|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
No, saying, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous," sounds like a conclusion to me, not a "clarifying example." Providing clarifying examples is stating conclusions? I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles.
Percy writes:
The evidence can't lead to a miracle any more than it can lead to Narnia. If the evidence leads to a miracle, watcha gonna do? 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:
And yet, in all these years, scientists have not defined miracles. Use of the scientific method does not abolish the need for definitions. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
No. As I have said before, they don't use the word in a scientific context. So evidently ringo proclaims that no scientist ever would dare use that word.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 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How is that not a conclusion? "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla," is a conclusion, isn't it?
I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles. Percy writes:
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?
But what if it did? Percy writes:
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?" You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
How is that not a conclusion? "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla," is a conclusion, isn't it? I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles. No, it's simply correct.
Percy writes:
What if water flowed uphill? But what if it did? 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'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?" You keep raising issues, ignoring the response, then reintroducing them as if they're had never been responses. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
How can it be correct if it's not a conclusion? Doesn't correctness imply that other conclusions would be incorrect?
No, it's simply correct. Percy writes:
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.
ringo writes:
Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws? What if water flowed uphill? Percy writes:
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".
What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up? Percy writes:
I'm dismissing your conclusion, not your what-if.
But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it. Percy writes:
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." But what if science did encounter a 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: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
How can it be correct if it's not a conclusion? Doesn't correctness imply that other conclusions would be incorrect? ringo writes:
No, it's simply correct. Percy writes:
How is that not a conclusion? "In my opinion, chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla," is a conclusion, isn't it? I was just stating my opinion that those were good examples of what scientists would consider miracles. Some things about the universe are just inherently true.
Percy writes:
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. ringo writes:
Yes, what if it did, and in violation of known physical laws? What if water flowed uphill? You're again preordaining what science would conclude.
Percy writes:
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". What is the answer or conclusion you think I made up? 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:
I'm dismissing your conclusion, not your what-if. But you're answer is, in effect, "Your 'what if' is impossible." That's dismissing the "what if," not addressing it. No, you're dismissing both my "what if" and my opinion about that scientists would accept the suggested examples as miracles.
Percy writes:
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." But what if science did encounter a miracle. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18349 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
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.
You're again preordaining what science would conclude. Percy writes:
We can't, because "miraculous" is a purely religious concept.
But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous. Percy writes:
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? 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?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 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
In the case of science, we're not talking about individuals. We're talking about consensus.
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. Phat writes:
Yes indeed. Science and miracles are separate concepts. Seeing as how this topic is The science of miracles we are faced with both qualities.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: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
And again, I'm basing my conclusion on the entire history of science. You're again preordaining what science would conclude. 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:
We can't, because "miraculous" is a purely religious concept. But let us say that we fill out these examples with enough details that they are clearly miraculous. 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:
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? 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? These don't really seem like "adjustments in our thinking." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
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."
Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads... Percy writes:
Then you agree with me that the concept of miracles would never enter the discussion.
But I don't think science would have a different reaction. Percy writes:
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. What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations?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: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
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." Science's history is one of following the evidence where it leads... 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:
Then you agree with me that the concept of miracles would never enter the discussion. But I don't think science would have a different reaction. 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:
How could it? Your scenario is about a lack of evidence. What if science encountered scientific evidence of a miracle despite its religious associations? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
Not if that's the answer.
Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid. Percy writes:
I've been trying to figure out what the @#$% your meaning is. In one post you say, "A consensus of scientists would most certainly concede they're miraculous." Then you change it to, "or something else." You agree that nothing in their procedure would change but when I ask why the notion of miracles would come up at all, you just repeat, "It's a what-if." ... you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning. What is your meaning?
Percy writes:
And how many times did you admit that nothing in the scientific method would change? So what's the point of the what-if?
How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"? Percy writes:
How could it? Does the what-if evidence include video of God lifting the bridge? What if the evidence leads to miracles? All the evidence can lead to is, "We don't know (yet)." It can't lead to woo.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ringo writes: Percy writes:
Not if that's the answer. Objecting to "What if pigs could fly?" with "But pigs can't fly" is invalid. No, that's not an answer. That's a refusal to consider the "what if." We've been down this road just a short while ago where in addition to the flying pigs example there was, "What if Germany won WWII?" The response, "But Germany didn't win WWII" is not an answer but a refusal to consider the "what if."
Percy writes:
I've been trying to figure out what the @#$% your meaning is. ... you've lent a misleading impression of my meaning. 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:
And how many times did you admit that nothing in the scientific method would change? So what's the point of the what-if? How many times would you guess I described the gathering of scientific evidence as part of the "what if"? Why do you think the scientific method should change for different objects of study?
Percy writes:
How could it? Does the what-if evidence include video of God lifting the bridge? What if the evidence leads to miracles? 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024