homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » How are modern miracles authenticated? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: How are modern miracles authenticated?
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lamb Chopped, I believe that both Augustine and the woman are sincere and acting in good faith. I'm sure that she was told she'd severed her cord, and then experienced a full and rapid recovery. From her perspective it must seem like a miracle.

When you know that many doctors use the word "severed" inaccurately, and many people recover from contusions, it takes on a different complexion. Perspective is everything.

I'd be interested to read the case study.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But you are assuming without any sort of evidence at all that a) the doctors involved are using the word inaccurately, b) the expert cited by Augustine is also acting in a manner which is either misleading or incompetent in the extreme, and c) that you, having no acquaintance with the case bar what you've read on the Ship, have the correct answer.

This is highly improbable.

Why not simply reserve judgment?

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Byron, jumping to a conclusion, wrote:
quote:
Augustine noted that the woman's primary motive was to big up her saint of choice.
While I might not have been crystalline in my expression, I did ascribe this to her. I really don't know if that was her motive-- I do know that she cooperated both with the doctors and with the promoter of the cause-- I suspect that her medical collaboration has been more time-consuming and troublesome to her, so if we must ascribe an objective motivation, that's the side where it would rest. Which was the primary, and which the secondary, or if they were prioritized at all, is something which I do not know.

Since this thread began, I have been in touch with her bestie, who tells me that she is still doing tests and is off to Augsburg for something or the other related next month, but is mainly occupied with her own graduate exams.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry! I meant that I did NOT ascribe this to her. *mukst edit more carefully*
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yeah Byron, it's binary isn't it after all, yes or no, fifty, fifty.

I just wish they could be prosecuted. It should be a crime to make such claims.

--------------------
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Being "confident" that all is not as is claimed is, I think, a lot less weird than believing in what amounts to magic on the basis of anonymous hearsay.

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!

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If it happened, it clearly isn't impossible, and we'd need to revise what we think we know about biochemistry and physics. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't revise our theories in light of this speedy regeneration? If not, then what?

If you declare that everything that happens is not miraculous simply by virtue of having happened, then amazingly, no miracle will ever happen. That's just stupidly circular.

If we observe a biological process that defies laws like the conservation of energy, e.g., if we observe an entire leg regrow overnight (while that person is sleeping), then you are of course welcome to create a new version of physics that requires no energy conservation, or perhaps a version of biology that requires neither metabolism nor actual material components to grow tissue. Good luck with that. Until you succeed though, this event will be classed miraculous. Because it is not just the case that we don't know how to explain this yet. Rather we do not know how this can be compatible at all with everything we do know. It is not simply an unknown thing, but a contra-known thing. Of course, we could be mistaken at such a fundamental level about nature and you are free to try to demonstrate that. But such an event does not per se demonstrate that. For you must in addition assume that nothing can happen but according to natural law. And while that is indeed the working hypothesis of modern science, it is not a natural law itself and it certainly hasn't been proven (and it is hard to see how it could be proven..). Faced with the possibility of declaring all of physics and biology fundamentally flawed, with no scientific alternative in sight, or accepting that in a particular instance a miracle apparently happened, I would likely consider this a miracle and scientifically move on to other matters. That is however an individual, prudential judgement where I consider my scientific efforts to be best invested. You would be most welcome to try your hand at explaining this if you come to a different conclusion...

--------------------
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But you are assuming without any sort of evidence at all that a) the doctors involved are using the word inaccurately, b) the expert cited by Augustine is also acting in a manner which is either misleading or incompetent in the extreme, and c) that you, having no acquaintance with the case bar what you've read on the Ship, have the correct answer.

This is highly improbable.

Why not simply reserve judgment?

I do have evidence: a reasonable inference from three fantastical claims:-
  • a severed cord spontaneously reconnected
  • the cord spontaneously regenerated to the extent that sensation and function are normal
  • this happened within days
By themselves, spontaneous reconnection and regeneration would be extraordinary. Add in the duration, and it's basically magical.

Misdiagnosis and confirmation bias fit the facts just as well, and in light of all the research and clinical data on the CNS, are infinitely likelier. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but I'll gladly say that it's unlikely to have happened. Given the nature of the claims, it'd be irrational for me not to make a preliminary judgment. If more evidence comes to light, I'll reconsider.
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Byron, jumping to a conclusion, wrote:
quote:
Augustine noted that the woman's primary motive was to big up her saint of choice.
While I might not have been crystalline in my expression, I did ascribe this to her. I really don't know if that was her motive-- I do know that she cooperated both with the doctors and with the promoter of the cause-- I suspect that her medical collaboration has been more time-consuming and troublesome to her, so if we must ascribe an objective motivation, that's the side where it would rest. Which was the primary, and which the secondary, or if they were prioritized at all, is something which I do not know.

Since this thread began, I have been in touch with her bestie, who tells me that she is still doing tests and is off to Augsburg for something or the other related next month, but is mainly occupied with her own graduate exams.

I apologize for the inaccurate paraphrase, and look forward to reading the case study. If this is for real, it'll be headline news across the globe, and will revolutionize neurology.
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!

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?

Are you saying that we should be agnostic about this?

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB, yes, this is basically a definition issue. D'you have any examples of science declaring an inexplicable phenomena to be "miraculous"? If you do, it means, simply, "we don't know."

If you're suggesting that the phenomena not be investigated thoroughly, and theories revised in light of it, how is this not obscurantism?

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
If you're suggesting that the phenomena not be investigated thoroughly, and theories revised in light of it, how is this not obscurantism?

IngoB's perspective is closer to yours than you realise.

The sort of (reported) facts that you describe above as "basically magical" are exactly the sort of facts which, for IngoB, would, if true, establish the potential for a miracle.

Both of you agree that it could be worth looking to see if those facts might be explained by "something new, but in principle explicable", but if the point is reached where what is reported genuinely is impossible/inexplicable/would-be-'magic'-if-it-happened, then neither of you think that this is a profitable field for scientific study. You, because you think it could not possibly have happened at all, IngoB because he thinks that EITHER it didn't happen, OR that if it did it's a one-off event outside of the ordinary natural law.

The difference between you is a philosophical one, not a practical one about what science can and can't reasonably be expected to do.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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]

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Cool]

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Cool]

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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. [Smile]

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Smile] 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      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532

 - Posted      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm again surprised that you're surprised: the "false hope" refrain was, courtesy of Senate Majority Leader and physician Bill Frist, a major feature of the '04 presidential election campaign.

Whenever some promising research is reported on, you can guarantee that some rent-a-quote, with or without an M.D., will pop up to warn gravely about false hope: diabetes is the latest victim. In this '09 op-ed, it was macular degeneration.

It would be classed as anecdotal, yes: if we can't get trials going to get lifesaving treatments from bench to bedside, we sure won't be wasting moolah testing the attitudes of the medical profession.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for Byron   Email Byron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools