Isn't that close to the definition of a miracle? I see miracles as being contrary to what we normally observe.
Sometimes miracles leave traces that can be looked at (Jesus turning water into wine - you could examine the wine) -- but you must be careful. If you just see the wine, you may want to think there was a grape sometime inthe past.
Actually, I've discussed this at some length, before. Consider events in terms of cause and effect: when one measures an effect, one asks about the cause. In science we look for material causes. Thus, in the case of the birth of Christ, or the wine at the wedding feast, we have effects and we look for causes. It has been asserted, in both of these instances, that there was no material cause. Although this is not necessarily the case with all miracles, it is certainly asserted with regards to these two. As such, it can be accepted, or rejected, or a person can be uncertain.
Consider a global flood, on the other hand. There is no effect to observe. How can causes be posited for an effect that ought to leave traces but hasn't? If such a flood had occurred, no doubt, science would look for material causes. It might be able to find some, if there were any (in which case, the miracle would be a miracle of providence and not special intervention). But, at any rate, the historicity of a global flood would not be denied because the corresponding effects would be measurable.
Likewise, if the wedding feast came and it was asserted that the water had been changed to wine, but it still looked and tasted like water, on what basis could it be called literal wine? No, the miracle is said to be so because the host was surprised at how good the wine tasted, never identifying it as water. There aren't any effects that we can measure, today, but even if the wine were still present, although one might posit a material cause, it would be difficult to deny the effect: there is wine (or probably vinegar, at this point).