What Scientific Laws Are

[Received]

Applied principles of induction with a very good track record. There's absolutely nothing that says because X physical aspect has been repeated trillions of times that it's impossible for it to "disobey" this rule. I'm speaking of miracles, of course. To say that one necessarily means the other is to say that something inductive is something necessary, and that's a logical fallacy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you drop a rock a gazillion times, and it falls down a gazillion times, and you have math and theory that explains why it falls down, and you use this math and theory to precisely calculate a trajectory for a probe to fly to mars, using the math and theory as well to slingshot the probe from planet to planet,....

It would be absolutely insane to propose that it is possible to drop a rock and have it not fall down. Or that anything, without the use of technology, will ever not fall down.

 

[Received]

All you're saying is it's ridiculous to think induction can't equate to necessity. Those are two different worlds, no matter how many times something has consistently happened. And I agree that it's ridiculous in general to expect things to go different; well, miracles are a bit ridiculous, but that's different than saying that they're necessarily false in theory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All you're saying is it's ridiculous to think induction can't equate to necessity. Those are two different worlds, no matter how many times something has consistently happened. And I agree that it's ridiculous in general to expect things to go different; well, miracles are a bit ridiculous, but that's different than saying that they're necessarily false in theory.

Miracles are impossible by definition.

They are defined as things that can't happen.
They are defined as things that suspend / defy the laws of nature.
They are defined as things that are impossible, but happen anyway

It's impossible for matter with mass not to be subject to gravitational forces.

 

[Received]

Your definitions aren't philosophical enough. Miracles are only possible by definition if you beg the question by assuming a definition that doesn't allow for their possibility.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your definitions aren't philosophical enough. Miracles are only possible by definition if you beg the question by assuming a definition that doesn't allow for their possibility.

miracle (ˈmɪrək ə l) http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html— n 1. an event that is contrary to the established laws of nature and attributed to a supernatural cause

 

[Received]

First of all, that's just one definition. Secondly, accepting it, notice the "established" here. Who establishes the consistently repeated actions of nature and determines them to be laws? Logically, it would be best to consider a law of nature a consistent, inductive occurrence of something that you can assume is necessary.

 

[jayem]

Applied principles of induction with a very good track record. There's absolutely nothing that says because X physical aspect has been repeated trillions of times that it's impossible for it to "disobey" this rule. I'm speaking of miracles, of course. To say that one necessarily means the other is to say that something inductive is something necessary, and that's a logical fallacy.

Sounds like you're saying that miracles can be natural, albeit highly improbable occurences. If so, then they wouldn't have any special significance. It would be as if I won the Powerball jackpot. Extraordinarily unlikely that I specifically would win. But it would be perfectly natural, and not that remarkable that someone would win.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't have a problem with miracles. Their cause comes form outside the universe, so the rules don't apply.

 

[Rubiks]

I don't have a problem with miracles. Their cause comes form outside the universe, so the rules don't apply.

Bingo. Miracles are possible as long as God exists and he temporarily intervenes a natural law. Natural laws only apply to closed systems.

 

[quatona]

Applied principles of induction with a very good track record. There's absolutely nothing that says because X physical aspect has been repeated trillions of times that it's impossible for it to "disobey" this rule. I'm speaking of miracles, of course. To say that one necessarily means the other is to say that something inductive is something necessary, and that's a logical fallacy.

When violations to the "applied principles of induction" are observed, we better look for explanations and modify the Natural Law accordingly (and that´s what science does).
Shoulder-shruggingly saying "it´s a miracle" a. has no explanatory power, and b. is the attempt to uphold a Law even though it has just been proven not to be a Law.

 

[Paradoxum]

Bingo. Miracles are possible as long as God exists and he temporarily intervenes a natural law. Natural laws only apply to closed systems.

I don't think miracles necessarily break natural laws. Lifting a box (or flying a plane) doesn't go against the law of gravity... they just introduce an addition force. God is an additional force.

 

[Gladius]

Applied principles of induction with a very good track record. There's absolutely nothing that says because X physical aspect has been repeated trillions of times that it's impossible for it to "disobey" this rule. I'm speaking of miracles, of course. To say that one necessarily means the other is to say that something inductive is something necessary, and that's a logical fallacy.

Entirely philosophically accurate. However I dare you to walk off a cliff to see if gravity remains correct.

You see, we (humans) would be wise to accept some evidenced based claims as consistently true, for our own well being.

Miracles, whilst claimed often are NEVER empirically repeatable, contradict the much better established (and well tested) fundamental and CONSISTENT observations of the material world, and whilst nothing is (philosophically) impossible, they are no more worthy of credibility than Lock Ness monsters or yetis.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

All you're saying is it's ridiculous to think induction can't equate to necessity. Those are two different worlds, no matter how many times something has consistently happened. And I agree that it's ridiculous in general to expect things to go different; well, miracles are a bit ridiculous, but that's different than saying that they're necessarily false in theory.

How does one go about distinguishing an extremely improbable event from a miracle? Wouldn't the occurrence of such an event expose the incompleteness of our understanding and suggest that we need to modify our inductively derived principles?

 

[Eudaimonist]

There's absolutely nothing that says because X physical aspect has been repeated trillions of times that it's impossible for it to "disobey" this rule.

I dislike that David Hume nonsense. What evidence is there that it is possible for something different to happen? Without that evidence, there is no point considering such "possibilities".

I'm speaking of miracles, of course.

I don't see why such a rare event should be a miracle. Protons decay, and only very rarely, but that's no reason to conclude "miracle".

To say that one necessarily means the other is to say that something inductive is something necessary, and that's a logical fallacy.

Perhaps, but that's what we have to work with. There is no better alternative.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Entirely philosophically accurate. However I dare you to walk off a cliff to see if gravity remains correct.

You see, we (humans) would be wise to accept some evidenced based claims as consistently true, for our own well being.

Miracles, whilst claimed often are NEVER empirically repeatable, contradict the much better established (and well tested) fundamental and CONSISTENT observations of the material world, and whilst nothing is (philosophically) impossible, they are no more worthy of credibility than Lock Ness monsters or yetis.

Me jumping off cliffs doesn't have any bearing on the argument. You might call it the "cliff jumping" fallacy.

As for miracles and replication, given that miracles are specific acts of intervention and laws are by definition replication machines, to compare the one to the other (in this case by dismissing miracles because they don't fit the replication rule) is comparing two incommensurate things, and so is fallacious.

 

[Received]

How does one go about distinguishing an extremely improbable event from a miracle? Wouldn't the occurrence of such an event expose the incompleteness of our understanding and suggest that we need to modify our inductively derived principles?

I don't know. This point and quatona's cause me to sit back and think.

But I think the above I just posted applies: given that miracles are specific interventions, whereas laws are what they are by definition because of induction, I don't think you can use the former to define the latter.

As for distinguishing, that comes down to the subjectivity of coincidence, which of course isn't compelling by any real standard other than personal experience: I experience something really strange and very coincidental, therefore God might be involved. Actually, coincidence senses like this are probably how we assume any intelligence is involved. But you do have miracle moments that are pretty obvious in that they very clearly involve breaking the laws of nature (the former example is more implicit and subtle), where, you know, God parts the sea and stuff.

 

[Received]

I dislike that David Hume nonsense. What evidence is there that it is possible for something different to happen? Without that evidence, there is no point considering such "possibilities".

Hume, for me, is up there with Kierkegaard as a thinker with whom I've only disagreed very cautiously. But asking for evidence presupposes the standard (induction) we're putting into question, and so would be question begging.

I don't see why such a rare event should be a miracle. Protons decay, and only very rarely, but that's no reason to conclude "miracle".

Right, but in that case there isn't a divine intervention; just things going about as they would otherwise do. But in a very real sense, everything is a miracle, being as a whole, given its existence instead of nothing (assuming, of course, God exists and was responsible for being). Take that, Heidegger.

Perhaps, but that's what we have to work with. There is no better alternative.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Here's we're comparing veracity apples to pragmatic oranges.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't know. This point and quatona's cause me to sit back and think.

But I think the above I just posted applies: given that miracles are specific interventions, whereas laws are what they are by definition because of induction, I don't think you can use the former to define the latter.

As for distinguishing, that comes down to the subjectivity of coincidence, which of course isn't compelling by any real standard other than personal experience: I experience something really strange and very coincidental, therefore God might be involved. Actually, coincidence senses like this are probably how we assume any intelligence is involved. But you do have miracle moments that are pretty obvious in that they very clearly involve breaking the laws of nature (the former example is more implicit and subtle), where, you know, God parts the sea and stuff.

Laws are just descriptions of regular patterns that we see in nature. Observing an irregular phenomenon would suggest to me that our description requires further refinement. As quatona mentioned earlier, it seems that your first instinct is conclude that the law is still, in fact, a completely accurate description of the phenomena, and that this particular irregularity thus represents a violation of said law; in a word, a miracle. Thus, you've retained the same level of confidence in the law, and also increased your confidence in an interventionist supernatural agent.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't think miracles necessarily break natural laws. Lifting a box (or flying a plane) doesn't go against the law of gravity... they just introduce an addition force. God is an additional force.

How can you know that about miracles?

If God saves a plane from crashing, what to you indicates that he used a force compatible with natural laws?