But haven't we already gone over this?    We disussed the number of counter-observations that are needed to defeat the notion that a particular observation is well-established, and agreed that it was more than one.

As for your breakdown, B is incorrect.  In my Rath-scenario, the 2nd observation does not suggest that the first could never happen.  It suggested what it suggested.  The contradiction follows from the idea that the physical is all there is.  If it were, then this wouldn't be happening.  As it is, it is happening, so there must be nonphysical (supernatural).  Since there is only going to be the physical alone or the phsyical and the supernatural, the contradiction ensues.

You are being immensely unclear, and no, all it takes is pretty much one instance to break a law, or even a theory. Sometimes one instance is all we get.

What kind of scenario are you talking about? You suggest matter appearing outo f nothing, but that does not suggest the supernatural. You have yet to suggest anything that would suggest the supernatural. I don't think you possibly could. Ever.

You said it right here, "And yes, it takes more than one observation, but all it takes is a repeatable phenomenon that contradicts a theoyr and the theory's gone, out the window, bye-bye".   That is more than one instance.

My scenario with Rath was "Matter cannot be created physically.  Matter comes into existence"  In conjuction with the first observation (which, mind you, is hypothetical), that gives the situation I described above.   Hopefully, that clears it up.

Then I misspoke.

And sorry, but science does not make absolute statements that way. If we say that matter cannot be created, we only mean it in the context of our understanding of the universe. You might as well say "something breaks the theory of conservation of matter and energy", which is what you are proposing. If such were to happen, then we would change the theory.

Like I said: you can't come up with a scenario that suggests the supernatural. it's not possible.

"If we say that matter cannot be created, we only mean it in the context of our understanding of the universe".  What exactly does this mean?  That we are saying "Matter cannot be created, except when it can"?  Science does make absolute staments: that's what a law is.  The tenet "Once observed enough, it is assumed true" reflects this.  Science does not say "Once observed enough, it is observed that many times", which is what (I think) you are saying; that's fairly redundant and pointless.

My scenario is not at all saying that; it says that matter cannot be created physically.  The 2nd observation does not say that it was created physically (which would change the theory), but merely that it was created.

"Like I said: you can't come up with a scenario that suggests the supernatural. it's not possible".

I am fully aware that this is your position; you need not remind of it over and over.

Well, guys, I'm getting the feeling that this will never go anywhere for any of us, and I'm getting fairly exhausted of it. I think I'm going to call it quits now.

A law is not an absolute, it is a very well established theory.

Newton's LAWS of motions agree with observations when objects are travelling less than half the speed of light or/and are not in a strong gravitaional field.

The observed orbit of Earth is in agreement with Newton's Laws. The observed orbit of Mercury is not in agreement with Newton's Laws (there is a slight difference). The observed orbit of Mercury is in agreement with the Theory of Relativity.

If an observation contradicts a law, the law needs to be changed/improved. Thats what the Theory of Relativity is; an improvement of Newton's laws.

Your problem is that you are trying to reach your conclusion with an argument.  You should use an argument to reach a conclusion.

Regarding that you weren't referring to mathematics:  excellent!  Feel free to forget those parts of the post entirely.  

Now, I do not think that it is possible for two observations to contradict in the way that you propose.  In other posts you refer (I believe) to the idea that once a theory has been observed to be in harmony with many, many observations of phenomena, then it is assumed to be true; and you appear to be following that up with the idea that if an observation is (or observations are) made that contradict that assumption, then a supernatural cause must be ascribed because science must hold on to the assumption that it had developed.  

That is completely the opposite of what science is all about.  It is true that that is the way that theories are tested; and it is furthermore true that once something like gravity on the planetary scale has been observed and confirmed enough times then it is generally assumed to be true.  But.

BUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUT

If new data comes in that conclusively contradicts the theory, it is the duty of scientists to conclude that the theory that has been contradicted by observation is faulty or incomplete, and attempt to come up with a new or improved theory that can accomodate both existing data and the new data.  (Instead of concluding "OMG dood supernatural forces must be at work defying our unquestionably true theory!")

Furthermore, there is nothing in the scientific method that would cause (or indeed allow) someone utilizing it to conclude a supernatural cause.  Even if (for the sake of argument) something truly supernatural and beyond the power of science to explain were to happen, scientists would simply be unable to find a cause (instead of be able to deduct a supernatural cause).  It would be a mystery forever to science.  And whatever theory had gotten boned by the supernatural phenomenon would forever have that black mark on its record.  (So, if by "discarding science" way back there, you meant "discredit to some extent the contradicted theories", then we can probably come to some kind of agreement.)

And that is why your objection makes no sense -- why science can never conclude that supernatural forces are at work.  Because the scientific method doesn't work that way.  And I know you're tired of hearing that, but as long as you keep proposing what you are proposing, we have no choice (when responding) but to continue to point out your proposal's fatal flaw.  It doesn't work that way.  It can't.  It's like asking a computer to love.  

 

No, it means that matter cannot be created without energy insofar as we know. That does not rule out the possibility, but it does mean that according to all current observations, it can't happen. If it did, we'd have to change the theories.

A law is not an absolute statement.

Are you trying to use the "matter was created" as the basis of a real argument or a hypothetical one? If the former: that is ridiculous. If the latter: there is no logical fallacy. We would just change the theories.

I'm going to keep telling it to you until you realize you are working off an incorrect assumption concerning the foundation of scientific knowledge.