Wrong. Miracle means that it is considered normal that people know nothing about nature, themselves, not to mention God. It is not normal. It is just statistically prevalent in these times, and it is one of the reason why these times are so hard, generally speaking. Otherwise, miracle is a real event. The very word for it wouldn't had come to exist if it wasn't, in the first place. Above all, it is not violation or alteration of laws. It is just that (normally) it is considered normal that we don't know about much about the laws themselves. It is just that people don't use logic they COULD use, some degree of sane thinking. Law, by definition, is valid everywhere, always, otherwise it wouldn't be law.
More advantageous would be to discuss sane vs. insane meeting of the miracle. Sane approaching is based on verifying by oneself. We are advised to verify by ourself, to distrust, so to speak, the 'miracle' from the start. Insane approach is based on 'believing' or, in the other extreme, on 'rejecting'. A believing person will say, "is ...", "was ...", while the doubter (the denier, essentially) will say, "is claimed to be ...". (Usually, though not always, the very verb "claim" hides the second pathological type behind.) Using this a s a contrast, it's easy to see that the sane approach, while distrusting the perception, also strives to repel suspicious attitude itself, to avoid the trap of denying. Following the definition that miracle is real, observable event, the sane route is exemplified by John (what our eyes have seen, what our hands have touched: we are compelled to state that these are not empty tales).
The Course in Miracles adds another useless definition, "shift in perception" or something. This sounds interesting, must sound interesting, as it points to problem of the observing agent who (I strongly agree here) is by no means some static objective camera, no, not when it comes to miracles! It might not be useless after all. Speaking of cameras and the like: Steiner[17] brings up the view that the whole human being is some sort of "camera" that is registering perceptions of the higher world. It seems plausible to me that such camera can do alot more than piece of electronics. Therefore, to be truly scientific, science must not throw away ordinary reasoning (that, in principle, every grown up man is capable of) at the very outset, but, sorry, that is what happens when it considers proven only what metal pieces of perfected-but-far-from-perfect technology can furnish.
Far, very far away from the cultured world, in some other, exotic land, the naive mind lives, as you know. Well, naive mind can very well sense and very well grasp the meaning of the word miracle, spontaneously, without rational reflection. But it does not know enough, it falls into various traps which are to many to be mentioned here. Nevertheless they are in the two above categories of superstition and materialism.
What is sane talking/writing about the miraculous? We've seen an example of solid encyclopedic entry. That would be correct writing, well, why not. But, from the higher point... The sources seem to hint that one must be able to produce what one writes about. Then the head of the group could rest assured that the writer won't disclose anything inapropriately, prematurely, immaturely or in a way to put people off the track instead of catching interest of those with magnetic centre.
