The "science" of Miracles

P&C writes: Its been quite a challenge so far. Like I thought I was good at Maths before this. Hahaha. How wrong I was. But all in all, I'm keeping up with it, learning heaps and doing well on exams and assignments. Money is something that concerns me a bit atm cos, well I don't have much of it. Yet. But I still come in here to have a read and a laugh once in a while but leave the debating to you guys. I'm still agnostic but (a rare species)

Being agnostic is a healthy place for you to be in college. I not only appreciate your honesty, but I think that focusing on your studies and getting them under your belt is more important than any grand search for God at this point in your life. #Props

And yourself Phat one. How have u been traveling???

I'm a rebel, P&C. I am journaling my latest health quest in my Health 4 Life~The Science Behind Consumption thread. The peanut gallery is attacking me as well for arrogantly declaring the medical establishment to be in error regarding treatment of diabetes, but I've got too much at stake to let go of this one...just as I have never thrown God away, as jar suggests that I do. But let's conclude my post by saying something about this thread we are in, shall we?

Percy writes: But responding to this old argument yet again, the actual "what if" is "What if science encountered a true miracle?" The George Washington Bridge lifting free of its moorings and floating 50 miles up the Hudson was offered as an example of something scientists would view as miraculous, because the phenomena displayed would be so obviously in violation of the natural laws of the universe that they couldn't be viewed as mere anomalies. 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?"

A true miracle would occur if Pork&Cheese manages to get all of his homework done over Spring Break and graduates college with his agnostic mind intact rather than resorting to defending a God Who cannot and need not be defended. The science involved would be his self-discipline regarding understanding his studies and applying them to the courses with which he is in.

By the way, P&C, what courses are you taking this semester?

Are you taking any science courses? If so, do you think that it is possible for an event to occur that known science could not explain, and, if so, should it be labeled as a miracle?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Edited by Phat, : spelling

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?

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.

ringo writes: 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?

Yes, we know, science has not so far encountered a miracle. But what if, now, science for the first time encountered a true miracle? How would science react?

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.

So you didn't confuse "conclusion" and "inference"? Where your mistakes are pointed out, your replies pretend they never happened. Was it really your position in pointing out an error (that I readily conceded in Message 276) that it excused you from taking what I say seriously? Is that why you're subjecting the thread to this merry-go-round of spurious arguments and diversions, that you just don't take it seriously?

No one is saying there aren't very strong scientific arguments against the existence of miracles. We all acknowledge that. But the discussion is about a hypothetical, it's speculative. What if science did encounter a true miracle? What then?

You've done an elaborate semantic dance around almost every word I've used.

And I think your posts represent a lengthy exercise in evasion and diversion.

For the most part, your criticism has done nothing to address the actual points being made.

But you're not making any "actual points." You're just making up a bunch of excuses for why the "what if" is nonsense and impossible, all the while repetitively circling back to old arguments that have already been discussed.

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?

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?

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.

I can't tell you what to contribute from your side of the discussion. That's up to you. Just consider the "what if" instead of ruling it out-of-bounds out of hand.

I can give you some possibilities to consider in the form of questions. Would science decide to incorporate the miraculous phenomena into science, thereby changing the nature of science? Would science decide the miraculous phenomena were beyond the purview of science? But wouldn't that mean that science is ignoring some types of evidence, specifically, those it can't explain? In which case how does science tell the difference between phenomena it can't explain at present and phenomena it will never explain? 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: 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.

What can I say, I'm precocious.

Obviously each of us considers the other as dancing around what the other is saying, and just as obviously we both feel unjustly accused.

Percy writes: So help flesh it out if that's how you feel. Make suggestions, ask questions. I did ask questions.

Ask again - I must have missed them.

Recently I asked what you expect me to do to "discuss" your scenario. What's your answer?

See above, but my own perspective is that you're pretty obviously avoiding discussing the "what if" while responding dismissively.

--Percy

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?"

ringo writes: 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?

Given the number of times we've been over this, it's hard to see this as anything but a purposeful misunderstanding of what I mean when I ask, "How would science react," combined with an equally purposeful forgetting of prior explanations and clarifications. You keep circling back to the same objections as if they hadn't already been discussed. I'm not explaining this yet again. Wallow in your mental merry-go-round and amnesia.

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.

You're ignoring the point. You have made many mistakes throughout this discussion. Did you not twice call attention to a mistake I made (that I readily acknowledged) as a way of implying that I make mistakes and you don't? Did you not use it to question things I said for which you had no rationale other than that earlier in the discussion I had made said mistake? Does it not explain why you fail to take this discussion seriously and instead subject the thread to endless repeats of the same arguments that have already been answered?

Percy writes: What if science did encounter a true miracle? What then? See the dog above.

See if you can search your memory, or if that fails you read the thread, and figure out what was actually meant.

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.

Well, now I question your candor. There is no evidence of an attitude anything remotely like, "We've been going at this for some time, he keeps making the same obviously stupid and wrong point, but I respect this guy, so there is possibly some valid point in there, so I should make an effort to figure out what it is." Instead you've subjected the thread to the Ringo Round-a-Bout where nothing is understood or remembered while the same arguments endlessly flash by.

Never mind giving me any credit. Consider the possibility that somebody else might not have understood your convoluted mess of a sentence.

It was plain English. It was just convenient for you at the time to ignore the point and feign incomprehension. I started the discussion giving you all the credit in the world, but over the past hundred messages or whatever it is there's been nothing new or original from you, just already-answered arguments previously raised at least a dozen times, plus many deliberate misinterpretations of points intended to stymie progress toward any mutual understanding.

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.

You're not contributing anything. You're imitating a broken record.

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.

You've raised this misunderstanding of the scenario many times, I've explained it many times, I'm not explaining it again. Go back and read previous messages.

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.

So there's phenomena science would rule off-limits for its consideration and study? Really?

As I've said, scientists would be more likely to leave an unanswered question unanswered until they could find an answer.

But what if the answer is that natural laws can be violated?

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.

Doesn't this contradict your answer above where you thought that science would decide against including miraculous phenomena within science?

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".

We agree on this one.

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".

And disagree on this one.

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?"

You just did a slight bit of "discussing the scenario" by proffering brief answers to questions from within the scenario's context.

--Percy

This thread and conversation are a prime example of how the few of us who are left on board the aging sea vessel SS EvC attempt to communicate with each other, understand each other, refute each other, and (God forbid) agree with each other!

a few hypotheticals:

Faith: God exists! You would understand it if only you saw the internal proof!

Percy: The evidence clearly shows otherwise, dear Faith...but you will never understand my POV because you have only a desire to state your own POV.

Ringo: Slowpitch it to me, baby. I knock em out of the park every time! The evidence clearly shows this.

Percy: But what if a hypothetical situation came up which we couldn't explain?

Ringo: Then we would keep looking for answers. Everything can be explained eventually.

Percy: But what if the conclusion was outside the realm of known science?

Ringo: Be patient. Nothing is ever really outside this realm...we simply need to catch up to it.

Percy: Cant you discuss anything instead of concluding everything and defining it for us?

Ringo: I define therefore I AM. Next question?

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.

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.

Phat writes: Ringo: Slowpitch it to me, baby. I knock em out of the park every time! The evidence clearly shows this.

ringo writes: 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.

ringo writes: Wrong. All I say is that we'll keep swinging.

Maybe that's the issue then, between you and Percy. Percy wants you to play a game of hypothetical catch and toss, where we discuss hypotheticals whereas you seek to swing at them and knock them out of the park. In essence, you are so focused on defining the parameters of the conversation that there can be no discussion...only Ringo attempting to finalize a conclusion every single pitch.

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.

ringo writes: 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 of science.

Yes, of course you said words to that effect, but that isn't all you said. To summarize the other part of the conversation:

• P: Would science include miraculous phenomena, thereby changing the nature of science?
  
• R: Probably not.
  
• P: So science would ignore the miraculous phenomena? (I assume that "probably not" applied to the "include miraculous phenomenon" portion as well as the "changing the nature of science" portion, since that's consistent with what you've said in other posts about miraculous phenomena.)

I mean, if you're not including miraculous phenomena within science, then you must be ignoring them, right? What other choices are there? Some side category of "not science but we're studying it scientifically anyway"?

Percy writes: But what if the answer is that natural laws can be violated? How can that be "the answer"?

That's part of the "what if." If it helps, imagine you're in a science fantasy novel where you've been transported to a universe where miracles have been recently discovered to be real, taking the form of violations of known physical laws.

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.

I think tentativity rules out the possibility of ever understanding natural laws completely.

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.

The key pieces of that part of the conversation went like this:

• P: Would science decide the miraculous phenomena were beyond the purview of science?
  
• R: Probably not.
  
• P: Isn't that the opposite of your earlier statement (see above) where you said science would "probably not" include miraculous phenomena?

--Percy

Ringo writes: Miracles, by definition, can not be explained. Science does not allow for anything being impossible to explain.

The Scientific method is a tentative self correcting method of explaining nature. Therefore it stands to reason if something is in of itself inexplicable it would be incorporated into the body of science to be further examined.

IF a miracle occurred and was investigated by scientist and found to be inexplicable. Would the scientist then throw away all data pertaining to this event as not worthy of further investigation because it is inexplicable?

Percy writes: I mean, if you're not including miraculous phenomena within science, then you must be ignoring them, right?

No, it's the extraneous epithet "miracle" that science ignores. A phenomenon is a phenomenon is a phenomenon. They're not categorized as "red phenomena" or "warm and fuzzy phenomena". One phenomenon is not treated differently from another.

Percy writes: ringo writes: How can that be "the answer"? That's part of the "what if."

We've been there already. If you're what-iffing that scientists throw science out the window, the whatif has even less value.

Percy writes: If it helps, imagine you're in a science fantasy novel where you've been transported to a universe where miracles have been recently discovered to be real, taking the form of violations of known physical laws.

That's the whole problem with your scenario; it's science fiction, not science. Science is not effected by everything you can dream up.

Percy writes: I think tentativity rules out the possibility of ever understanding natural laws completely.

So if we can never understand the natural laws completely, we can never say that they have been violated. All we can say is that our current understanding is inadequate to explain the phenomenon.

~1.6 writes: IF a miracle occurred and was investigated by scientist and found to be inexplicable. Would the scientist then throw away all data pertaining to this event as not worthy of further investigation because it is inexplicable?

What I was taught is that out-lying data is kept but it is not included in the conclusion - e.g. if all of your data points but one forms a nice straight line, you draw the straight line - but you leave the outlier on the graph.