V6M@PSUVM.BITNET (02/25/85)
<>
I didn't get a signature line on the original article...sorry.
Anyway, I don't think the author read a couple of articles I wrote
following them and given the random way articles reach or don't reach each
site UTASTRO may not get them so...
I agree that they were an over simplification.
I did not mean to say that Science exists to prove miracles but I did later
attempt to say that it SHOULD attempt a complete explanation. I KNOW that
it doesnot explain all of the physical in complete and true detail but that
it will continue.
Our church does allow for this incomplete knowledge.
Utastro makes the valid criticism that a miracle could just be something
that is unexplained NOW but not necessarily in the future. Possible and
someone else posted a reply to that objection (I think it was Chris).
I'm not convinced that my analogy to an experiment is all that weak.
After all experiments ARE DESIGNED to prove something. That something
usually has a few assumptions in its defintion also. So if the experiment
"works" we usually interpret this to mean that our hyposthesis was proven.
Physical experiments MUST be repeatable. So we can use repeatable laws
Which SHOULD have covered a situation to prove that
A) the law is no good (unlikely since the consequences to knowledge
could be catastrophic)
or
B) the law was superceded by a higher authority.
BTW the event for which we claim miraculous intervention MUST be a
fundamental event not just the random vagaries of stochastic processes.
Toodles
Marchionni