|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How are modern miracles authenticated?
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
[...] The difference between you is a philosophical one, not a practical one about what science can and can't reasonably be expected to do.
Agreed, nice summary. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
As it happens, I do allow for the possibility of, for want of a better term, "magical" healing. Rummerfield's case is, frankly, pretty damn close.
I doubt this case is it, though. It has every red flag going:-
- spectacular healing claim
- mechanism of action defies all known biological possibilities
- no available documentation
- anonymity and secrecy
- appeal to (anonymous) authority figure
In short, there's no way to fact check it.
I want to emphasize again that I'm not alleging fraud. I believe the woman suffered a spinal injury, was told she'd "severed" her cord, and then recovered feeling and movement in a few days. I've no reason to doubt her sincerity, nor what Augustine was told. What I doubt is the accuracy of her initial diagnosis. This could be wrong with everyone (doctors, the woman, the expert, Augustine) acting in good faith.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You Godless atheist you.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hostly glower/
Martin60, absent any other explanation that wasn't helpful however much your tongue may have been firmly in your cheek.
/hostly glower
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
What LC put to you was something a bit different though, and the same thing that I was putting to you - not just confidence in the non-miraculous nature of the event, but confidence in a great many imaginings of your own that fill in every detail in the case. You don't seem to be able to engage with this point - I tried very hard!
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
As an MD, given the available knowledge, I'm surprised that you don't have similar confidence in alternative explanations. Given the reported symptoms, are you claiming that a contusion and misdiagnosis isn't likelier, by far, than reconnection and regeneration?
The thing I don't have confidence in is your knowledge of MRI scans, terminology and prevailing culture among doctors, Lithium treatment and many other issues you have plowed through. There just isn't enough detail to start talking about a detailed scenario here. I don't accept that the alternatives you give me to pick between are reasonable reflections of the variety of sensible responses possible.
I can't see how to make this any clearer.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sorry Eutychus. Yes, as you divined, I was being totally ironic and in complete agreement with Byron. Whose faith cannot be impugned by his not believing in third rate claims of the suspension of the laws of physics.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Byron.... I am finding some of your phrasing problematic... You write:
quote:
I doubt this case is it, though. It has every red flag going:-
spectacular healing claim
mechanism of action defies all known biological possibilities
no available documentation
anonymity and secrecy
appeal to (anonymous) authority figure
In short, there's no way to fact check it.
Bluntly, I am not in the habit of outing the specifics of the individual involved and her experiences without permission. I cannot find anything in English published on the case to which I can refer you and a name search provides me with nothing in German other than a marriage announcement. The "anonymity and secrecy" which troubles you finds its origin in these simple facts. Likewise, the "anonymous authority figure" who made a passing comment on the basis of my 3d-hand account--- she would likely not want her name and undoubted authority used without a review of the file and a scientifically-rooted conclusion.
No claims are being made to magical healing-- that the case may feature in the Cause's file will depend entirely the results of what appears to be an exhaustive and lengthy medical study. As canonization cases (for files not of any particular interest to the pontiff-du-jour) can take a few decades, it's entirely possible that none of us will be around when the decisions come to a head.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Another Cheshire miracle in other words. A claim that erodes faith. And serves purely earthly power.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Another Cheshire miracle in other words. A claim that erodes faith. And serves purely earthly power.
If I had any idea what this meant, I might respond to it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Another Cheshire miracle in other words. A claim that erodes faith. And serves purely earthly power.
If I had any idea what this meant, I might respond to it.
Oh, it just means that Martin60 is a typical modernist and has a Cartesian faith: he likes his beliefs in the supernatural to be entirely abstract and pure, and his good works to be entirely natural and concrete, and both connected only in a Divine interaction point that we might as well call the Holy Spirit. It's just like Descartes imagined the soul on one hand, the body on the other hand, both entirely separate but interacting through the pineal gland.
Something like an actual miraculous healing is then really an embarrassing breach of the proper order of things: supernatural faith made present not cleanly in the mind but messily in the body. Jesus' and the apostles' miracles are perhaps excused because they had to convince Jewish and pagan savages within a short span of time, but we are no savages any longer and should be fine with the proper splendid separation.
Like all things Cartesian, it is a half-truth that spins some misunderstood insights of the past into modern nonsense.
Oh, and he thinks that various Protestants faith healers and institutions like the RCC use fake (or real, if there are any...) miracles to their advantage on the "spiritual marketplace". That is of course true. What is not a truth, but simply a specific value judgement of his (in part informed by this Cartesian faith) is that this is always an evil thing to do. Though I would agree that consciously using a fake miracle is not licit, simply because it perpetuates a lie.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Augustine, I'm not saying that the secrecy mightn't be justified. Secrecy often is. What I am saying is that, until there's details available, it's reasonable to be skeptical.
mdijon, even accepting all that (arguendo, natch), the issue isn't whether you have confidence in me, but whether, in light of our current knowledge, we can reasonably say that several alternatives are more likely than spontaneous reconnection and regeneration. In your professional opinion, are the odds even? That's the only way we can reasonably be agnostic.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Martin likes his miracles obvious. Not one grain of wheat lost in a blizzard of chaff.
God doesn't play peak-a-boo.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
the issue isn't whether you have confidence in me
You might not want it to be the issue but I thought it instructive how asymmetrically your skepticism was applied.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
In your professional opinion, are the odds even? That's the only way we can reasonably be agnostic.
Bollocks it is. Let me demonstrate.
A priori spontaneous recovery of spinal function is quite unusual. Various possibilities exist like spinal concussion (whatever that is but it's described), transient ischaemia, resolving haemorrhage etc. but generally recovery is not so good. So a priori we might start by thinking it most likely the whole account is exaggerated and unreliable. On the other hand I'm dealing with a poster whose character I think I can judge and doubt it is totally fabricated. He could have been misled but unlikely to that extent from his account.
So accepting that an improbable thing of some sort actually happened it is now quite hard to calibrate our other priors. One of the case scenarios above becomes more likely, accepting that all are individually improbable.
Since we are accepting improbable events, we could go whole hog and turn to the indication that a medical team is very interested in the event and finds it perplexing. This suggests that even the relatively improbable scenarios are unlikely and we are into case-report territory.
At which point we ought to accept that whatever our priors posterior probabilities of any specific diagnosis are tiny and negligible.
In other words "Error message: Insufficient data for meaningful responses".
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
God doesn't play peak-a-boo.
Most of my Christian experience has been peak-a-boo at best.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[...] A priori spontaneous recovery of spinal function is quite unusual. [...]
This statement's both vague and inaccurate. As a doctor, you surely know that it depends on the injury, and that all injuries are different.
Over sixty percent of spinal injuries are incomplete, and in incomplete injuries, there's over a 90 percent chance of recovering locomotion. Even 5-10% of "complete" injuries recover locomotion. The amount of recovery rises with steroids and rapid decompression. Some degree of recovery is the rule, not the exception, and most people with SCI can walk again. We know that the sooner a person recovers function, the better their prognosis.
By contrast, a spinal cord spontaneously fusing and regenerating, within days, isn't just "case-report territory," it's fantastical, and would overturn a century of data on the speed of nerve regeneration. Do you have a single example of anything close to this having happened, ever?
If not, with much evidence in one hand, and zero in the other, not only can we reasonably say that alternative diagnoses are more likely, we must say this. I'm amazed that you dispute it, even if you believe a miracle happened. Aren't miracles, by definition, outside the laws of probability?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If not, with much evidence in one hand, and zero in the other, not only can we reasonably say that alternative diagnoses are more likely, we must say this. I'm amazed that you dispute it
I don't view it as a miracle vs alternatives dichotomy. You misread.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
even if you believe a miracle happened.
I don't. You misread.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Aren't miracles, by definition, outside the laws of probability?
It depends on the definition I'd say. But I didn't deal with the probability of a miracle at any point.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[...] I don't view it as a miracle vs alternatives dichotomy. You misread. [...]
Misread, mistype, potato, potahto.
If I have it correctly, you position's that we have "insufficient data" to compare the likelihood of alternative diagnoses?
If so, my position's that when one diagnosis contradicts a ton of data and common sense, it's reasonable to say alternatives are more likely. If you disagree, great, say why and we can discuss it.
For general consumption, here's a famous case report that follows the woman's symptoms closely, no miracles required.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If so, my position's that when one diagnosis contradicts a ton of data and common sense
Which diagnosis? A miracle? I don't think that is a diagnosis with a probability that can be compared. My point was never to argue with the likelihood or not of a miracle and I'm not sure how to define one.
My point was that you have a lot of false confidence in your knowledge of various technical aspects of this case. Strip that away and all we are left with is a "common sense" view that miracles don't happen.
Which is a perfectly consistent position to take, but it isn't one which is properly supported by any amount of technical knowledge or evidence, especially rather affected technical knowledge. You don't want to deal with that issue and so continue to read me as directly dealing with the probability of a miracle. That's my point.
By all means declare you don't believe in miracles, just don't pretend that you have any specialist knowledge that gives you any helpful insight to support that view.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
[...] My point was that you have a lot of false confidence in your knowledge of various technical aspects of this case. [...]
I don't consider it a "technical aspect of the case" to say that a spinal cord fusing and regenerating within days is less likely than possible alternatives such as contusion and misdiagnosis (if the doctor even misdiagnosed: many use "severed" figuratively), which can and do produce identical symptoms, without overturning the materia medica.
If I'm overconfident, I'm overconfident, it's simply not germane to the issue of miracles and probability. I think we've spent more than enough time on this tangent. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
I don't consider it a "technical aspect of the case" to say that a spinal cord fusing and regenerating within days is less likely than possible alternatives such as contusion and misdiagnosis
And you know that wasn't one of the technical aspects I was referring to.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And you know that wasn't one of the technical aspects I was referring to.
Well you listed several.
What point are you trying to make here? That I'm not an expert on spinal trauma? Guilty as charged, never claimed to be. I made the case that alternative diagnoses are more likely than speedy reconnection and regeneration. That's it. If you disagree, great, rebut.
This is not personal. Let's remember that and get back to the topic.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
What point are you trying to make here?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
My point was that you have a lot of false confidence in your knowledge of various technical aspects of this case. Strip that away and all we are left with is a "common sense" view that miracles don't happen...
By all means declare you don't believe in miracles, just don't pretend that you have any specialist knowledge that gives you any helpful insight to support that view.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
That I'm not an expert on spinal trauma? Guilty as charged, never claimed to be.
Actually you implied it with you views on how MRIs might be misleading, how doctors often used the wrong terminology and tended to be too pessimistic about cord injury - these are issues that only an expert could views on with any confidence.
I made the case that alternative diagnoses are more likely than speedy reconnection and regeneration. That's it. If you disagree, great, rebut.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
This is not personal. Let's remember that and get back to the topic.
Sure. I think the topic is simply you saying you think miracles don't happen. I more-or-less agree, they probably don't, although I wouldn't rule out that they happen very rarely. But I don't think that technical knowledge of the details of neurons, MRIs or such (even if one genuinely knows rather than just pretends to know) is of any relevance in that judgement.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
I seek to make the best case possible, as ever. MRIs can be misleading, doctors are frequently too pessimistic (such as ICU docs telling people they'll "never walk again" when they haven't a clue), and the one case of spinal regeneration on record took radical surgery and years of vigorous physio.
As for my position on miracles, I disagree with the concept more than the substance. Extraordinary healing, "impossible" according to current medical dogma, can and does happen. Thankfully medical dogma shifts, although it can take way too long (as will be attested by all those folks maimed by stomach surgery 'cause it was "impossible" for bacteria to cause ulcers).
I dislike the concept of "miracles" 'cause it's a salve for therapeutic nihilism, and can distract from investigating and replicating the mechanism of action in cases of extraordinary healing. That's my position, and I welcome challenges, so long as they're impersonal.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Augustine, I'm not saying that the secrecy mightn't be justified. Secrecy often is. What I am saying is that, until there's details available, it's reasonable to be skeptical.
*snip*
That is not at all what I read from your comments. Secrecy and confidentiality are different words. In any case, I dont't think that I've got a lot more to contribute to this thread.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Out of 200,000,000 pilgrimages at Lourdes, 7,000 have claimed a miracle of which 68 have been 'proven'.
So let's be generous, assuming only 7,000,000 people were the potential beneficiaries of a miracle, 1:1,000 reckon they had one of which 1:100, 1:100,000 in all, are reckoned to have had one.
The chances of a suspension of the laws of physics being 'proven' are between 1:100,000 and 1:1,000,000
At a cost in contemporary terms of, what, £100,000,000,000?
Better off spent on the NHS.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Better off spent on the NHS.
People pay their own way there, do they not?
If it gives them a feel good factor, a sense of community and caring, then why not go?
I don't think God is doing anything there (any more than any where else) but if people enjoy it and get a lot out of it, then good luck to them, I say.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Amen Boogie. Nearly. It would still be better spent on true charity.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Amen Boogie. Nearly. It would still be better spent on true charity.
Giving a lot of very sick people a sense of a broad supporting Christian community and allowing many dying people to draw closer to God in a particularly memorable and special way in a prayerful and friendly atmosphere is not true charity?
Watch it, Martin. In your zeal, you are becoming plain nasty.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
then I'm in exalted company.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Why does it matter to the believer, if miracles are not a sine qua non to belief or conversion? Does the believer feel that God is being challenged, and they want to support him (not that they think he needs it, of course).
Why does it matter to the sceptic? One reason repeated here is that a belief in miracles makes the believer and/or the believing community less eager to seek the advance of medical science.
Both these answers are incomplete, simplistic, and don't do justice to the vigorous answers here.
I'm impressed by how few
ad hominem remarks we've had. I've been on the receiving end of some in the past. "Do you seriously believe that you know better than the people who were there on the spot two thousand years ago?" Well yes, actually, I do.
The issue of speed and spontaneity is a vexed
one. Do you remember when "spontaneous combustion" was given as an explanation for the apparent "lightning strikes" which left its victims as a pile of fine ash, with only the extremities of one or two limbs remaining unscathed?
It was shown to be the result of a simple accident - a fall or a heart attack - near to a source of heat (a fire or an oven). It was not the burning that caused the death. That came afterwards, and was very slow. The other necessary condition for the final outcome was a limited amount of oxygen, which usually ran out before the limbs were totally consumed. Not a bolt from heaven then.
But it's too easy to rubbish the miracle business (and it is a business, which doesn't make it necessarily evil) I have myself seen severely disabled people setting off for Lourdes on a luxury "jumbulance", accompanied by well-qualified nurses and priests who, by and large, are expert at fielding unrealistic expectations by the people with the most difficult problems. They go there singing and laughing, and usually come back the same way, though very tired. They think it worth it if a million catholics pray (and it's usually unspecific, holding the plight of all sick people in their hearts) and one or two are healed as a result.
That the cause and effect thing might be regarded by sceptics as spurious or delusional is neither here nor there, as far as I can see.
The whole busload benefit, as do their congregations at home, from these expressions of joyful solidarity and hope.
So there!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Positive psychological effects shouldn't be downplayed, and can, via placebo, improve conditions.
My concerns are pragmatic above all else: is the hope of miracles used to distract from the grunt work of advancing medicine? Conservative physicians who fulminate at researchers for "raising false hope" (i.e., proving them wrong) are curiously relaxed about the possibility of miracles. Hope, it seems, is only bad when it can be proven.
How about the miracle industry funnel a chunk of its profits into translational research, to overcome the clinical trial bottleneck, and get discoveries from bench to bedside. Course, that'd be the ultimate case of running yourself outa business!
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yeah, the hundred billion paid to get a hundred miracles (OOM) - a billion a miracle - would get far more that way.
Spurious claims at the heart of a colossal power aggrandizing patriarchy also distract from the grunt work of kindness and justice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Conservative physicians who fulminate at researchers for "raising false hope" (i.e., proving them wrong) are curiously relaxed about the possibility of miracles.
That's a new one on me. I've never come across that before. Is this based on an anecdote or two or some other experience?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Oh sure there are plenty of doctors who have made various comments for various vested reasons (including the possible motive in some instances that the reporting in the media may in fact be over the top and mislead patient groups into thinking cures are around the corner when they aren't).
However, it was the idea of a particular conservative identity that was against research but pro-miracles that I was surprised about. Most doctors I know are rather cynical about miracles and I've not detected a sub-group with greater credulity who happen to be extra-dismissive about research.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Oh sure there are plenty of doctors who have made various comments for various vested reasons (including the possible motive in some instances that the reporting in the media may in fact be over the top and mislead patient groups into thinking cures are around the corner when they aren't).
This is, of course, can be a self-fulfilling prophecy: timelines depend on funding for clinical trials. If there's funding, a cure or treatment may be just around the corner; if there isn't, it may be decades away. If people think it's remote, they won't push for funding.
It's right that doctors urge caution, but hand in hand with hope. The phrase "false hope" is wrong, as we've no idea if hope is false or true until the evidence is in. Doctors should emphasize this uncertainty and, if research looks promising, throw their support behind clinical trials.
We need more hope, not less.
quote:
However, it was the idea of a particular conservative identity that was against research but pro-miracles that I was surprised about. Most doctors I know are rather cynical about miracles and I've not detected a sub-group with greater credulity who happen to be extra-dismissive about research.
To clarify, I'm not using "conservative" and "miracles" in a strict religious sense, but to describe a way of thinking: see the aforementioned case of Kevin Everett, whose initial prognosis was despair itself, followed by rapturous talk about minor miracles. A dispassionate application of the evidence wouldn't be framed in those terms.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I don't think rapturous talk of miracles among medics is at all common. I still don't see any evidence that the few who indulge in that are particularly down on medical research.
I'm also not sure it is the job of a doctor to give a particular line in talking to the media to encourage the flow of funding or to provide hope to a community. I think honest reflection is what is required, which will provide varying degrees of hope and encouragement to donors.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't think rapturous talk of miracles among medics is at all common. I still don't see any evidence that the few who indulge in that are particularly down on medical research.
I don't think they are, particularly, unless it slams into a medical dogma (which medicine, if it's evidence-based, isn't supposed to have). See again the scary opposition to the possibility that bacteria could cause stomach ulcers.
quote:
I'm also not sure it is the job of a doctor to give a particular line in talking to the media to encourage the flow of funding or to provide hope to a community. I think honest reflection is what is required, which will provide varying degrees of hope and encouragement to donors.
Pessimism is itself a particular line, and can discourage funding.
A job of a doctor is to heal. To heal, you need the right tools. You can't get access to many of those tools without clinical trials and approval. At the least, doctors shouldn't be deterring clinical trials with talk of "false hope." IMO, they should enthusiastically support medical progress.
I do wonder what'll happen to "miracles" when medicine cures all the usual culprits. Will miracle claims get ever bolder (Lazarus Mk II, coming to a morgue near you), or wither away entirely?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
At the least, doctors shouldn't be deterring clinical trials with talk of "false hope."
Well that's quite an extreme position. I was arguing for realism not pessimism. Yes, one needs tools, but going on air to convince people to fund x might, if it was effective, divert funding from y which looks like a better bet.
Fortunately most of the time individual doctors don't really influence funding decisions and so they can be honest with a clean conscience.
But money isn't endless and so some people need to decide where to spend it and that should be based on a sober assessment, not a perceived need to give hope.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
At the least, doctors shouldn't be deterring clinical trials with talk of "false hope."
Well that's quite an extreme position.
Really? I'd have thought it was an extremely moderate position. My personal position on this is extreme: I believe that, if a doctor has a reasonable and good faith belief that an experimental procedure may work, informed consent should indemnify them. I recognize that society at large doesn't, as yet, agree with me, so I take a moderate position.
quote:
I was arguing for realism not pessimism. Yes, one needs tools, but going on air to convince people to fund x might, if it was effective, divert funding from y which looks like a better bet.
Fortunately most of the time individual doctors don't really influence funding decisions and so they can be honest with a clean conscience.
But money isn't endless and so some people need to decide where to spend it and that should be based on a sober assessment, not a perceived need to give hope.
I agree that sober assessments are crucial. Declaring a potential cure or treatment to be "false hope" isn't a sober assessment, it's prejudiced, in the strict sense of prejudging the evidence.
The most realistic thing to say would be, "I don't know. It looks promising, but sometimes promise doesn't pan out. I hope it succeeds. We should urgently fund clinical trials to find out and potentially cure."
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
At the least, doctors shouldn't be deterring clinical trials with talk of "false hope."
Well that's quite an extreme position. I was arguing for realism not pessimism. Yes, one needs tools, but going on air to convince people to fund x might, if it was effective, divert funding from y which looks like a better bet.
Fortunately most of the time individual doctors don't really influence funding decisions and so they can be honest with a clean conscience.
But money isn't endless and so some people need to decide where to spend it and that should be based on a sober assessment, not a perceived need to give hope.
I may be mishearing you, but it sounds to me that you are exhibiting quite a lot of the overconfidence you ascribe to Byron. You appear to rely on your undoubted expertise in medicine to validate some expertise in "what all/some/most doctors think/do. That is, what you think al/most doctors
should do, they do. But I may be quite wrong. Does your expertise extend beyond the strictly medical field into whatever the technical term is for what goes on in the minds of most doctors?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Really? I'd have thought it was an extremely moderate position. My personal position on this is extreme: I believe that, if a doctor has a reasonable and good faith belief that an experimental procedure may work, informed consent should indemnify them. I recognize that society at large doesn't, as yet, agree with me, so I take a moderate position.
There's my mis-communication here, I meant the position of deterring clinical trials and talking about false hope was an extreme position and I've rarely come across it. I've often come across the opposite where doctors think a trial isn't needed because they already "know" that a treatment works and no further proof is required. Which is often false confidence, although not always.
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Declaring a potential cure or treatment to be "false hope" isn't a sober assessment, it's prejudiced, in the strict sense of prejudging the evidence.
Most of the time I think that's right. I would very rarely if ever use the term "false hope" (except perhaps for the situation where research has been done, there is no basis to believe a particular treatment works and yet everyone goes along with it anyway).
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
You appear to rely on your undoubted expertise in medicine to validate some expertise in "what all/some/most doctors think/do. That is, what you think al/most doctors should do, they do.
I hope I'm not claiming that. In the paragraph you quote I am talking mostly about what should be said/done and what power individual doctors actually have rather than stating what everyone does in fact do, and certainly not claiming I know what everyone thinks.
Although having said that I have spent quite a lot of time in clinical trials and in persuading doctors and patients to take part in them.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
Weird, irrational, unscientific things happen. One poster described them as magic. If there is a Godly effect, the the magic is part of the miracle; if no Godly effect then it is just magic.
Take the Resurrection as an example. The Gospel accounts make it clear that the risen Christ had a massive Godly effect on his followers, Mary and the gardener. The disciples in the locked room. The road to Emmaus. The followers' relationship with Jesus played a vital role in their post resurrection experiences.
What if one of the thieves rose again instead? The effect on his friends would have been very different from those of Jesus' followers. Jesus' rising from the dead makes possible the massive change that took place in his followers - this is the core of the miracle of the Resurrection.
There can be miracles without the magic. The story of the goose early in this tread is one example. Another is how my wife who is in this case illogical, unscientific, irrational but still sticks by me despite her education. A kind of reverse Hosea.
To me much of this thread has been a discussion about magic rather than miracles, but nonetheless an interesting topic to many. However, I prefer to debug some of my software.
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by pimple:
You appear to rely on your undoubted expertise in medicine to validate some expertise in "what all/some/most doctors think/do. That is, what you think al/most doctors should do, they do.
I hope I'm not claiming that. In the paragraph you quote I am talking mostly about what should be said/done and what power individual doctors actually have rather than stating what everyone does in fact do, and certainly not claiming I know what everyone thinks.
Although having said that I have spent quite a lot of time in clinical trials and in persuading doctors and patients to take part in them.
I guess I misheard then. Will go back to enjoying the argument in respectful silence!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Philip Charles:
Weird, irrational, unscientific things happen. One poster described them as magic. If there is a Godly effect, the the magic is part of the miracle; if no Godly effect then it is just magic.
Take the Resurrection as an example. The Gospel accounts make it clear that the risen Christ had a massive Godly effect on his followers, Mary and the gardener. The disciples in the locked room. The road to Emmaus. The followers' relationship with Jesus played a vital role in their post resurrection experiences.
What if one of the thieves rose again instead? The effect on his friends would have been very different from those of Jesus' followers. Jesus' rising from the dead makes possible the massive change that took place in his followers - this is the core of the miracle of the Resurrection.
There can be miracles without the magic. The story of the goose early in this tread is one example. Another is how my wife who is in this case illogical, unscientific, irrational but still sticks by me despite her education. A kind of reverse Hosea.
To me much of this thread has been a discussion about magic rather than miracles, but nonetheless an interesting topic to many. However, I prefer to debug some of my software.
This is really interesting. Could you expand a bit on the "massive change" the resurrection provoked in Jesus' followers?
[ 09. January 2015, 15:11: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
The question is - who needs to authenticate them in the first place? If something happens to an individual, they have (i) the material facts, and (ii) the experience. If they have experienced it as a miracle, then unless they need to then demonstrate it to someone else, there is no need to authenticate anything.
I've personally met people who have had remissions form various physical and mental illnesses after prayer in circumstances which were, lets say, medically unexpected. Complete and sudden cessation from long term drug habits with no physical withdrawal symptoms, reversal of osteoporosis, etc. It's enough for the individual that this happens. If also there is medically documented evidence for healing, that's about as far as you can go - by saying this was medically unexpected. In a professional doctor's opinion and experience, this does not usually happen, if at all. Interpretation of the meaning of that event is then up to individuals.
If you want some more institutionalised validation, I guess the bar of "proof" would be much higher than is necessary to satisfy an individual, but the bottom line would still be the same - this outcome is not to be expected in the normal course of this illness.
There are a quite a few such cases with medical documentation. Mitchell May is a classic example - the re-growth of catastrophically damaged joints and largely stripped muscle and nerves in the leg without major surgical intervention (he just had an infected sliver of bone removed) is not medically explicable - and it's well documented. This kind of thing is outside normal medical experience - so if it happens repeatedly, maybe some attention needs to be given to it. Attention is being given to it in medical research an training colleges in Russia and Latin America, but so far in Europe we seem to be offended by the idea of something inexplicable and unpredictable happening. Times will change.
[ 10. January 2015, 14:57: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Mitchell May is a con man.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I assume that's a direct quotation from the Quackwatch archives? I've at various times attempted to clean up some pages on Wikipedia on spiritual healing to get some facts (yes - facts) on there. One page had been taken over by a multilevel marketing company. So I altered it. Then it was scalpeled down to a few totally bland statements because the resident "experts" on Wiki couldn't believe that some events (which incidentally are recorded in press film archives) actually happened. So wrt to any kind of real documentation on what are called miracles here, the www is the last place to get accurate information.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nope.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Philip Charles
Ship's cutler
# 618
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Take the Resurrection as an example. The Gospel accounts make it clear that the risen Christ had a massive Godly effect on his followers, Mary and the gardener. The disciples in the locked room. The road to Emmaus. The followers' relationship with Jesus played a vital role in their post resurrection experiences.
quote:
This is really interesting. Could you expand a bit on the "massive change" the resurrection provoked in Jesus' followers?
Software debugged and working.
The short answer, the change must have been massive or the Church would not exist today.
A longer answer. God became human and God works through us humans. Jesus' followers had been somewhat changed though their contact with Jesus, but his resurrection while building on their previous experience was a total game changer. But wait,there is more to come; there was a reorientaion to follow. This is the importance of the period up to the Ascension. But hang on, that's not all; the Holy Spirit empowered them at Pentecost. In short the Resurrection was part of a process, but by far the most important part.
--------------------
There are 10 kinds of people. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
Posts: 89 | From: Dunedin, NZ | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
