Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The "science" of Miracles
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 616 of 696 (830145)
03-22-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 615 by Percy
03-22-2018 12:35 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
That's a refusal to consider the "what if."
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.
Percy writes:
The idea behind a "what if" isn't all that complicated.
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.
Percy writes:
Why do you think the scientific method should change for different objects of study?
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 615 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 12:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 617 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 6:46 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 622 of 696 (830180)
03-24-2018 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 617 by Percy
03-22-2018 6:46 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
I don't see how you can know the choice of nomenclature in advance....
Based on past behaviour.
Percy writes:
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."
Then your what-if is just a God-did-it. Where's the "experiment" in your thought?
Percy writes:
Since you're not considering the "what if," how can you have a conclusion?
My conclusion is that the what-if is worthless. It doesn't lead anywhere.
Percy writes:
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?
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.
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
I'm the one who says the method would not change, whether the subject was a flying bridge or a new species of beetle.
I've said the same thing.
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 617 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 6:46 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 623 by Phat, posted 03-24-2018 12:43 PM ringo has replied
 Message 625 by Percy, posted 03-24-2018 3:02 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 624 of 696 (830187)
03-24-2018 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 623 by Phat
03-24-2018 12:43 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:
Are you going to turn down the job simply because you "don't do miracles"?
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.
Phat writes:
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.
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.
Phat writes:
You will still investigate the scene the same way using the same methodology.
That's what I'm saying. And that methodology does not include stopping to call it a miracle - or any other nomenclature.
Percy writes:
Let people call things as they wish, and stick to your approach for dealing with it.
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 623 by Phat, posted 03-24-2018 12:43 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 628 of 696 (830231)
03-25-2018 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 625 by Percy
03-24-2018 3:02 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
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?
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.
Percy writes:
Do you recall how many times the scientific equipment in the room has been mentioned?
The Transporter is mentioned on Star Trek. That doesn't elevate it from science fiction to thought experiment.
Percy writes:
What if an irresistible force were to meet an unmovable object?
We'd realize that one of the concepts, or both, is nonsense.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by Percy, posted 03-24-2018 3:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 629 by Percy, posted 03-25-2018 6:07 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 631 of 696 (830285)
03-26-2018 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 629 by Percy
03-25-2018 6:07 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
Science has no problem drawing upon fiction, mythology and religion for terminology - why do you think the term "miracle" special?
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".
Percy writes:
Do you have any other terms, from any realm, that science would eschew? "Magic," perhaps?
Probably. You can feel free to cite examples of scientists referring to magic.
Percy writes:
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?
I learned to read when I was six.
If you've read anything that suggests that scientists consider the possibility of miracles or magic, feel free to cite examples.
Percy writes:
And yet people have engaged the concept of the transporter as a thought experiment.
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 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:
And Einstein riding a light beam is nonsense....
The irresistible/immovable force/object scenario is nonsense because they're contradictory. Both can not be true. it's inherently impossible.
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:
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.
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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 629 by Percy, posted 03-25-2018 6:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 633 by Phat, posted 03-26-2018 1:22 PM ringo has replied
 Message 634 by Percy, posted 03-26-2018 2:59 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 635 of 696 (830341)
03-27-2018 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 633 by Phat
03-26-2018 1:22 PM


Re: Consensus
Phat writes:
Evidently, Professor Barr has not only more scientific knowledge than most of us here but is unafraid to discuss miracles alongside science. Next question?
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?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 633 by Phat, posted 03-26-2018 1:22 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 636 of 696 (830342)
03-27-2018 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 634 by Percy
03-26-2018 2:59 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
It's may only be a matter of time before the term "miracle" is applied to something in science, if it hasn't already.
Or it may only be a matter of time before all scientists become creationists. Another useless what-if.
Percy writes:
The evidence strongly suggests that scientists do not shy away from fictional, mythical or religious realms when choosing terms.
The evidence is that they do shy away from "miracle".
Percy writes:
If at some point "miracle" enters the pantheon of scientific nomenclature it will not be because some scientist thinks he's discovered a miracle.
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.
Percy writes:
Wikipedia says:
quote:
In thought experiments we gain new information by rearranging or reorganizing already known empirical data in a new way and drawing new (a priori) inferences from them or by looking at these data from a different and unusual perspective. In Galileo’s thought experiment, for example, the rearrangement of empirical experience consists in the original idea of combining bodies of different weight.
How does your story gain new information? And didn't you deny drawing inferences?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 634 by Percy, posted 03-26-2018 2:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 637 by NoNukes, posted 03-27-2018 3:43 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 639 by Percy, posted 03-29-2018 1:36 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 641 of 696 (830490)
03-31-2018 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 639 by Percy
03-29-2018 1:36 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
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.
When all the evidence you have points in one direction, that might be the right direction. Get back to us when the direction changes.
Percy writes:
They haven't used "breadbox" or "toothbrush" or "fireplace" either - are they shying away from them, too?
If you claim that scientists "would certainly" call a flying bridge a toothbrush, you'll get the same argument from me.
Percy writes:
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).
I said that your conclusion was wrong. You said you didn't draw any conclusion.
quote:
inference.
.
[ˈinf(ə)rəns]
NOUN
.
a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.
synonyms: deduction conclusion reasoning conjecture speculation surmise thesis theorizing hypothesizing presumption assumption supposition reckoning extrapolation
Or is "conclusion" using the same cloaking device as "attributed"?
Percy writes:
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.
We've been through the thinking exercise. What new information is derived/inferred/concluded from thinking that physical laws have been violated?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 639 by Percy, posted 03-29-2018 1:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 642 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 12:38 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 643 of 696 (830496)
03-31-2018 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 642 by Percy
03-31-2018 12:38 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
So far you've offered nothing in support of your opinion.
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.
Percy writes:
And my reply made clear I thought you were talking generally....
You keep claiming that you made something clear when you didn't.
Percy writes:
What else do you think I meant when I said, "It seems an unlikely thing for anyone to say."
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".
Percy writes:
You've refused to engage in any discussion concerning the "what if"
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:
ringo writes:
What new information is derived/inferred/concluded from thinking that physical laws have been violated?
You tell me, since in your fantasy world you think we discussed it already.
So none? Since when does a thought experiment require my participation? FYI, Einstein didn't consult me.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 642 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 12:38 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 644 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 2:25 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 647 of 696 (830574)
04-03-2018 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 644 by Percy
03-31-2018 2:25 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
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?"
"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?
Percy writes:
Are you under some misimpression that your posts have been free of mistakes?
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.
Percy writes:
First, you don't think it unlikely that anyone would deny ever using inference?
Is there a sentence in there? Is that your idea of being clear?
Percy writes:
ringo 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?
What you have to do needs no detailed characterization. You need merely engage in discussion instead of dismissal.
See? There you go again, dancing around the issue. Just answer the question: What would constitute discussion? By all means, give details.
Percy writes:
Sarcasm rather than substance is your only response?
You're kidding, right? If we tallied up the sarcasm and personal digs in this thread, you'd be miles out in front.
Percy writes:
So help flesh it out if that's how you feel. Make suggestions, ask questions.
I did ask questions. 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 644 by Percy, posted 03-31-2018 2:25 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 649 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 2:26 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 648 of 696 (830575)
04-03-2018 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 645 by Porkncheese
04-03-2018 8:18 AM


Re: Haha so funny
Porkncheese writes:
One thing I learnt here is the more u write the more things get twisted and taken out of context.
Be a small target.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 645 by Porkncheese, posted 04-03-2018 8:18 AM Porkncheese has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 650 of 696 (830655)
04-04-2018 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 649 by Percy
04-03-2018 2:26 PM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
But what if, now, science for the first time encountered a true miracle? How would science react?
What if a dog encountered something he had never encountered before? How would he 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:
So you didn't confuse "conclusion" and "inference"?
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.
Percy writes:
What if science did encounter a true miracle? What then?
See the dog above.
Percy writes:
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?
That's a disappointing statement from somebody I respect. Instead of even trying to clarify, you question my intelligence.
Never mind giving me any credit. Consider the possibility that somebody else might not have understood your convoluted mess of a sentence.
Percy writes:
I can't tell you what to contribute from your side of the discussion. That's up to you.
Then don't complain about what I contribute.
Percy writes:
Just consider the "what if" instead of ruling it out-of-bounds out of hand.
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.
Percy writes:
Would science decide to incorporate the miraculous phenomena into science, thereby changing the nature of science?
Probably not. The "nature of science" has served humanity pretty well as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
As I've said, scientists would be more likely to leave an unanswered question unanswered until they could find an answer.
Percy writes:
Would science decide the miraculous phenomena were beyond the purview of science?
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.
Percy writes:
... how does science tell the difference between phenomena it can't explain at present and phenomena it will never explain?
It doesn't. That's why science doesn't have a folder for "phenomena it will never explain".
Percy writes:
How significant does a violation of natural physical laws have to be before it is no longer an anomaly but a true violation?
See above. There is no folder for "true violations".
Percy writes:
ringo writes:
I did ask questions.
Ask again - I must have missed them.
ringo writes:
Recently I asked what you expect me to do to "discuss" your scenario. What's your answer?
You quoted one: "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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 649 by Percy, posted 04-03-2018 2:26 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 651 by Percy, posted 04-11-2018 9:26 AM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 653 of 696 (831058)
04-11-2018 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 651 by Percy
04-11-2018 9:26 AM


Re: Consensus
Percy writes:
So there's phenomena science would rule off-limits for its consideration and study? Really?
I didn't say any such thing. I said that science would not change the nature od science.
Percy writes:
But what if the answer is that natural laws can be violated?
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.
Percy writes:
Doesn't this contradict your answer above where you thought that science would decide against including miraculous phenomena within science?
Miracles, by definition, can not be explained. Science does not allow for anything being impossible to explain.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 651 by Percy, posted 04-11-2018 9:26 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 657 by Percy, posted 04-13-2018 9:29 AM ringo has replied
 Message 658 by 1.61803, posted 04-13-2018 12:11 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 654 of 696 (831060)
04-11-2018 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 652 by Phat
04-11-2018 11:53 AM


Re: Understanding through Discussion
Phat writes:
Ringo: Slowpitch it to me, baby. I knock em out of the park every time! The evidence clearly shows this.
Wrong. All I promise is to swing at all of them.
Phat writes:
Ringo: Then we would keep looking for answers. Everything can be explained eventually.
Wrong. All I say is that we'll keep swinging.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 652 by Phat, posted 04-11-2018 11:53 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 655 by Phat, posted 04-11-2018 5:02 PM ringo has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 656 of 696 (831122)
04-12-2018 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 655 by Phat
04-11-2018 5:02 PM


Re: Understanding through Discussion
Phat writes:
In essence, you are so focused on defining the parameters of the conversation that there can be no discussion...
Not at all. I'm trying to figure out what the parameters are. Maybe you can explain them.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 655 by Phat, posted 04-11-2018 5:02 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024