So you actually are saying that in real life, with adults, you regularly contradict people when they “misuse” a word that the majority of the population takes at face value?
The problem with proposition #3 is that terminology, especially inaccurate terminology, conveys meaning, and supports the idea itself.
If you are not concerned with terminology, I would expect that you would have immediately conceded the point, saying something like, “Yes, fair point: it’s not scientifically impossible. It is, however, essentially impossible, realistically not an option, virtually impossible – any of those convey my point just fine.”
You didn’t do that – instead you continued to defend your usage even when it was obvious you were in error. This suggests to me that you ARE, in fact, “overly concerned,” with peoples’ terminology, when the person in question is you.
In a debate? Of course.
In causal conversation? It depends on the context, and how well I know the speaker.
Are you saying that in real life, with adults that believe, you regularly announce that belief in Biblical stories of miracles is delusional?
And as has been pointed out, Bricker is a lawyer (as am I, FWIW). Legal minded folks enjoy seemingly semantic debates and discussions about the correct usage of words.
(I have been told that it can at times make us insufferable to non-legal types, esp when two or more lawyers are in a group setting, even casually)
1- People wouldn’t say that. People don’t use that type of language with sports.
2- The comment about donkeys does fit.
3- Most people, when they say scientifically possible, they mean what is possible in the present tense or in the foreseeable future.
4- Your standards are bizarre. If we had to list every possible exception to a declarative statement, we would spend all of our time making exhaustive lists, and very little time actually talking about actual ideas.
5- I think everyone, including you, know what I was actually trying to say. Donkey’s don’t talk. To think that they do/can/did is a ludicrous idea.
6- Focusing on semantics, as opposed to content, real content, suggests to me that you are not able to come up with any better, more valid or insightful criticism.
No, we mostly point and laugh behind their backs.
No
what I am saying is, if I do criticize someone, I am not going to engage in semantics and quibble over words. I’m going to look for actual flaws in their actual ideas, not, smugly inform them that their use of said word contradicts entry number 4 in Websters dictionary…assuming, of course, their use does conform correctly to definition 1 or 2.
Except I did use the correct use of the word.
When you hear “scientifically impossible” do you - really - stop and think… well, maybe Aliens could could do it but no scientist today could!!!
I mean is that what you really, honestly, think when you hear the term scientifically impossible?
Am I reading this right? By arguing that the supernatural events described in the Bible could have been mediated by high-tech aliens and thus, are not “scientifically impossible”, Bricker is essentially arguing that mystical, supernatural mechanisms are not the only possible explanation for these things…even though that is what is purported by the Bible.
So I’m left wondering why he even has faith (presumably). If the reader is allowed to decide for himself what really happened in the Bible, even to the point of hypothesizing that aliens tinkered with creation in deceptive ways, then how much credibility does the Bible really have?
What really is the point of this ridiculous sidetrack?
I agree it’s probably rare.
But, again, not zero. People GENERALLY don’t. People do often talk about “mathematically possible,” in sports, and generally use the term correctly.
No, I disagree. You are certainly in the minority with respect to this message board. I suspect you’re also in the minority in the real world, but why should I care? This discussion arose on this message board.
That’s not a standard I propose. Instead, I propose avoiding the use of “scientifically impossible,” unless it is correctly applied. That would take no time at all, leaving you oodles of time to discuss your actual ideas.
Sure, and if you had said that, I would not have objected.
I don’t have any other criticism to offer. I don’t contest your basic idea.
The point is to inveigh against improper usage of the phrase “scientifically impossible.” I have made that point, directly and clearly, in quite a few posts above.
Not once have I argued anything about the supernatural. And to the extent I have discussed it, I have agreed that events related in the Bible often lack credibility. I have not made any argument as how that lack should, or should not, weaken or strengthen anyone’s faith.
I think that a claim is being made as to the impossibility of harmonizing the event in question with our understanding of the physical laws of the universe.
No, it’s your POV that is the minority. I don’t know how we would prove it but I would be quite glad to lay $100 against a bet that when 99% of the population says “Scientifically Impossible” they are talking about what scientists can actually do now, or, in the foreseeable future.
I am sure they are all aware that aliens, or humans 1000 years in the future, can do things that we today can not do. Even a dull witted person would probably realize this. Certainly anyone of average intelligence or above would realize that.
This is abundantly clear.
Continue to think that.
The claim “Scientifically impossible” in regards to talking donkeys is a synonym for ludicrous, impossible, crazy, delusional, bizarre, etc. Continue, if you choose, to grab the dictionary and proclaim loudly that it does not fit accurately to 100% degree of certainty to the 4th listed definition in the dictionary.
99% of the active, posting population of the SDMB? Or of the English-speaking world?
As I see it, people who believe that miraculous events recorded in the Bible actually happened could be classified into three types:
Type 1 doesn’t have a strong understanding of science, nature, or The Way The World Works, and is fuzzy about what is and is not possible, so they uncritically accept as true whatever they’re told happened.
(Skeptics sometimes accuse pre-modern people of all being this way, in the context of saying things like “People in those days believed in talking donkeys because they didn’t know any better, the way we do today.” It’s true that the ancients didn’t have our modern scientific understanding of the world, but certainly they knew that donkeys normally can’t talk. Typically, when miracles are described in the Bible, it’s with the understanding that they are indeed miraculous, things that don’t or can’t normally happen. On the other hand, there are plenty of people today who are uncritically gullible and don’t have a good sense of what is and is not possible.)
Type 2 believes that these “miracles” can be explained by natural mechanisms that don’t contradict the laws of nature (though they may go beyond our current level of scientific knowledge). For example, Balaam heard the donkey talk because he was having a psychologically explainable hallucination, or there was a ventriloquist, or there were indeed high-tech aliens involved. God may (or may not) have been responsible, but God worked through natural methods.
Type 3 acknowledges such events as supernatural miracles that break in and defy the natural laws by which the world normally operates. They believe in a God who created the world and has power over it, so it’s not a problem for God to step in and do whatever he chooses to, which he does or did do at least once in a while. Such events may well be scientifically impossible, but that doesn’t stop God, who is not bound by the laws of nature.
I’m pretty sure that when 99% of the people on this board say, for example, something is fiscally impossible, they recognize that you could go out and by a lottery ticket.
I am pretty darn sure when they say telekinesis is “Scientifically Impossible” they realize aliens or humans 1000 years in the future could possibly use some form of telekinesis.
I am 100% certain that if you look over this board as a whole, you are not going to find long self declared disclaimers to declarative statements.
99%, for sure
I just did a quick calculation. The odds of this happening are around 1 / 10**544.
Now, assuming that you can roll the die once a second, you would not expect to see this particular result if you started rolling at the time of the Big Bang. It would still be vanishingly unlikely if we waited until the proton death of the universe.
Since the location of our atoms are probabilistic, it is also “scientifically possible” under Bricker’s usage that we suddenly jump five feet to the right. I’m not sure if this is more or less expected than the die result.
Bricker is contending that something “scientifically” impossible is more possible than something simply impossible - a curious contention to be sure.
In the year 1500, if one was to say that it is scientifically impossible that people from across the world could talk to each other almost instantaneously by ‘typing’ letters into a machine and someone from the other side of the world could see them, you, a citizen of the world in 2016 would say, no, that’s not scientifically impossible - because 500+ years onward, we’ve done it.
So, while I think this tangent is somewhat silly, I’m not sure that saying something is scientifically impossible because it can’t happen today or in the foreseeable future (which, I agree with Bricker does not mean scientifically impossible) is useful, especially when in this discussion we are talking about long time frames.
However, I also don’t think it necessarily matters one way or the other. So it doesn’t matter much to Bricker’s point or to yours. So why are you fighting so hard against it?
I agree. This is why I don’t have any concern over the use of the phrase “fiscally impossible.”
No, they most likely realize that given our understanding of the universe’s physical laws, telekinesis is scientifically impossible, but they also realize that some heretofore unknown technology could make it appear as though telekinesis was being used. Moving an object solely by thought violates the inverse-square law relating to the propagation strength of electrical signals from the brain. We could imagine some technology which detects thought and then uses independent motive power to move objects, but it’s up to you whether that counts as “telekinesis.” I suspect, if someone were to say that telekinesis were scientifically impossible, they would be rejecting the assisted-technology definition, and if so, they’d be correct.
That’s true but irrelevant, since I don’t object to generically “declarative” statements. I object to your use of “scientifically impossible.” I have been very clear on this point for quite a few posts, and it’s interesting how often you seek to reframe the discussion to include broader, or different objections.
Why is that relevant, when the discussion in question arose here?