My Scientific Method Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

Does anybody know what time it is?
Does anybody even care?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

They don't. To do so would be MAD! Just MAD!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

For supposed miracles with some evidence they happened it's how you demonstrate the lack of miraculousness. Weeping virgin of Sicily - easily explained by physics. Milk drinking statue of Ganesh - easily explained by physics.

Your question should really be "why would anyone want to debate unevidenced claims of miracles from the standpoint of science?" In that case the answer would be they don't - science has nothing to say about things that cannot be shown to exist or did not happen.

 

[durangodawood]

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

Better to discuss them using the tools of law, especially how to evaluate testimony, what counts as hearsay, etc. Psychology, insofar as its scientific, might help tho.

If the proposed miracles are ancient, then I think anthropology helps: how myths get made, comparative mythology across cultures, etc.

 

[Strathos]

You can think of the universe like a computer, and the laws of physics as being the programming code. In this analogy, a miracle is when the coder (God) alters the code to make something happen that normally would not.

 

[SelfSim]

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

We can apply the scientific method to test the hypothesis of:

'Maybe, whenever we describe what we mean by 'miracles', evidence remains for inferring that a human mind is responsible for the assignment of the meaning of the concept of a miracle'.

The purpose, or the 'why?' for undertaking this, is to accumulate evidence of a very natural process, involving a very natural object, a human mind (or human brain), in action.

Then, (maybe), as there is no objective test for that meaning existing independently of the human mind, there would be (logically) zero objective evidence supporting that particular contention.

Further, when we compare the amounts of respective accumulated evidence of these two contentions, we can infer that any existence meanings (or interpretations) of 'miracles', has always been by way of the process of belief and not by way of the objective (scientific) process.

 

[durangodawood]

You can think of the universe like a computer, and the laws of physics as being the programming code. In this analogy, a miracle is when the coder (God) alters the code to make something happen that normally would not.

That makes sense if you believe there's a coder.

But is that a reasonable way to think of the world? Seems completely a matter of faith to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

We can apply the scientific method to test the hypothesis of:

'Maybe, whenever we describe what we mean by 'miracles', evidence remains for inferring that a human mind is responsible for the assignment of the meaning of the concept of a miracle'.

The purpose, or the 'why?' for undertaking this, is to accumulate evidence of a very natural process, involving a very natural object, a human mind (or human brain), in action.

Then, (maybe), as there is no objective test for that meaning existing independently of the human mind, there would be (logically) zero objective evidence supporting that particular contention.

Further, when we compare the amounts of respective accumulated evidence of these two contentions, we can infer that any existence meanings (or interpretations) of 'miracles', has always been by way of the process of belief and not by way of the objective (scientific) process.

 

[AV1611VET]

That makes sense if you believe there's a coder.

But I've seen atheists ask for evidence of miracles in the Bible.

Supposedly to subject them to the scientific method.

In addition, I've see atheists deny miracles, based on said miracles not passing the scientific method.

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

 

[durangodawood]

But I've seen atheists ask for evidence of miracles in the Bible.

Supposedly to subject them to the scientific method.

In addition, I've see atheists deny miracles, based on said miracles not passing the scientific method.

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

Well it depends.

There's the miracles of Jesus. Even if they happened, we'd expect no lingering physical evidence. Its all a matter of judgement about how stories get made.

But then there's items like the "great flood", for which we'd expect loads of evidence if it really happened. Thats where the relevant scientific disciplines would come into play.

 

[Stone-n-Steel]

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

I would define a Biblical miracle as something that cant be accounted for via the scientific method.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The scientific method demands repeatability. Miracles are those things which defy repeatability. Many things in life would be deemed miraculous if not for the fact that they happen so often.

 

[SelfSim]

Perfect example for demonstrating the distinction between knowledge and meaning!

We can see two minds in action in that video ... one that knows and one that assigns meaning.
Thank you for providing an example of evidence which supports the hypothesis in post#7.

Now can you cite a test for refuting that hypothesis?

 

[Strathos]

That makes sense if you believe there's a coder.

But is that a reasonable way to think of the world? Seems completely a matter off faith to me.

It is a matter of faith.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Because that's how we ascertain the truth.

The scientific method is just a tool to understand reality. It's consistent. It works.

If something comes into conflict with that method, it better have a better reason than "the method just doesn't work with this one thing." It needs hard, tangible evidence backing it up; evidence that cannot leave doubts.

So far, I have yet to see evidence for miracles that can't also be explained via scientific experiments or psychological manipulation (such as when Charles Manson convinced his followers that he made a bus fly to Barker Ranch. Some of them even explain how they were on the bus when he did it), IMO.

 

[SelfSim]

I would define a Biblical miracle as something that cant be accounted for via the scientific method.

It can .. (as I will demonstrate as far as I continue my participation this thread).
What I predict will be shown, is that the scientific method accounts for 'a miracle' as existing as 'a belief'.

Its quite simple really .. just recognise them for what they are .. I'm not asking to change the belief in any way .. (and neither does science).

 

[AV1611VET]

Now can you cite a test for refuting that hypothesis?

Rorschach test?

 

[SelfSim]

Rorschach test?

So, take a look at what Wiki says about that test.
I'll highlight where the evidence of human minds are at play in conceiving and conducting that test:

The Rorschach test is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning.

Human 'fingerprints all over it .. ie: can't do any of those highlighted words, without using a human mind!

No, the test I'm asking you for is one which can be conceived and conducted (etc) without the involvement of any human mind, whatsoever! Good luck! So, the 'Rorschach test' fails in demonstrating that ... rather spectacularly! It produces no evidence of mind independence.

But my test does produce objective evidence of the involvement of a human mind at play there .. (thus supporting the scientific hypothesis under test here).

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Why would anyone want to debate miracles from the standpoint of the scientific method?

Have you heard the story of the Amazing Randy?

One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia