|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The "science" of Miracles | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
You're confusing rejection of your conclusion with refusal to consider. I have considered and I have come up with a different conclusion: If there was a flying bridge, scientists would investigate it. If they failed to explain it according to known physical laws, they would not call it a miracle. They would keep looking and if necessary they would adjust their understanding of the physical laws. My conclusion is based on everything we know about scientists.
That's a refusal to consider the "what if." Percy writes:
But there doesn't seem to be anything behind your what-if. What if bridges could fly? What if pigs could fly? What if Germany won World War 2? You haven't gone anywhere with your what-if except to arbitrarily claim that scientists would call it a miracle.
The idea behind a "what if" isn't all that complicated. Percy writes:
I've been saying exactly the opposite for lo these many posts. Did you miss that like you missed the word "attributed"? I'm the one who says the method would not change, whether the subject was a flying bridge or a new species of beetle. You're the one who says that on the subject of flying bridges scientists would call it a miracle even though they never have on any other subject. Why do you think the scientific method should change for different objects of study?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:
Based on past behaviour.
I don't see how you can know the choice of nomenclature in advance.... Percy writes:
Then your what-if is just a God-did-it. Where's the "experiment" in your thought?
Might that adjustment in understanding include that physical laws can be suspended and superseded at the command of a shaman? If not then that is a refusal to consider the "what if." Percy writes:
My conclusion is that the what-if is worthless. It doesn't lead anywhere.
Since you're not considering the "what if," how can you have a conclusion? Percy writes:
The weakness in your position is that the jelly keeps sliding down the wall. It doesn't have the structural integrity to be nailed down. You say that scientists' reaction would be the same, but different.
If you don't think the scientific method should change, then why do you think it a weakness in my position that I believe the same thing? Percy writes:
No you haven't. The very fact that you're talking about nomenclature at all proves it. There is nothing happening that needs new nomenclature. ringo writes:
I've said the same thing. I'm the one who says the method would not change, whether the subject was a flying bridge or a new species of beetle.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:
No. I'm going to treat it the same as I do when somebody says, "It's a miracle nobody was killed," in an accident. I'm going to ignore that person's opinion and follow the evidence.
Are you going to turn down the job simply because you "don't do miracles"? Phat writes:
Yes I can. I have asked again and again for anybody to give examples of where scientists have called something a miracle. Since they haven't done it in the past, apparently, it's reasonable to conclude that they won't do it in the future. Percy's only counter, "But it's unprecedented," doesn't hold any water. Everything is unprecedented until it happens.
You cant hold Percys feet to the fire simply because he uses terminology (even hypothetically) that you dont use, nor can you speak on behalf of all science. Phat writes:
That's what I'm saying. And that methodology does not include stopping to call it a miracle - or any other nomenclature.
You will still investigate the scene the same way using the same methodology. Percy writes:
I do let them call it whatever they wish - and they don't call it a miracle. By all means, show us the examples if you have any. Let people call things as they wish, and stick to your approach for dealing with it.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:
You make my point. We can predict what nomenclature scientists will use I the future. They might name a bug after an Inca god or a galaxy after a hobbit in Lord of the Rings. They have not called events "miracles" in the past so we have no reason to think they will in the future.
Like biological classification names based on gods or supernatural beings or even the ark (Arca noae)? Like planets named after gods, and galaxies and nebula after mythical characters? Percy writes:
The Transporter is mentioned on Star Trek. That doesn't elevate it from science fiction to thought experiment.
Do you recall how many times the scientific equipment in the room has been mentioned? Percy writes:
We'd realize that one of the concepts, or both, is nonsense. What if an irresistible force were to meet an unmovable object?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:
It's scientists who don't use it, so ask them why they don't. My guess is that it has more immediately religious connotations than calling something "Neptune".
Science has no problem drawing upon fiction, mythology and religion for terminology - why do you think the term "miracle" special? Percy writes:
Probably. You can feel free to cite examples of scientists referring to magic.
Do you have any other terms, from any realm, that science would eschew? "Magic," perhaps? Percy writes:
I learned to read when I was six. You sure seem to know a lot about what science might and might not do. However did you become such an authority, not to mention seer, soothsayer and part-time baloney salesman? If you've read anything that suggests that scientists consider the possibility of miracles or magic, feel free to cite examples.
Percy writes:
That's all after the fact. Nothing you've posted here leads us to conclude that you've put the same level of thinking into your what-if. Maybe it could become a thought experiment if you did actually think about it. And yet people have engaged the concept of the transporter as a thought experiment. And with the transporter the problem is, "what is the fastest and most efficient way to do it?" There is no "violation of physical laws" involved.
Percy writes:
The irresistible/immovable force/object scenario is nonsense because they're contradictory. Both can not be true. it's inherently impossible. And Einstein riding a light beam is nonsense.... Einstein riding a light beam is just a plot device, a way for him to collect evidence. It doesn't have to be literally true for the evidence to have value.
Percy writes:
You can ponder to your heart's content but if you conclude that scientists would react as they've never reacted before you're going to be challenged. And if you insist that the conclusions of your "experiment" are not conclusions, you're going to be challenged on that too. If you don't want to play no one is making you, but it's hard to imagine speculations one isn't free to ponder.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:
The next question is: How do his religious views stand up under scientific peer review? He is, after all, a religious apologist and I've been saying all along that miracles are religion. So what do other scientists think of his views on miracles? Evidently, Professor Barr has not only more scientific knowledge than most of us here but is unafraid to discuss miracles alongside science. Next question?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:
Or it may only be a matter of time before all scientists become creationists. Another useless what-if.
It's may only be a matter of time before the term "miracle" is applied to something in science, if it hasn't already. Percy writes:
The evidence is that they do shy away from "miracle".
The evidence strongly suggests that scientists do not shy away from fictional, mythical or religious realms when choosing terms. Percy writes:
So you're shooting yourself in the foot. Even if scientists did call something a miracle, which they seem to avoid, they still wouldn't think it was a miracle.
If at some point "miracle" enters the pantheon of scientific nomenclature it will not be because some scientist thinks he's discovered a miracle. Percy writes:
How does your story gain new information? And didn't you deny drawing inferences? Wikipedia says:
quote: 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:
When all the evidence you have points in one direction, that might be the right direction. Get back to us when the direction changes.
Your only evidence that scientists would never adopt "miracle" (or any related word) as a term within science is that they haven't used it yet. Percy writes:
If you claim that scientists "would certainly" call a flying bridge a toothbrush, you'll get the same argument from me.
They haven't used "breadbox" or "toothbrush" or "fireplace" either - are they shying away from them, too? Percy writes:
I said that your conclusion was wrong. You said you didn't draw any conclusion.
First, about whether I denied drawing inferences, it seems an unlikely thing for anyone to say, I don' t remember saying it, and a search reveals that in this thread I've never used the word "infer" or any of its various forms (until just now in reply to you).quote:Or is "conclusion" using the same cloaking device as "attributed"? Percy writes:
We've been through the thinking exercise. What new information is derived/inferred/concluded from thinking that physical laws have been violated? The new information could be any number of things. We can't know what the new information will be without going through the thinking exercise.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:
What I've done is point out that there is nothing in support of your opinion. There is more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster than there is for your idea that scientists would "certainly" call a flying bridge a miracle.
So far you've offered nothing in support of your opinion. Percy writes:
You keep claiming that you made something clear when you didn't.
And my reply made clear I thought you were talking generally.... Percy writes:
It seems unlikely that somebody would miss seeing a word like "attributed" when he quoted it himself - but it happened. So I don't take it too seriously when you say something is "unlikely".
What else do you think I meant when I said, "It seems an unlikely thing for anyone to say." Percy writes:
What exactly would constitute a "discussion" in your mind? What specifically do I have to do to "discuss" the flying bridges to your satisfaction?
You've refused to engage in any discussion concerning the "what if" Percy writes:
So none? Since when does a thought experiment require my participation? FYI, Einstein didn't consult me. ringo writes:
You tell me, since in your fantasy world you think we discussed it already. What new information is derived/inferred/concluded from thinking that physical laws have been violated? If your "thought experiment" didn't derive/infer/conclude any new information - with or without me discussing it - it seems like a pretty thin "experiment".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:
"True miracle" is the stumbling-block. You're assuming that scientists would interpret "something" as a "true miracle". They never have. Why would they now?
If examples are getting in the way of your consideration of the "what if" then ignore the examples and just consider the question, "What if science encountered a true miracle?" Percy writes:
I'm aware that you think I've made mistakes. You've done an elaborate semantic dance around almost every word I've used. For the most part, your criticism has done nothing to address the actual points being made.
Are you under some misimpression that your posts have been free of mistakes? Percy writes:
Is there a sentence in there? Is that your idea of being clear?
First, you don't think it unlikely that anyone would deny ever using inference? Percy writes:
See? There you go again, dancing around the issue. Just answer the question: What would constitute discussion? By all means, give details.
ringo writes:
What you have to do needs no detailed characterization. You need merely engage in discussion instead of dismissal. What exactly would constitute a "discussion" in your mind? What specifically do I have to do to "discuss" the flying bridges to your satisfaction? Percy writes:
You're kidding, right? If we tallied up the sarcasm and personal digs in this thread, you'd be miles out in front.
Sarcasm rather than substance is your only response? Percy writes:
I did ask questions. Recently I asked what you expect me to do to "discuss" your scenario. What's your answer? So help flesh it out if that's how you feel. Make suggestions, ask questions.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: |
Porkncheese writes:
Be a small target. One thing I learnt here is the more u write the more things get twisted and taken out of context.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
What if a dog encountered something he had never encountered before? How would he react? But what if, now, science for the first time encountered a true miracle? How would science react? He'd react the same as he always reacts. He'd sniff it. He might bark at it. He might even mark it as part of his territory. You wouldn't expect him to react outside his repertoire of reactions, would you? So why would you expect scientists to react outside their repertoire of reactions?
Percy writes:
I don't agree with your nitpick. You made a conclusion, that scientists would "certainly" call your flying bridge a "miracle" Message 266. I don't think you're fooling anybody with your attempt to make a distinction between a conclusion and an inference. Whichever it is, it's wrong.
So you didn't confuse "conclusion" and "inference"? Percy writes:
See the dog above.
What if science did encounter a true miracle? What then? Percy writes:
That's a disappointing statement from somebody I respect. Instead of even trying to clarify, you question my intelligence. Is that your idea of reading comprehension? Oh, wait, I get it, when you're losing an argument you pretend not to understand. Or am I giving you too much credit? Never mind giving me any credit. Consider the possibility that somebody else might not have understood your convoluted mess of a sentence.
Percy writes:
Then don't complain about what I contribute.
I can't tell you what to contribute from your side of the discussion. That's up to you. Percy writes:
I haven't done anything "out of hand". I've explained that we have no reason to think scientists would react differently to one specific scenario than they always have reacted to every other scenario. You have given us no reason to think they would react differently.
Just consider the "what if" instead of ruling it out-of-bounds out of hand. Percy writes:
Probably not. The "nature of science" has served humanity pretty well as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Would science decide to incorporate the miraculous phenomena into science, thereby changing the nature of science? As I've said, scientists would be more likely to leave an unanswered question unanswered until they could find an answer.
Percy writes:
Probably not. How can we predict what is "beyond the purview of science"? What hasn't been answered yet might only need another Einstein to come up with the answer tomorrow.
Would science decide the miraculous phenomena were beyond the purview of science? Percy writes:
It doesn't. That's why science doesn't have a folder for "phenomena it will never explain".
... how does science tell the difference between phenomena it can't explain at present and phenomena it will never explain? Percy writes:
See above. There is no folder for "true violations".
How significant does a violation of natural physical laws have to be before it is no longer an anomaly but a true violation? Percy writes:
You quoted one: "Recently I asked what you expect me to do to "discuss" your scenario. What's your answer?" ringo writes:
Ask again - I must have missed them.
I did ask questions.ringo writes: Recently I asked what you expect me to do to "discuss" your scenario. What's your answer?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:
I didn't say any such thing. I said that science would not change the nature od science.
So there's phenomena science would rule off-limits for its consideration and study? Really? Percy writes:
How can that be "the answer"? That would imply that we understood the natural laws completely. That would preclude changes in our understanding for such things as quantum mechanics and relativity.
But what if the answer is that natural laws can be violated? Percy writes:
Miracles, by definition, can not be explained. Science does not allow for anything being impossible to explain. Doesn't this contradict your answer above where you thought that science would decide against including miraculous phenomena within science?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:
Wrong. All I promise is to swing at all of them.
Ringo: Slowpitch it to me, baby. I knock em out of the park every time! The evidence clearly shows this. Phat writes:
Wrong. All I say is that we'll keep swinging. Ringo: Then we would keep looking for answers. Everything can be explained eventually.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:
Not at all. I'm trying to figure out what the parameters are. Maybe you can explain them. In essence, you are so focused on defining the parameters of the conversation that there can be no discussion...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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024