--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Joe Vaz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In the canonization process there is a role known as (or previously >called) the ?Devil?s Advocate? this role freely allows for refutation >of a miracle claim through (scientific) demonstration. > >..................................................................... > >Any scientific theory, by definition, is as good as the conclusive >proof it provides. And any amount of unsubstantiated rhetoric cannot >disapprove, invalidate or repudiate a miracle in its own right, >virtue and definition. The canonization process is subjected to >rigorous scrutiny and scientific study and analysis, and therefore >amply allows for refutation of claims. And when --and only when-- no >evidence is produced, to refute the occurrence of the miracle, or >miraculous cure/s as in this case, it is declared as such >(?miracle?) --as inexplicable phenomenon, to the human mind. > I have debated with Joe Vaz on this matter in the past. As in his previous posts on this issue, his argument continues to suffer from a serious misunderstanding of Science and the scientific method. Here is what my understanding of the scientific method is. This is the science I know and practice on a daily basis in my own modest way: 1. Science always tries to seek rational natural explanations for observed phenomena - explanations that do not violate established scientific principles based on objective evidence. 2. When confronted with an apparently unusual and extraordinary observation the default scientific position is to still seek natural explanations perhaps involving modification of the existing principles. However, such modifications are viewed with tremendous skepticism by the rest of the scientific community. To be taken seriously the proponent of this new explanation has to carry the entire burden of providing an extraordinary amount and type of objective scientific evidence to support his claim. 3. Science does not accept or even consider a claim as legitimate just because it has not or cannot be refuted by others. 4. Science under no circumstances entertains supernatural explanations of any kind. 5. If a religious, paranormal or supernatural organization decides to stretch their definition of Science to include supernatural explanations, they would still have to require that the proponents of such explanations carry the burden of supporting their claims with an extraordinary amount and type of objective scientific evidence. Of course they can stretch the definition of the scientific method to suit their own convenience. But then their claim that they have followed "rigorous scrutiny and scientific study and analysis" would be false and deceptive. Such claims have been made by all kinds of pseudoscientific disciplines and organizations, such as astrology, believers in UFOs, believers in telepathy, etc. 6. All genuine scientific reports that are deemed to result from a "rigorous scrutiny and scientific study and analysis" are published in a reputed scientific journal after an excruciating peer-review process conducted by anonymous expert referees. I would love to know the name of the scientific journal in which the miracle claims that Joe Vaz is referring to are published. If they have not been published in such a manner, then I have no choice but to discount his claim that "the canonization process is subjected to rigorous scrutiny and scientific study and analysis". Such a statement is empty rhetoric. Another clear example of empty rhetoric is the passage quoted by him below: > >A passage from the book "Conversation with God" succinctly states: >"You don?t want to know the Truth, you want to know the Truth as you >understand it. This is the greatest barrier to your enlightenment. >You think you already know the Truth! You think you already >understand how it is. So you agree with everything you see or hear >or read that falls into the paradigm of your understanding, and >reject everything which does not. And this you call learning? This >you call being open to the teachings? Alas, you can never be open to >teachings so long as you are closed to everything, save your own >Truth." > The above passage is not just empty rhetoric. It is ironic, because it applies more aptly to religion than to science. > >God and miracles have remained unfathomable mysteries to humankind ? >and science cannot unravel this mystery. And as mysterious as it may >seem ? it is an irrefutable fact that miracles do occur in human >life. Truth never changes its form; it will always remains as the >"truth" ?- no matter what the case, condition or circumstance. > Upon reading the above additional rhetoric, the following rhetorical questions come to mind: How does Joe Vaz know all this? Could it be that he has a privileged vantage point that enables him to see the truth? Does he know the ultimate "truth" by any chance? Cheers, Santosh =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-W-E-B---S-I-T-E-=-=-= To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from GoaNet | http://www.goacom.com/goanet =================================================================== For (un)subscribing or for help, Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dont want so many e=mails? Join GoaNet-Digest instead ! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Help support non-commercial projects in Goa by advertizing!! * * * * Your ad here !!
