|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
You:[Ringo] "Everything is unprecedented until it happens." Tom Hanks: "Everything is unprecedented until it happens for the first time."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. A precedent by definition must be the first occurrence that we know about. Conventionally, a phrase like, "until it happens", would also imply the first occurrence of something. After reading both of your statements about this and going back to the threads, I am still puzzled at what you think is the difference between your version and Ringo's. As I see it, Hanks version is just a bit redundant, but that is not what you see. Could you clarify the distinction you are making? ABE: Actually, I think I see what you are doing. You: "Everything is unprecedented until it happens." By interpreting "it" so narrowly that the pronoun only applies to the current specific instance instead of the class of instances of the same thing, you can manage to make Ringo's statement appear to be ridiculous and to have a meaning he could not possibly have intended. One might say, "pigs flying" is unprecedented until it happens. And we would all know exactly what that was intended to mean. Few folks would take the sentence to mean that even if we saw a pig fly today, a different pig flying tomorrow would be unprecedented. Yet that appears to be the meaning you are attributing to Ringo's statement. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I understand and accept your argument in that I think it one valid way of looking at it, but I look at it another way. The term "everything" is in essence a blank in which anything can be filled in. What we have in effect is these two fill-in-the-blank statements:
I don't believe there's nothing that could be plugged into that blank that could render those two statements non-synonymous. Probably the key difference in our views is that you consider "for the first time" redundant. It doesn't feel redundant to me. But this is a familiar situation for me, to feel uncomfortable with a degree of precision others feel perfectly comfortable with. I'm often surprised at the inaccuracy and imprecision of some legal documents - I'm thinking of certain ones I've had experience with, for employee termination (I took an early retirement package, which falls into the category of employee termination, an imprecision I also disagree with) and real estate closings. The response to my concerns have taken a variety of lines that rarely alleviated them:
One of the weirdest conversations I ever had with a lawyer concerned dates for signing documents. The process we agreed to required that we sign document A before signing document B, but document A wasn't going to be made available until after document B was signed. I argued up and down with the lawyer that this was contradictory and needed to be resolved, and he argued equally vehemently that there was no contradiction and he wasn't changing anything (it would have required making the same change for around 80 other people also taking early retirement, so he had good motivation for taking an irrational position). In the end it still worked. We signed the documents in the inverse order specified by the process document we signed, and it didn't seem to matter at all. But when I read one of those documents from my bank or credit card company or investment firm, they read like they're locked up tight with every possible contingency anticipated and appropriate processes described. I think the best lawyers must work for financial companies while the average lawyers do real estate closings or are attached to personnel departments or work for state and local government. Sorry, long way around to say that the way my mind works leads me to seek precision. Maybe sometimes I seek too much precision, but like I said, that's the way my mind works, so it doesn't seem that way to me. That is, I understand I could be wrong, but I don't think so myself. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Of course there is. When something unprecedented does happen, it has to be the first time. You don't have to specify "for the first time" any more than you have to specify losing your virginity for the first time.
Perhaps in your mind there's an implicit "for the first time" on the end of what you said. Percy writes:
Your reasoning is circular. You say there was a violation of the conservation of mass and then you say there must have been a change in mass because there was a violation.
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. Percy writes:
Why wouldn't they just call it a flying bridge? The guy with big feet is called Bigfoot, the monster in Loch Ness is called the Loch Ness Monster, flying objects that have not been identified are called Unidentified Flying Objects, etc. That's clear communication. Why would scientists use a term that doesn't clearly describe the phenomenon and clearly distinguish it from other phenomena?
I think they'd undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena.... Percy writes:
Since Stile didn't respond to me, I have no reason to think he disagrees with me. ... not since Stile jumped in, none of whom's posts you responded to.... Edited by ringo, : "reading" --> "reasoning"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: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Of course there is. When something unprecedented does happen, it has to be the first time. You don't have to specify "for the first time" any more than you have to specify losing your virginity for the first time. We'll just have to disagree.
Your reading is circular. You say there was a violation of the conservation of mass and then you say there must have been a change in mass because there was a violation. You're confused.
Percy writes:
Why wouldn't they just call it a flying bridge? The guy with big feet is called Bigfoot, the monster in Loch Ness is called the Loch Ness Monster, flying objects that have not been identified are called Unidentified Flying Objects, etc. That's clear communication. Why would scientists use a term that doesn't clearly describe the phenomenon and clearly distinguish it from other phenomena? I think they'd undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena.... In case you didn't notice, saying that they'd "undoubtedly adopt a term to refer to the new phenomena" isn't specific about what term they'd adopt, and how many times now have I said that what term they adopt isn't important, that it's the nature of the phenomena that's important?
Since Stile didn't respond to me, I have no reason to think he disagrees with me. Wrong again. In Message 433 Stile wrote:
Stile in Message 433 writes: Some people using "magic-ish" words would even be scientists, I'm sure.But scientists would always know (on some level) that names of things are of secondary-importance. And in Message 434 Stile wrote:
Stile in Message 434 writes: I would say, that if you define miracle to be "going against known standards of science" (or something like that) then, yes, it would be a miracle absolutely. I think you might want to reexamine your logic that Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
So be less confusing. What is it that you're actually trying to disagree with?
You're confused. Percy writes:
My logic stands. If Stile disagrees with me, he's perfectly capable of saying so. I think you might want to reexamine your logic that Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Stile? It seems that you are being asked to weigh in. Is Ringo patently logical or does there need to be a consensus on his part?
Stile writes: Flying Bridges are mos def not common....in fact unprecedented, though once it was observed it would have precedence. If science never makes progress to explain parts (or all) of it... then those parts (or all) of it could continue to be called a miracle by any (reasonable) person. Then we get into differentiating between a "miracle" being something-science-cannot-explain-how-it's-going-against-known-standards vs. something-that-is-common-in-the-world.Which would, at that point, just be a semantics game on how you want to define "miracle."(...)I doubt the scientific terminology would use the word "miracle" or "magic" or anything like that. Critics argue that the supposed miracles in the Bible allegedly happened at a time when human understanding and superstition were more prevalent than today. We have since observed David Blaine and Benny Hinn and are as a species more analytical and skeptical than were the observers back then. We still don't know for sure that if water were turned into wine today that it could be tested....no scientist barges into Catholic Mass and requests samples of the transubstitution... If a wedding had verifiable barrels of water become wine, however... and the wine could be tested, the event would be unprecedented. All of the many unobservable untestable masses throughout History wouldn't count towards precedence... Same with flying bridges. Many may have been reported throughout History, but only our hypothetical one would have been examined by science. As it stands now...the event is unprecedented. (hypothetically) and I think this is Percys basic point---for the moment, the event is unique and special. It is not simply thrown into a generic unexplained for now file that science keeps. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Phat writes: Stile? It seems that you are being asked to weigh in. Is Ringo patently logical or does there need to be a consensus on his part? Meh. I've said my part.The conversation no longer holds my interest. (Can you imagine me wearing a frilly hat and looking down at others while saying this? Because that's what I'm doing) Same with Faith in her another-attempt-at-defending-the-flood tomfoolery.She mentioned my earlier attempt to walk her through a discussion showing how something could become a fossil and get buried deep in the ground while a landscape thrived at the surface. I think my (non-expert) explanation confused her on what I was attempting to explain vs. what she was taking away from it. Or perhaps just the amount of time that's past has clouded her memory of what the exchange was actually about. Or likely a bit of both. But again: Meh. I've said my part.The conversation no longer holds my interest. I am a selfish, selfish man on this site. And I like to engage in conversations when I am interested in the subject or want to learn something for me or another selfish-for-me reason. Right now, nothing is tickling my fancy. So, I'll remain aloof. Twirling my mustache, becoming more and more crazy as I remain in my solitude, lording over those peasants below. Ow.I think my tongue poked a hole in my cheek...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
So be less confusing. What is it that you're actually trying to disagree with? You're confused. I disagree with your position that science would not consider the possibility of phenomena that inexplicably violate known physical laws when that's what the evidence indicates.
Percy writes:
My logic stands. I think you might want to reexamine your logic that Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you. You stand logic on its head. By no logic can anyone's lack of response indicate lack of disagreement.
If Stile disagrees with me, he's perfectly capable of saying so. I quoted him making statements that disagree with you. Here they are again. In Message 433 Stile wrote:
Stile in Message 433 writes: Some people using "magic-ish" words would even be scientists, I'm sure.But scientists would always know (on some level) that names of things are of secondary-importance. And in Message 434 Stile wrote:
Stile in Message 434 writes: I would say, that if you define miracle to be "going against known standards of science" (or something like that) then, yes, it would be a miracle absolutely. Your "logic" of Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you is illogical. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
My position is that science wouldn't treat those phenomena any differently than they treat any other phenomena. You seem to agree with that.
I disagree with your position that science would not consider the possibility of phenomena that inexplicably violate known physical laws when that's what the evidence indicates. Percy writes:
Nor does silence indicate disagreement. I, for one, don't often post, "Good answer! Good answer!" to posts I agree with. Neither do you, as far as I can tell. I have no reason to think that Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me.
By no logic can anyone's lack of response indicate lack of disagreement. Percy writes:
Nothing you quoted disagrees with me. You me be seeing differences that aren't there again, such as in the discussion of "unprecedented".
I quoted him making statements that disagree with you. Stile writes:
Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. I have said repeatedly that miracles have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to do with miracles. I define a miracle as an event that is attributed to unknown causes by some people - but not by others who know what the standards of science are. That definition is in line with dictionaries, Wikipedia, etc. An example is the Miracle of the Sun, which is a genuine miracle to religious minds but simply an unexplained phenomenon to scientific minds.
I would say, that if you define miracle to be "going against known standards of science" (or something like that) then, yes, it would be a miracle absolutely. Percy writes:
Here's another example of the same logic: In a restaurant, I ask a group of people, "Does anybody mind if I take this chair?" Nobody responds. According to my logic, nobody minds, so I take the chair. That logic works pretty well in real life. Your "logic" of Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you is illogical.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: |
Phat writes:
Why not? It is not simply thrown into a generic unexplained for now file that science keeps.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: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
My position is that science wouldn't treat those phenomena any differently than they treat any other phenomena. You seem to agree with that. I disagree with your position that science would not consider the possibility of phenomena that inexplicably violate known physical laws when that's what the evidence indicates. If by this you mean that they would follow the evidence where it leads, then sure, we agree.
Percy writes:
Nor does silence indicate disagreement. By no logic can anyone's lack of response indicate lack of disagreement. Yes, of course that's true, it's just that you're assuming the only possibility is that "silence == lack of disagreement." There are others. He may not have been interested in your particular line of argument. He may not find you worth discussing with. He may not have had time.
I have no reason to think that Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me. But you have no reason to think it doesn't, either.
Percy writes:
Nothing you quoted disagrees with me. You me be seeing differences that aren't there again, such as in the discussion of "unprecedented".
I quoted him making statements that disagree with you. Stile writes:
Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. I would say, that if you define miracle to be "going against known standards of science" (or something like that) then, yes, it would be a miracle absolutely. So you're saying that because Stile said "if" that means he doesn't disagree with you. In that case, since I'm also using the word "if" (we're engaging in a "what if") that means you and I don't disagree, either. Interesting logic.
I have said repeatedly that miracles have nothing to do with science and science has nothing to do with miracles. But what if (note the word "if") science were to encounter a miracle? Since I used the word "if" it can't be a possibility we disagree about.
I define a miracle as an event that is attributed to unknown causes by some people - but not by others who know what the standards of science are. But what if (note the word "if") instead of using your definition we were to use the one I suggested. Since I used the word "if" it can't be something we disagree about.
That definition is in line with dictionaries, Wikipedia, etc. An example is the Miracle of the Sun, which is a genuine miracle to religious minds but simply an unexplained phenomenon to scientific minds. The Miracle of the Sun is not a phenomenon at all to scientific minds.
Percy writes:
Here's another example of the same logic: In a restaurant, I ask a group of people, "Does anybody mind if I take this chair?" Nobody responds. According to my logic, nobody minds, so I take the chair. That logic works pretty well in real life. Your "logic" of Stile not responding to you => he doesn't disagree with you is illogical. How is you addressing a question to a group of people an accurate analogy to you not addressing Stile at all? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
It means I don't disagree with him.
So you're saying that because Stile said "if" that means he doesn't disagree with you. If Fred Flintstone was real, Stile might think he'd be a good neighbour. I don't disagree.
Percy writes:
I can agree with some ifs and disagree with others. I disagree with your conclusion that the scientists would react differently to your scenario than to other phenomena. I agree with your waffling "something else" conclusion that they would react the same. If you can't make up your mind, it's easier to agree with one of your opinions.
In that case, since I'm also using the word "if" (we're engaging in a "what if") that means you and I don't disagree, either. Percy writes:
Science is no more likely to encounter a miracle than it is to encounter Fred Flintstone. A miracle is the same as a cartoon character as far as science is concerned.
But what if (note the word "if") science were to encounter a miracle? Percy writes:
Of course it is. Why else would they try to explain it?
The Miracle of the Sun is not a phenomenon at all to scientific minds. Percy writes:
How is it not? If there are no objections, what difference does it make how many people don't object? How is you addressing a question to a group of people an accurate analogy to you not addressing Stile at all?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: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
It means I don't disagree with him. So you're saying that because Stile said "if" that means he doesn't disagree with you. Well, this makes no sense. How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"? And why are you objecting to me saying, "he doesn't disagree with you", since that's exactly how you've been expressing it, for instance in your Message 573, "...he disagrees with me," and Message 575, "If Stile disagrees with me,...", and Message 579, "...Stile's silence indicates disagreement with me." Why are you suddenly insisting on flipping it to, "I don't disagree with him"? And again, if they're meaningfully different, how? Your arguments often seem equivalent to, "Let's throw random stuff up against the wall and see what sticks."
If Fred Flintstone was real, Stile might think he'd be a good neighbour. I don't disagree. Can you explain how this example clarifies your position?
Percy writes:
I can agree with some ifs and disagree with others. In that case, since I'm also using the word "if" (we're engaging in a "what if") that means you and I don't disagree, either. But in Message 579 you explicitly stated that you didn't share Stile's definition of miracle, but because of the word "if" it meant there was no disagreement. Here you are saying it:
ringo in Message 579 writes: You may be seeing differences that aren't there again, such as in the discussion of "unprecedented".
Stile writes:
Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. I would say, that if you define miracle to be "going against known standards of science" (or something like that) then, yes, it would be a miracle absolutely. So repeating your position back to you, some "ifs" you agree with, some you don't. Stile's definition of miracle is an "if" you disagree with, but you don't disagree because he used the word "if". I guess you're one of those people who can hold two opposing opinions at the same time. Back to the current message:
I disagree with your conclusion that the scientists would react differently to your scenario than to other phenomena. "React differently" only in the sense that following the evidence where it leads might end up in places unexpected by science, such as that the phenomena did indeed inexplicably violate known physical laws.
I agree with your waffling "something else" conclusion that they would react the same. If you can't make up your mind, it's easier to agree with one of your opinions. I've said the same thing from the beginning, expressing an interest in exploring how science would react when faced with evidence of phenomena inexplicably violating known physical laws. See the end of Message 491. I do think scientists would be willing to accept different conclusions for phenomena that in effect seem to suspend known physical laws, rather than those that just seem mildly anomalous like the examples mentioned earlier of the spectrum of black body radiation and the precession in the orbit of Mercury. AbE: I originally intended to reply to the last few comments, replying to them now:
Percy writes:
Science is no more likely to encounter a miracle than it is to encounter Fred Flintstone. A miracle is the same as a cartoon character as far as science is concerned. But what if (note the word "if") science were to encounter a miracle? You earlier claimed in Message 569 that, "I've been discussing your so-called 'thought experiment' at length," but you really haven't. This is just another expression of your unwillingness to consider the "what if". You haven't been discussing the thought experiment but have instead been arguing that it could never happen.
Percy writes:
Of course it is. Why else would they try to explain it? The Miracle of the Sun is not a phenomenon at all to scientific minds. Explain it scientifically, you mean? Where? What journal? Do you have a citation? [AbE2]I looked it up in Google Scholar and did find some citations, but they're just speculation about what might have happened, not examination of scientific evidence from the miracle, which doesn't exist, e.g.: Modelling of the Phenomenon Known as the Miracle of the Sun as the Reflection of Light from Ice Crystals Oscillating Synchronously[/AbE2] Percy writes:
How is it not? If there are no objections, what difference does it make how many people don't object? How is you addressing a question to a group of people an accurate analogy to you not addressing Stile at all? Good non sequitur response. Rephrasing in case you didn't understand, how is asking a question an accurate analogy to where you ask no question? --Percy Edited by Percy, : AbE. Edited by Percy, : AbE2.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You claimed that your quotes show him disagreeing with me. I don't think they do. How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"? I can only surmise from Stile's posts whether or not he disagrees with me. I don't see where he does. I can be pretty sure whether or not I disagree with him. I don't. Sometimes I express it one way, sometimes the other. The only place they are different is in your imagination.
Percy writes:
If X is true, then Y. I can't disagree with that. ringo writes:
Can you explain how this example clarifies your position? If Fred Flintstone was real, Stile might think he'd be a good neighbour. I don't disagree. But if X is patently false, then I can disagree that Y necessarily follows. Fred Flintstone is not real, so I can disagree that he would make a good neighbor. Similarly, if you define a miracle as a kind of pie, I can disagree with conclusions based on that definition. Or I can disagree with the definition.
Percy writes:
Again, I can't disagree with the conclusion he draws from his premise. I can, however, disagree with his premise.
Stile's definition of miracle is an "if" you disagree with, but you don't disagree because he used the word "if". Percy writes:
When you put an "if" in front of something, it isn't an opinion.
I guess you're one of those people who can hold two opposing opinions at the same time. Percy writes:
I haven't said any such thing. I've said that if your fairy tale did come true, scientists wouldn't treat it any differently than they would treat the discovery of a new species of beetle.
You haven't been discussing the thought experiment but have instead been arguing that it could never happen. Percy writes:
The lack of an objection is an accurate analogy to the lack of an objection. Whether it was phrased as a question or asked in Swahili is irrelevant. If nobody objected when I took the chair, then nobody objected. Rephrasing in case you didn't understand, how is asking a question an accurate analogy to where you ask no question? My posts here are not super-top-secret so Stile can freely read them. I do not have the power to repress my fellow-members' posts so Stile can freely respond to them. If he has any objections, he can express them. If he expresses no objection, I have no reason to think he objects.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: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
You claimed that your quotes show him disagreeing with me. I don't think they do. How is "he doesn't disagree with me" different from "I don't disagree with him"? You ignored the question about how "he doesn't disagree with me" differs from "I don't disagree with him".
I can only surmise from Stile's posts whether or not he disagrees with me. I don't see where he does. I can be pretty sure whether or not I disagree with him. I don't. Sometimes I express it one way, sometimes the other. The only place they are different is in your imagination. You just blasted right through waffle words and weasel words and into the realm of pure fabrication. Here you are in your Message 579 stating that you disagree with Stile over his definition of miracle:
ringo in Message 579 writes: Stile writes:
Note the word "if". Of course, I do not define miracle that way. I would say, that if you define miracle to be "going against known standards of science" (or something like that) then, yes, it would be a miracle absolutely. Can there be anything more problematic to discussion than disagreement over the definition of terms fundamental to the topic?
Percy writes:
Again, I can't disagree with the conclusion he draws from his premise. I can, however, disagree with his premise. Stile's definition of miracle is an "if" you disagree with, but you don't disagree because he used the word "if". Here's where what you say doesn't add up:
Stile you don't disagree with, me you do. Explain.
Percy writes:
When you put an "if" in front of something, it isn't an opinion. I guess you're one of those people who can hold two opposing opinions at the same time. "If" is in front of both Stile's and my opinions. I'm not agreeing with your reasoning based on use of the word "if", I'm just noting the inconsistency and contradictions in how you're applying the logic you've described.
Percy writes:
I haven't said any such thing. You haven't been discussing the thought experiment but have instead been arguing that it could never happen. What do you mean you haven't said any such thing? I just quoted you saying such a thing when I quoted from your Message 583, and here it is:
ringo in Message 583 writes: Science is no more likely to encounter a miracle than it is to encounter Fred Flintstone. A miracle is the same as a cartoon character as far as science is concerned. You're not discussing the thought experiment - you're dismissing it. And here you are dismissing it again:
I've said that if your fairy tale did come true,... Comparing it to Fred Flintstone and a fairy tale is not discussion of something you're giving sincere consideration - it's dismissal.
...scientists wouldn't treat it any differently than they would treat the discovery of a new species of beetle. The discovery of a new species of beetle wouldn't involve a violation of known physical laws, so no, they would not treat the discovery like just a new species of beetle. The article about the new species of beetle would be buried in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, while papers about the discovery of violations of known physical laws would appear in journals like Science and Nature, and announcements of the discovery would appear on the front pages of every major newspaper around the world.
Percy writes:
The lack of an objection is an accurate analogy to the lack of an objection. Whether it was phrased as a question or asked in Swahili is irrelevant. If nobody objected when I took the chair, then nobody objected. Rephrasing in case you didn't understand, how is asking a question an accurate analogy to where you ask no question? Whether it was asked in Swahili is irrelevant? How can there be an objection to a request no one understood? Your arguments, as is common, make no sense.
My posts here are not super-top-secret so Stile can freely read them. I do not have the power to repress my fellow-members' posts so Stile can freely respond to them. If he has any objections, he can express them. If he expresses no objection, I have no reason to think he objects. You don't know if Stile has even read any of your posts. You don't know that if he did read your posts whether he'd consider you worth responding to. The reality is that you have no reason to believe either way whether he objects. But that doesn't matter. We can read what you said, and we can read what Stile said. Obviously you disagree with his premise, but don't see that as a problem. Just as obviously you disagree with my premise which is very similar to Stile's, but do see that as a problem. It makes sense only in Ringo-land. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024