Independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So in saying “he’s a scientist but he believes” ..is misleading regarding my thoughts about science.

Not my quote, not my point.

I’ve also noted a reluctance to read books as if they are a poor relation to papers. I can only comment it was a book by Darwin that set cats amongst pigeons!

The number of books containing the first publication of significant new scientific discoveries or theories, is vanishingly small compared to the number of good popular science books that abbreviate and simplify, which are, in turn, vanishingly small compared to the number of poor science books, pseudoscience books, and woo books. That's why published peer-reviewed papers in respected journals are the preferred go-to for the current state of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, many of us spend a lot of time looking for quality science books and reading them.

 

[Mountainmike]

True.

However the paper often sells the book to get more detail.

Not my quote, not my point.

The number of books containing the first publication of significant new scientific discoveries or theories, is vanishingly small compared to the number of good popular science books that abbreviate and simplify, which are, in turn, vanishingly small compared to the number of poor science books, pseudoscience books, and woo books. That's why published peer-reviewed papers in respected journals are the preferred go-to for the current state of scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, many of us spend a lot of time looking for quality science books and reading them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True.

However the paper often sells the book to get more detail.

For example?

 

[Mountainmike]

For example?

I couldn’t resist this example! Ray Rogers - thermochimica acta 2005 proving the the shroud dating sample was unrepresentative.
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

Led to far more detail in several hundred pages “ shroud, a chemists perspective”

But eg Kalmans papers on estimation, led to gelbs book. “ applied estimation” Simon’s papers built on gelb , resulting in Simons book.
Explanations improve, wrong turns removed, new thinking added.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I couldn’t resist this example! Ray Rogers - thermochimica acta 2005 proving the the shroud dating sample was unrepresentative.
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

Led to far more detail in several hundred pages “ shroud, a chemists perspective”

I didn't see any mention of a book in that paper.

 

[Mountainmike]

I didn't see any mention of a book in that paper.

It’s true. It wasn’t a sell.
But all that read it followed Rogers & discovered the book. I think I’m right in saying didn’t get published till after his death.
The point I’m making is books have far more room to explore detail if you follow the authors science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I couldn’t resist this example! Ray Rogers - thermochimica acta 2005 proving the the shroud dating sample was unrepresentative.
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

Led to far more detail in several hundred pages “ shroud, a chemists perspective”

But eg Kalmans papers on estimation, led to gelbs book. “ applied estimation” Simon’s papers built on gelb , resulting in Simons book.
Explanations improve, wrong turns removed, new thinking added.

How does that "prove" anything? Once again, you keep forgetting that Rodgers was a self admitted liar. Private sampling was not allowed. It was something that they all agreed to. Yet here he in this article is admitting that he is claiming that he lied when he agreed to that.

I am sorry, but when a scientist is caught in a lie directly affecting his work it makes that work totally unreliable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It’s true. It wasn’t a sell.

So it's not an example of 'the paper selling the book'...

But all that read it followed Rogers & discovered the book. I think I’m right in saying didn’t get published till after his death.
The point I’m making is books have far more room to explore detail if you follow the authors science.

In my experience, it's unusual for a book (besides textbooks) to contain more scientific information than the papers it's based on. They're usually concerned with background information, explanations of relevance, implications, and consequences.

But, whatever.

 

[Mountainmike]

So it's not an example of 'the paper selling the book'...

In my experience, it's unusual for a book (besides textbooks) to contain more scientific information than the papers it's based on. They're usually concerned with background information, explanations of relevance, implications, and consequences.

But, whatever.

Not quite causal but true nonetheless.
The kind of people I used to follow were such as Athans and Falb In optimal control and estimation. The papers were interesting but very much each was a narrow monograph.
The papers made me buy the book.
The range of examples in the book did extend papers more towards what interested me.

Maths subjects are like that. What is your professional subject area?

In the subject that inspired my comment, it is fair comment.
The shroud.
Rogers put far more detail in the book than the paper. Reading the paper made me want the book published later.

Ditto Fanti puts all the working data in a book - eg dating by physio chemical properties , which is much more detailed than his paper.

So did antonacii, Marino and meacham. To name but a few, the papers only scratched a surface. The book supplied detail.

I wish the radio daters had done what Fanti did with his working data.
Then it wouldn’t have taken 20 years to expose how the nature article cheated the consistency tests - but also raw data ( only got by FOI) proved the samples had radio date sequence and were not consistent in a sequenced way. So not reliable. So books with raw data - as fantis did help.


Your phrase “They're usually concerned with background information, explanations of relevance, implications, and consequences.”
That Is more scientific information in my opinion.
So that’s why we may be disputing it.

I suspect you mean doesn’t break new ground.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...What is your professional subject area?

By qualification & career, human biology and software development (separately).

Your phrase “They're usually concerned with background information, explanations of relevance, implications, and consequences.”
That Is more scientific information in my opinion.
So that’s why we may be disputing it.

The map is not the territory. If I had to give it a name, I would call it scientific metadata, i.e. information about scientific information.

I suspect you mean doesn’t break new ground.

Generally, might point in new directions (e.g. new hypotheses & speculations), but doesn't establish anything new - the papers do that.

 

[FredVB]

I am genuinely curious if there is any independently repeatable evidence that God interacts with our world, I would prefer an article published in a well estabilished journal. I mostly looking for sciences like: physics, biology, chemistry etc and not sciences like philosophy.

Interaction is just not a repeatable occurrence that would be predictable, so there is no way for there to be repeatable evidence of it. Consider your interaction with someone else. There would not be repeated occurrence of anything in that interaction subject to repeatable evidence for it. When such interaction does happen where one sees it, anyone else might deny that was interaction from God if they want to, and many do dismiss it, in fact, just as they might.

There is the origin of everything still, while there are such who will not consider the explanation that there must be for it. All we see isn't necessary and might not exist yet what we see just does, and all the parameters of physical constants are just right that it all does, along with us.

 

[partinobodycular]

Interaction is just not a repeatable occurrence that would be predictable, so there is no way for there to be repeatable evidence of it. Consider your interaction with someone else. There would not be repeated occurrence of anything in that interaction subject to repeatable evidence for it.

If intercessory prayer is actually effective then God's interaction with the world should be both measurable and repeatable. In the best studies to date such divine intervention has not been shown to exist.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If I may intervene. God created science as a tool to unfold His Creation. One just needs to give Him the respect and awe He deserves in order to appreciate the unveiling of this knowledge. Blessings!

Science at tool for appreciating the creation - yes...

Science a tool for appreciating the spiritual - No....

 

[FredVB]

If intercessory prayer is actually effective then God's interaction with the world should be both measurable and repeatable. In the best studies to date such divine intervention has not been shown to exist.

Testing people generally for measurable and repeatable behavior in responses is not usually going to be a good reliable approach, but if it is, it would not be the case for testing God for predicted results. What parameters could be used to assure God must respond? Don't you see there would be difficulty planning for that? And I think results come in unexpected ways, from God, who plans things outside of what we think of, but it seems for answer to prayer, it might just be something to expect when one really has faith and trusts God, for an answer to an actual need with petitioning God, and not in any way for testing God's responses. Not everyone has to have faith, just as God does not have to answer those that don't. If you can't find God, you really don't want to.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If intercessory prayer is actually effective then God's interaction with the world should be both measurable and repeatable. In the best studies to date such divine intervention has not been shown to exist.

Of course you are right - applying empirical measurement - Jesus was a complete failure - after all they nailed Him to a Cross.

However science can not account for what happened after that...

 

[partinobodycular]

Of course you are right - applying empirical measurement - Jesus was a complete failure - after all they nailed Him to a Cross.

However science can not account for what happened after that...

Of course it can, it's called psychology. People took a perfectly natural set of events and created a fable from them. Exactly why people do that is a bit perplexing, but there's nothing inexplicable about the process.

 

[partinobodycular]

Testing people generally for measurable and repeatable behavior in responses is not usually going to be a good reliable approach, but if it is, it would not be the case for testing God for predicted results. What parameters could be used to assure God must respond?

The best way for me to answer this question is to link to the best study conducted to date. The parameters were thoughtfully and carefully structured so as to produce a meaningful data set. Among its authors is a pastor with a masters degree in divinity.

It should be noted that this was in fact the second such study conducted and was specifically set up to address criticisms arising from the first study.

The study involved thousands of cardiac bypass patients and found no improvement in outcomes between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.

(PDF) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in Cardiac Bypass Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Uncertainty and Certainty of Receiving Intercessory Prayer

 

[Carl Emerson]

Of course it can, it's called psychology. People took a perfectly natural set of events and created a fable from them. Exactly why people do that is a bit perplexing, but there's nothing inexplicable about the process.

Really - Psychology can prove the resurrection didn't happen ???

 

[Hans Blaster]

Really - Psychology can prove the resurrection didn't happen ???

No, it can study why people believed in it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Really - Psychology can prove the resurrection didn't happen ???

Nope. But then it can't disprove Russell's Teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. What it can do however is offer an explanation as to how the belief in such things came to exist in the first place, with no need to appeal to the supernatural.

It would be unreasonable to expect science to take supernatural claims at face value, when perfectly natural explanations will suffice.