How can science "explain" miracles?

[Huram Abi]

I agree that non scientific definitions are not for this thread. But that only leaves room for my definition.

 

[Upisoft]

I agree that non scientific definitions are not for this thread. But that only leaves room for my definition.

Well, OK then. How you measure how much an event should be considered "extraordinary", so you would be able to distinguish between rare non miraculous event and a miracle?

 

[Huram Abi]

That's a good question.

The thing is, we have to be sure of which is cause and which is effect. The reason that miracles go unexplained is because of their unlikely occurence and further, the rarity that they are ever investigated. As long as they go without investigation they go without explanation.

This means that the characteristic of miracles being unexplained is fully derived from the fact that they are extraordinary occurrences. Most people get this backwards and think that they are extraordinary because they cannot be explained. This is wrong.

So, how do we identify miracles? Certainly we cannot identify them by whether they can or cannot be explained. Things that go unexplained can be quite common.

Simply put, it would be an observation that appears to deviate markedly from other members of the sample in which it occurs regardless if there is an explanation for it or not.


From there, one would typically deduce an explanation by determining a possible error in the measurment itself, or by further investigation.

I think it is clear, however, that a "miracle" in this sense is no miracle at all, but rather is an expression of our unwillingness to acknowledge our own ignorance and that, if we were honest, we would not use the word "miracle" or try to reconcile miracles with science.

It's a tough task anyway and requires making special cases and subjective, immeasurable starting points.

It would be better if we recognized that there are no miracles, just things we don't have an answer to because they are hard to study because of their infrequency.

 

[Upisoft]

I think it is clear, however, that a "miracle" in this sense is no miracle at all, but rather is an expression of our unwillingness to acknowledge our own ignorance and that, if we were honest, we would not use the word "miracle" or try to reconcile miracles with science.

It's a tough task anyway and requires making special cases and subjective, immeasurable starting points.

It would be better if we recognized that there are no miracles, just things we don't have an answer to because they are hard to study because of their infrequency.

In other words you say that it depends on who is the observer. Which means peer review is not possible, it will depend who is doing it. Which means it is not scientific at all. So, your definition has no place here.

 

[Huram Abi]

As far as reconciling the two, my definition is as close as anybody is going to get.

I'm not inclined to disagree with you that it isn't a great definition, so far as science is concerned, but without it, or some variant, reconciliation is impossible.

That would be fine as long as evryone is on the same page that the discussion, itself, has no proper place.

 

[Greg1234]

In other words you say that it depends on who is the observer. Which means peer review is not possible, it will depend who is doing it. Which means it is not scientific at all. So, your definition has no place here.

Did I hear someone say definition? Where?

 

[Upisoft]

Did I hear someone say definition? Where?

Do the reading yourself, the thread is at your disposal.

 

[Greg1234]

Do the reading yourself, the thread is at your disposal.

A def. of material/natural/physical?