John West wrote:

KevinScharp wrote:

Ah, so there would have to be the second miracle -- resetting the mass/energy distribution. If that's true, then it doesn't help you.

Not resetting. Seeing to it that it continues on as it otherwise would in the first place. The only way it doesn't help is if you're assuming an energy transfer theory of causation again.

So God makes it the case that Jesus is resurrected (violating conservation of mass/energy) AND that mass/energy is conserved?

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

This has been gone through ad infinitum, but all science shows us is how nature usually works. Indeed, in this instance it doesn't even do this: the conservation of mass/energy is a heuristic device, though it seemingly is supporrted by some scientific discoveries and theories (but in no sense has been universally shown to hold). If you are claiming that the received view of scientific theories is they always hold, then this is just false, as far as I know. I am aware of no significant philosophical understanding of scientific theories or scientific laws that, absent broader metaphysical commitments, claims this. Do you have support for this claim (and I mean philosophical, not what some scientists may think)?

A heuristic device! Ha! If you have a counterexample to it, I'd love to hear it (and you'll get a nobel prize).

I don't know what "they always hold" means. Can you clarify?
 

I do think there may be a difference here between our current understanding and a theoretical complete scientific understanding of the universe. I think your point relies on us having such an understanding. Then, presumably, we'd be like those observing the mechanical clock I mentioned. At the moment we don't even know of all the cogs and gears, let alone how they fit together. Although perhaps your point is a miracle must always clog up the gears, or it wouldn't be a miracle? Whether it does this through the cog of conservation of mass/energy or elsewhere.

But I still think this is questionable. I'd like to see an explanation why even a complete science is not just an understanding of how nature usually works, and how miracles would overthrow such a science. As indicated by the two worlds analogy, I certainly don't think it makes sense to even claim the difference between allowing miracles or not changes how we do science. It seems to me the claim must concern the findings if science  Contrary to my first impression, I think you are bringing up an interesting point, though I doubt it finally is correct. But it is interesting, and gets us thinking more about scientific theories and laws of nature. I am a Fortean as well as a Platonist, so I am doubly interested.

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

KevinScharp wrote:

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

This has been gone through ad infinitum, but all science shows us is how nature usually works. Indeed, in this instance it doesn't even do this: the conservation of mass/energy is a heuristic device, though it seemingly is supporrted by some scientific discoveries and theories (but in no sense has been universally shown to hold). If you are claiming that the received view of scientific theories is they always hold, then this is just false, as far as I know. I am aware of no significant philosophical understanding of scientific theories or scientific laws that, absent broader metaphysical commitments, claims this. Do you have support for this claim (and I mean philosophical, not what some scientists may think)?

A heuristic device! Ha! If you have a counterexample to it, I'd love to hear it (and you'll get a nobel prize).

I don't know what "they always hold" means. Can you clarify?
 

I don't see how a counterexample would change the role of the conservation of mass/energy in contemporary science.

Always holds means just that: it hasn't been proven that principles like these hold always and forever. All that has been shown is that they are supported by theories drawn from out nature as it normally is and operates.

Heuristics have exceptions -- they're good for certain purposes but not beyond that. I have no idea why you'd think conservation of mass/energy is a mere heuristic.

It seems like you're unfamiliar with how the relevant science works. The theory in question is a mathematical model with instructions for interpreting it. The whole structure makes various predictions. Those are tested. Passing the tests provides evidence for the theory. The theory is stated neutrally, not for specific times. So the evidence for the theory just is evidence that the theory holds at all times. Not every scientific theory works like that -- some have explicit restrictions -- but the ones I'm invoking here (e.g., general relativity) work like that.
 

Jeremy Taylor wrote:

I do think there may be a difference here between our current understanding and a theoretical complete scientific understanding of the universe. I think your point relies on us having such an understanding. Then, presumably, we'd be like those observing the mechanical clock I mentioned. At the moment we don't even know of all the cogs and gears, let alone how they fit together. Although perhaps your point is a miracle must always clog up the gears, or it wouldn't be a miracle? Whether it does this through the cog of conservation of mass/energy or elsewhere.

But I still think this is questionable. I'd like to see an explanation why even a complete science is not just an understanding of how nature usually works, and how miracles would overthrow such a science. As indicated by the two worlds analogy, I certainly don't think it makes sense to even claim the difference between allowing miracles or not changes how we do science. It seems to me the claim must concern the findings if science Contrary to my first impression, I think you are bringing up an interesting point, though I doubt it finally is correct. But it is interesting, and gets us thinking more about scientific theories and laws of nature. I am a Fortean as well as a Platonist, so I am doubly interested.

I definitely do not want to rely on some future complete scientific understanding.

As for why science isn't just about how nature usually works -- think of the "faster than light neutrino" example that happened in 2011-2012.  If scientific theories were just supposed to describe how the universe usually works, then the scientists wouldn't have been so worked up about this anomaly. They would have just chalked it up to an abnormality in nature. Saying that scientific theories are only supposed to describe how the universe usually works is not compatible with scientific practice and the way these theories are formulated.