scenario, if suspension of the laws of physics were not local but extended everywhere then they would be observed everywhere, except of course we wouldn't be around to observe this since we'd be dead. Percy writes:
I did consider the provided information. I pointed out that you're wrong to assume that a regenerated limb would violate conservation of matter and energy. You'd need to weigh the subject before and after the regeneration to find out whether or not there was any change in mass. No change in mass = no violation.
Making a spurious claim doesn't change the fact that you gave a non-answer and failed to consider the provided information. Percy writes:
I also typed in "unidentified" and got 748 thousand results. Go to Google Scholar and type in "unidentifiable". You'll get over 90 thousand results.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
How would calling it a miracle help them follow the evidence? For the shaman scenario, the term miracle fits pretty well, and the scientists might find the "religious baggage" of the term miracle to be an advantage rather than a deficit. Well, you see, human beings, which is what scientists are, use language to communicate, and it is helpful to have words with clear meanings to refer to things like cars and trees and light and entanglement and so forth. I never said that calling it a miracle would help scientists follow the evidence, that's just something you made up, but certainly clear communication couldn't hurt.
Percy writes:
And there's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as leprechauns - but scientists still don't label things as leprechauns. There's nothing in science that says there's no such thing as miracles or gods. And round and round you go.
Percy writes:
Because it's still nonsense.
We've discussed my characterization of unprecedented, why are you forgetting it now?quote: Nice to see Tom Hanks getting it right where you couldn't.
Percy writes:
There's the same evidence that there is for UFOs and scientists study that evidence all the time. It may not be good evidence but it's still evidence. There was no scientific evidence of the Miracle of the Sun, and no scientific study was performed. If you want to equate the lack of scientific evidence of the two phenomena then I have no objections.
Percy writes:
Your what-ifs have made up evidence. You might as well use Star Wars as evidence of UFOs. Made-up evidence is even worse than anecdotal evidence. What does anecdotal evidence have to do with scientific evidence? The proposed "what ifs" include the gathering of scientific evidence, not anecdotal evidence. Your objections to "what ifs" are nonsense. Why don't you read the Wikipedia article on thought experiments? Quoting just the opening portion:
quote: The type of thought experiment we're engaging in here is described in the In philosophy section:
quote: Moving on:
Percy writes:
You're making the same mistake as ICANT. The flying-bridge scenario could be caused by islands of anomaly in an ocean of standard physics. For the bridge scenario, if suspension of the laws of physics were not local but extended everywhere then they would be observed everywhere, except of course we wouldn't be around to observe this since we'd be dead. Maybe scientists would choose the term "islands of anomaly." The nature of the phenomena remains as described in the "what ifs".
Percy writes:
I did consider the provided information. I pointed out that you're wrong to assume that a regenerated limb would violate conservation of matter and energy. Making a spurious claim doesn't change the fact that you gave a non-answer and failed to consider the provided information. There you go making things up again. Not a "regenerated limb" such as might happen (to some extent) with a lizard or salamander, but a "missing limb suddenly reappearing." Or in Tangle's original words from Message 265, "A human doing it instantly [growing back a limb] on the command of a shaman (or a god) would be miraculous." What is it about the shaman "what if" that leads you to conclude it couldn't be a violation of conservation of matter and energy?
You'd need to weigh the subject before and after the regeneration to find out whether or not there was any change in mass. No change in mass = no violation. Yes, of course. That's why the "what if" includes the presence of a great deal of scientific analysis equipment. Since a limb very definitely has more mass than no limb, I think it's safe to say there would be an increase in mass. Or maybe you want to argue the limb has no mass, though matter with no mass would be a very interesting and novel phenomenon.
Percy writes:
I also typed in "unidentified" and got 748 thousand results. Go to Google Scholar and type in "unidentifiable". You'll get over 90 thousand results. But in your Message 562 that I was replying to, and I quoted it, you said, "In actual fact, scientists use the term "unidentified" instead of "unidentifiable" because "unidentifiable" would tend to connote forever." It turns out that in actual fact scientists use both terms, and you're wrong yet again. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How would calling it a miracle be clear communication? It would say to religious people that God did it.
I never said that calling it a miracle would help scientists follow the evidence, that's just something you made up, but certainly clear communication couldn't hurt. Percy writes:
I said the same thing as he did: Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Since it hadn't happened before it happened, "for the first time" is clearly implied.
Nice to see Tom Hanks getting it right where you couldn't. Percy writes:
How would you tell the difference?
Not a "regenerated limb" such as might happen (to some extent) with a lizard or salamander, but a "missing limb suddenly reappearing." Percy writes:
You don't know whether there was a change in mass until you measure it. A conclusion that the limb had just poofed out of nowhere would be pretty far down the list. The obvious line of inquiry would be to see whether it had formed out of existing matter.
What is it about the shaman "what if" that leads you to conclude it couldn't be a violation of conservation of matter and energy? Percy writes:
But you also have to consider the mass of the person that the limb is attached to. I can grow hair or fingernails without increasing my mass.
Since a limb very definitely has more mass than no limb, I think it's safe to say there would be an increase in mass. Percy writes:
It seems pretty clear that "unidentified" is the preferred term. It turns out that in actual fact scientists use both terms, and you're wrong yet again.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
How would calling it a miracle be clear communication? It would say to religious people that God did it. I never said that calling it a miracle would help scientists follow the evidence, that's just something you made up, but certainly clear communication couldn't hurt. Yes, it very well might, but how many times now have I said that the particular term chosen by the scientific community is unimportant, that it's the nature of the phenomena that counts?
Percy writes:
I said the same thing as he did: Everything is unprecedented until it happens. Since it hadn't happened before it happened, "for the first time" is clearly implied. Nice to see Tom Hanks getting it right where you couldn't. But Tom Hanks didn't say, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens." That's what you said. What Tom Hanks said, assuming you quoted him accurately, is, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time." I pointed that out when you first brought this up. You continue to recycle old rebutted points and be wrong yet again.
Percy writes:
How would you tell the difference? Not a "regenerated limb" such as might happen (to some extent) with a lizard or salamander, but a "missing limb suddenly reappearing." How many times now have I mentioned all the scientific instruments in the room?
Percy writes:
You don't know whether there was a change in mass until you measure it. A conclusion that the limb had just poofed out of nowhere would be pretty far down the list. The obvious line of inquiry would be to see whether it had formed out of existing matter. What is it about the shaman "what if" that leads you to conclude it couldn't be a violation of conservation of matter and energy? Yes, of course. What if the scientific instruments indicated the new limb "had just poofed out of nowhere"?
Percy writes:
But you also have to consider the mass of the person that the limb is attached to. I can grow hair or fingernails without increasing my mass. Since a limb very definitely has more mass than no limb, I think it's safe to say there would be an increase in mass. Yes, of course. Has it been mentioned about the scientific instruments in the room recording and measuring what is happening? What if they find that in an instant the total mass of the person increased by the mass of the new limb?
Percy writes:
It seems pretty clear that "unidentified" is the preferred term. It turns out that in actual fact scientists use both terms, and you're wrong yet again. A lot of things that aren't true seem clear to you, but more to the point, that's not what you said. You said, "In actual fact, scientists use the term 'unidentified' instead of 'unidentifiable' because 'unidentifiable' would tend to connote forever," yet it turns out the scientists use both terms, and so you turn out to be wrong yet again. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You say that in response to a comment about communication. In one sentence you say that clear communication is a good thing and in the next sentence you say it doesn't matter. In one sentence you say that scientists would definitiely call something a "miracle" and in the next sentence you back-pedal and say they might call it "something else". I wish you'd make up your mind.
... how many times now have I said that the particular term chosen by the scientific community is unimportant, that it's the nature of the phenomena that counts? Percy writes:
It's the same thing. It's unprecedented until it stops being unprecedented.
But Tom Hanks didn't say, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens." That's what you said. What Tom Hanks said, assuming you quoted him accurately, is, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time." Percy writes:
You haven't told us what evidence you made up. Did you make up a change in mass reading that I missed?
ringo writes:
How many times now have I mentioned all the scientific instruments in the room? How would you tell the difference? Percy writes:
That reading would not be trusted. The instruments would have to be re-calibrated - but unfortunately, the event can not be repeated, so the reading could not be verified.
What if the scientific instruments indicated the new limb "had just poofed out of nowhere"? Percy writes:
See above. We don't throw all of science out the window because of one anomalous reading.
What if they find that in an instant the total mass of the person increased by the mass of the new limb? Percy writes:
If I said the vast majority of scientists don't say "unidentifiable", would that be clearer to you? You said, "In actual fact, scientists use the term 'unidentified' instead of 'unidentifiable' because 'unidentifiable' would tend to connote forever," yet it turns out the scientists use both terms, and so you turn out to be wrong yet again. Aside from all of the silly nit-picking, I don't know what point you're trying to make. You agree with me that scientists observing your fairy tale would just keep plugging away at trying to solve the mystery. So what is it exactly that you're trying so hard to disagree with?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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
You say that in response to a comment about communication. In one sentence you say that clear communication is a good thing and in the next sentence you say it doesn't matter. ... how many times now have I said that the particular term chosen by the scientific community is unimportant, that it's the nature of the phenomena that counts? No, I said clear communication is important but that the particular term chosen doesn't matter. As long as everyone agrees on the definition then clear communication should be possible. How any particular term is defined in non-scientific contexts doesn't matter as long as scientists agree on the definition they're using.
In one sentence you say that scientists would definitely call something a "miracle" and in the next sentence you back-pedal and say they might call it "something else". I wish you'd make up your mind. I think you've got your own misimpressions in your mind of what I'm saying and are not paying attention to my actual words. Certainly there was nothing like you describe in any recent message from me.
Percy writes:
It's the same thing. It's unprecedented until it stops being unprecedented. But Tom Hanks didn't say, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens." That's what you said. What Tom Hanks said, assuming you quoted him accurately, is, "Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time." Duckspeak.
Percy writes:
You haven't told us what evidence you made up. Did you make up a change in mass reading that I missed? ringo writes:
How many times now have I mentioned all the scientific instruments in the room? How would you tell the difference? I changed nothing. I originally said that a shaman causing a lost limb to suddenly reappear would be a violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. Nothing I've said since has changed that.
Percy writes:
That reading would not be trusted. The instruments would have to be re-calibrated - but unfortunately, the event can not be repeated, so the reading could not be verified. What if the scientific instruments indicated the new limb "had just poofed out of nowhere"? Repetition was part of Tangle's shaman scenario, that he could make lost limbs reappear at will.
Percy writes:
See above. We don't throw all of science out the window because of one anomalous reading. What if they find that in an instant the total mass of the person increased by the mass of the new limb? See above, the event is repeatable.
Percy writes:
If I said the vast majority of scientists don't say "unidentifiable", would that be clearer to you? You said, "In actual fact, scientists use the term 'unidentified' instead of 'unidentifiable' because 'unidentifiable' would tend to connote forever," yet it turns out the scientists use both terms, and so you turn out to be wrong yet again. It would be you changing your claim from one that was obviously wrong to one that is only of questionable accuracy and definitely an exaggeration.
Aside from all of the silly nit-picking, I don't know what point you're trying to make. I'm just asking the question, "How would science react were it to encounter an actual miracle?"
You agree with me that scientists observing your fairy tale would just keep plugging away at trying to solve the mystery. Yes, of course they would.
So what is it exactly that you're trying so hard to disagree with? I disagree with your opinion that there should be no discussion of a thought experiment about how science would react to an actual miracle. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
I think you've got your own misimpressions in your mind of what I'm saying and are not paying attention to my actual words. Certainly there was nothing like you describe in any recent message from me. In one sentence you say that scientists would definitely call something a "miracle" and in the next sentence you back-pedal and say they might call it "something else". I wish you'd make up your mind.quote: quote:What part of working hard to understand the phenomena and develop explanations involves conceding that the phenomena are miraculous? Percy writes:
There you go again, evading the issue. ringp writes:
Duckspeak. It's unprecedented until it stops being unprecedented. Let's think this through:1. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented. 2. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented. 3. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented. 4. It hasn't happened. It's unprecedented. 5. It happens. It's no longer unprecedented. That's what Tom Hanks and I are saying. What difference do you think you see?
Percy writes:
But why did you make that assumption originally?
I originally said that a shaman causing a lost limb to suddenly reappear would be a violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. Percy writes:
I thought miracles were supposed to be events that are not repeatable. If the event can be repeated at will and thus studied repeatedly, it seems even more clear that it is not a "violation" of any law but rather our understanding of the law is missing something.
Repetition was part of Tangle's shaman scenario, that he could make lost limbs reappear at will. Percy writes:
You've answered that question yourself, with the same answer I've given: They'd keep studying the phenomenon, business as usual. Whether they'd pause to call it "something" or whether they'd order Chinese food is not relevant to science.
I'm just asking the question, "How would science react were it to encounter an actual miracle?" Percy writes:
I haven't said any such thing. I've been discussing your so-called "thought experiment" at length. It doesn't seem to be generating much interest among the other members but I would certainly welcome any of them jumping in. I disagree with your opinion that there should be no discussion of a thought experiment about how science would react to an actual miracle.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: What part of working hard to understand the phenomena and develop explanations involves conceding that the phenomena are miraculous? You keep asking the same questions over and over again. The answer hasn't changed. The phenomena fit the definition of miracle (or whichever term scientists agree upon to refer to events that inexplicably violate known physical laws), and scientists would continue studying the phenomena.
That's what Tom Hanks and I are saying. What difference do you think you see? I see the same difference that everyone but you can see:
I agree with what Tom Hanks said and disagree with what you said. Perhaps in your mind there's an implicit "for the first time" on the end of what you said.
You haven't told us what evidence you made up. Did you make up a change in mass reading that I missed? You asked this before and the answer hasn't changed. No, I did not make up a change in the mass reading that you missed. I originally said a shaman causing a lost limb to suddenly reappear would be a violation of the law of conservation of mass and energy. Obviously a violation of the law of conservation of mass means that there was a change in the mass reading. Equally obviously it was an increase in mass since a limb obviously has more mass than no limb.
Percy writes:
I thought miracles were supposed to be events that are not repeatable. Repetition was part of Tangle's shaman scenario, that he could make lost limbs reappear at will. Non-repeatability is not part of any definition of miracle I've seen.
Percy writes:
If the event can be repeated at will and thus studied repeatedly, it seems even more clear that it is not a "violation" of any law but rather our understanding of the law is missing something. Repetition was part of Tangle's shaman scenario, that he could make lost limbs reappear at will. Certainly a possibility.
Percy writes:
You've answered that question yourself, with the same answer I've given: They'd keep studying the phenomenon, business as usual. I'm just asking the question, "How would science react were it to encounter an actual miracle?" Certainly.
Whether they'd pause to call it "something" or whether they'd order Chinese food is not relevant to science. I think they'd undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena, that naming the phenomena would not require a "pause", and that ordering Chinese food would happen.
Percy writes:
I haven't said any such thing. I've been discussing your so-called "thought experiment" at length. I disagree with your opinion that there should be no discussion of a thought experiment about how science would react to an actual miracle. Oh, is that what you call what you're doing. Well, I'm glad to hear you don't object to the discussion.
It doesn't seem to be generating much interest among the other members but I would certainly welcome any of them jumping in. Nope, no interest at present, not since Stile jumped in, none of whom's posts you responded to, lending doubt to your claim that you've been discussing the thought experiment at length. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024