Billions of people have HD video cameras in their pockets: why aren't we seeing lots of miracles on video?

[Bradski]

If you are calling into question randomised trials and statistical analyses as a means to understanding our world…

Your best bet would have been to say: OK, fair enough…

But if you insist, then please tell when it was discovered that the prayer group got better. Was it when they were selected? In which case no prayers required. Or did the results mysteriously change in some weird Back To The Future scenario?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

That’s perfectly fine. Respond when you have time.

And that’s less fine. I’d say that just about everyone would benefit more from more detailed answers coming later.

Isn’t it interesting that you emphasise that it is you who hasn’t been convinced? For that indicates the main question: what is it about you that makes you unconvinced?

Correction: you think it would be convincing to you. It is highly unlikely that it really would convince you.

1. I can’t say the evidence isn’t convincing in general because some people appear to be convinced.
2. How can I know that you know what kind of evidence I will find to be convincing?

Are you sure the only reason why you reject all those other things is insufficient evidence?

For example, what about the contrary evidence - let’s say, the argument that all planets from which space aliens might have come are just too far to get here, even at the speed of light? Or what about peer pressure - just about all the people you trust considering those beliefs to be silly?

And why should evidence be “exceptional”? To blow your closed mind open?

I’d say you should not look at the evidence at the moment. Instead, you should read detective stories. Let’s say, Father Brown stories by G. K. Chesterton (they are available for free at cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/).

For right now you have to learn to use evidence. To find out that even seemingly humble pieces of evidence can add up. To formulate several hypotheses, to test them. To notice something that “doesn’t fit”. Just like real (and fictional) detectives do.

1. The evidence must be exceptional in the sense that it allows me to believe in Catholicism without also allowing other contradictory religious beliefs.
2. Yes, there are reasons to reject Bigfoot or UFOs other than poor evidence.
3. Ok, yes. Part of the reason I walked away from the church was that I was able to form a more coherent explanation of history that is better supported by the available evidence. I put on my “detective hat” and hit the books for the last 5 years. After much examination, I concluded the RC story is unlikely to be true. However, a miracle on video like the one I described would change my mind, in my opinion at least.

 

[MPat]

1. I can’t say the evidence isn’t convincing in general because some people appear to be convinced.

So, have you ever wondered how you are different from them?

1. How can I know that you know what kind of evidence I will find to be convincing?

That is easier than you think.

You have said you would believe, if you’d see a video of a miracle in Lourdes. Let’s say, the miracle cures someone’s blindness. Now try to imagine what you would see in that video. Well? At most, an exclamation “I can see!”, right? As you can see, it would give you the same information that documents and witness testimony can give (at best). Thus, if you won’t believe after looking at that evidence, why would you believe after seeing a video?

And so, I conclude that you won’t believe after seeing such a video.

A more difficult question is this: why did you think you would believe after seeing such a video?

1. The evidence must be exceptional in the sense that it allows me to believe in Catholicism without also allowing other contradictory religious beliefs.

I’m not entirely sure what you are saying here…

That is, is “exceptional” here supposed to be a synonym of “spectacular” or of, um, perhaps, “exclusive”?

Anyway, you still seem to argue as if Catholics had to believe that miracles of other religions didn’t happen. We do not. For example, look at “The City of God” by St. Augustine, book 4 (newadvent.org/fathers/120104.htm). There he mentions some Titus Latinius, who was healed after making a request to the Roman Senate. And St. Augustine didn’t have to say “That didn’t happen!”. No, he has a different explanation. Read it.

1. Yes, there are reasons to reject Bigfoot or UFOs other than poor evidence.

Very good.

1. Ok, yes. Part of the reason I walked away from the church was that I was able to form a more coherent explanation of history that is better supported by the available evidence. I put on my “detective hat” and hit the books for the last 5 years. After much examination, I concluded the RC story is unlikely to be true.

And you will tell us more about that “more coherent explanation of history that is better supported by the available evidence”, right?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So, have you ever wondered how you are different from them?

I mean, in this very thread, some people have proposed “evidence” they found to be convincing, but contains straight up lies:

I mean, doesn’t that page contain a bald-faced lie?
DNA fingerprinting hadn’t been invented in 1970. It was invented in 1985.

So if you were to ask how I’m different from people like that, the answer would be some combination of:

1. I am more skeptical (i.e. I require a higher burden of proof for supernatural claims.)
2. I am more competent at evaluating claims in general.

 

[inocente]

If you are calling into question randomised trials and statistical analyses as a means to understanding our world, which is not what he is saying, to my way of thinking, you would be a nihilist rather than the atheist you claim.

On the other hand, in the quantum world of Shroedinger’s cat, although not something I would agree with in general, perhaps although an event has occurred, where one does not yet know the outcome, is it possible that prayers might influence what one encounters in the future because they have influenced the course of events in the past?

Prayers form part of the dialogue between oneself and God. We share with Him who we are, our needs, our questions, our joys and our pain.

Individuals “said a short prayer” equipped only with a list of first names of patients they knew nothing about. Not exactly a dialogue with God. On top of that, the prayer was offered 4-10 years after the patients left hospital :ehh:.

We all have confirmation biases, the cognitive biases which make us less critical of anything which seems to confirm our worldview.

Suppose instead of them saying a short prayer, it had been a short magic spell, with some eye of newt added for atmosphere. Now I may be wrong, but think you’d be a little less likely to appeal to Shroedinger’s cat, and a little more likely to be skeptical of the methodology.

Consider that the paper’s supposed conclusions are a direct appeal to the paranormal. And I think the OP has a valid point. Now we all have mobile phones, we photograph and upload anything and everything. Every minute of every day, we upload 300 hours of video to YouTube alone, and it keeps rising. The lack of evidence for the paranormal in all of that is deafening.

 

[Aloysium]

The facts are what they are. One cannot translate four dimensional events into one. Miracles involve reality that is beyond what is captured by our current limited laws which describe and explain nature. I would suggest using the study as a direction sign to something amazing. Personally speaking, it by no means affects my faith other than being an example of how God would act in this world from his position outside of time. It is a sort of miracle, and like other phenomena in that category, I doubt that it can be replicated. That is why the OP is so much nonsense to me. All this is all about interpretation, understanding, the connection between the two linked mysteries of self and other. Where one sees miracles, another will see merely the noise that randomly arises within any system.

God from outside time creates all time. Within His eternal vision, all is now. We exist within a finite now that witnesses our transformation through time. Each of our moments is a part of the one eternal moment within God’s vision of His creation. God created the universe in a step-wise fashion and maintains it, all being ever now to Him.

He created the natural structure in which we meet one another and to which we connect intellectually through the understanding of physical laws. While that which governs and shapes this world is fixed in itself, it is mutable as part of the greater structure of creation which exists through an act of God’s will here now and everywhere. Every effect, every little change from what might otherwise be expected, impacts on everything else since it is all connected, one universal act of creation by God. It is all one miracle but we identify the anomalies as being the result of His intervention. Because it is all now to God, some miracles have their cause eons earlier, emerging through the processes that constitute the passage of time. One of these might be the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in the constellation of Leo happening two years or so BCE. Wise men of the time would have interpreted this as portending the birth of a great king. The cause is in eternity and manifested at the beginning of stars and galaxies in our universe in order to appear at the appropriate time.

This is all too absurd for some people to believe; it is impossible for them to detect and interpret miracles as such. As self-other, we are connected to the world and its Creator through thought/understanding/knowing/love which is not only passive screen but, beyond the ego’s control, participates in the formation of what is out there. This is far too long and to vague for my liking, but it’s the nature of the beast.

Sent from my iPhone

 

[PumpkinCookie]

So, have you ever wondered how you are different from them?

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume everyone is intelligent and earnest in their desire to have true beliefs. I suppose not everyone is as tenacious or unrelenting in considering the problems of religious belief. I think many people are like my wife, they really don’t care, at bottom. They go through the motions of religion because it is convenient enough, for whatever reason, and then it’s on to the next thing.

That is easier than you think.

You have said you would believe, if you’d see a video of a miracle in Lourdes. Let’s say, the miracle cures someone’s blindness. Now try to imagine what you would see in that video. Well? At most, an exclamation “I can see!”, right? As you can see, it would give you the same information that documents and witness testimony can give (at best). Thus, if you won’t believe after looking at that evidence, why would you believe after seeing a video?

And so, I conclude that you won’t believe after seeing such a video.

A more difficult question is this: why did you think you would believe after seeing such a video?

It is possible to verify that such a girl is blind, and capture it on video. (test startle reflex, etc). It’s also possible to verify the ability to see, on video. Hold up a sign with text, have her read it, show shapes and colors, etc. If someone prayed something similar to the one I proposed, and blindness was verified before hand, and the miraculous cure was demonstrated on video, I would probably believe!

Of course, that wouldn’t be as impressive as a limb regrowing, for the simple reason that blindness is known to spontaneously heal and it is a “hidden” ailment in the way a missing limb is not.

I’m not entirely sure what you are saying here…

That is, is “exceptional” here supposed to be a synonym of “spectacular” or of, um, perhaps, “exclusive”?

Anyway, you still seem to argue as if Catholics had to believe that miracles of other religions didn’t happen. We do not. For example, look at “The City of God” by St. Augustine, book 4 (newadvent.org/fathers/120104.htm). There he mentions some Titus Latinius, who was healed after making a request to the Roman Senate. And St. Augustine didn’t have to say “That didn’t happen!”. No, he has a different explanation. Read it.

I need evidence that does just the right amount of work: allows belief in Catholicism without also admitting all kinds of absurdities and every other religion too.

Ok, so “demons did it?” LOL. That sounds like what some Protestant preachers say about the alleged miracles of Catholicism. Who is right, how do you know?

Very good.

And you will tell us more about that “more coherent explanation of history that is better supported by the available evidence”, right?

That would take a book! Extremely brief summary: the current version of Catholicism can be explained as the product of error, superstition, hallucination, politics, economics, and the organic motion of history better than it can be explained as the official organization of the God of the universe, in my opinion.

To ask me to write more would seem to be sinful for you, since you would essentially be soliciting temptations against the faith, right?

 

[MPat]

I mean, in this very thread, some people have proposed “evidence” they found to be convincing, but contains straight up lies:

Well, if you say you were lying there…

OK, you were not, you only wrote in a way that could be misinterpreted. And, interestingly enough, you did misinterpret the source.

For the source does not say that DNA was looked at in 1970. It says the last (that can also mean “last before this one”) test happened then. It talks about comparison being made now.

So, how comes you didn’t notice this mistake of yours…? Didn’t you think such mismatch would have been a bit too obvious? Weren’t you sceptical of your own findings?

So if you were to ask how I’m different from people like that, the answer would be some combination of:

1. I am more skeptical (i.e. I require a higher burden of proof for supernatural claims.)
2. I am more competent at evaluating claims in general.

Unfortunately, it appears that available evidence does not support those claims… And it doesn’t look like you were very sceptical of them…

So, let’s see: demands lots of evidence for supernatural claims, requires very little evidence for claims about his own scepticism and the like… I’m afraid that’s just bias: you demand more evidence for the claims you don’t like.

Now bias as such is not exactly unheard of. But let’s look further. It is easy to see why you would like a claim saying, in effect, that you are smarter than others. But what makes you dislike supernatural claims and Catholicism specifically?

 

[MPat]

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume everyone is intelligent and earnest in their desire to have true beliefs. I suppose not everyone is as tenacious or unrelenting in considering the problems of religious belief. I think many people are like my wife, they really don’t care, at bottom. They go through the motions of religion because it is convenient enough, for whatever reason, and then it’s on to the next thing.

Interesting. And have you wondered why “not everyone is as tenacious or unrelenting in considering the problems of religious belief”…?

It is possible to verify that such a girl is blind, and capture it on video. (test startle reflex, etc). It’s also possible to verify the ability to see, on video. Hold up a sign with text, have her read it, show shapes and colors, etc. If someone prayed something similar to the one I proposed, and blindness was verified before hand, and the miraculous cure was demonstrated on video, I would probably believe!

You do understand that performing such “tests” is simply disrespectful and that’s why no one is going to do so?

Also, I’d like to note that you have effectively taken back your previous claim. First you were saying that you would believe after seeing a video. Now it appears that more demands have surfaced, and even if they would be met, belief is only “probable”… And, of course, if they were really met, you would think of something else.

I need evidence that does just the right amount of work: allows belief in Catholicism without also admitting all kinds of absurdities and every other religion too.

“without also admitting”? Do you mean “without also being evidence for” or “while being evidence against”?

Ok, so “demons did it?” LOL. That sounds like what some Protestant preachers say about the alleged miracles of Catholicism. Who is right, how do you know?

It is nice to see you had a laugh.

So, let’s explore further. What exactly did you find funny and why? Is there some argument hiding behind the laughter? Or just a “defense mechanism”?

Also, I’d like to note that yes, believers of other religions also have more options than you while considering miracles of religion other than their own. That’s why it’s unreasonable to pretend that we can only respond to miracles of other religions with “Didn’t happen!” that is the only option you yourself have.

That would take a book! Extremely brief summary: the current version of Catholicism can be explained as the product of error, superstition, hallucination, politics, economics, and the organic motion of history better than it can be explained as the official organization of the God of the universe, in my opinion.

That sounds extremely vague…

To ask me to write more would seem to be sinful for you, since you would essentially be soliciting temptations against the faith, right?

So, in other words, that vague summary is the best you can do?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Interesting. And have you wondered why “not everyone is as tenacious or unrelenting in considering the problems of religious belief”…?

They have different interests? Natural differences? I’m not sure. Why are some people good at golf, why are some people artistically talented?

You do understand that performing such “tests” is simply disrespectful and that’s why no one is going to do so?

Also, I’d like to note that you have effectively taken back your previous claim. First you were saying that you would believe after seeing a video. Now it appears that more demands have surfaced, and even if they would be met, belief is only “probable”… And, of course, if they were really met, you would think of something else.

Why is it disrespectful? Well, you have moved the goalposts to a cure for blindness. Originally I suggested a re-grown limb. However, I would be willing to accept a cure of blindness with additional verification. I’m willing to move to your new goalposts if you will allow some modifications.

You’re right, you encouraged me to understand that I don’t actually know whether I would accept a miracle on video. So, I said “probable” because it seems probable to me, based on my past behavior. It would seem reasonable to believe in Catholicism if such a miracle were captured on video, but I can’t guarantee that I would act reasonably. What mystifies me is how you seem to know I wouldn’t accept it.

“without also admitting”? Do you mean “without also being evidence for” or “while being evidence against”?

I mean, without also allowing belief in absurdities and every other religion. The evidence must allow only Catholicism, and exclude every other paranormal/religious belief (for me to believe in Catholicism, that is).

It is nice to see you had a laugh.

So, let’s explore further. What exactly did you find funny and why? Is there some argument hiding behind the laughter? Or just a “defense mechanism”?

Also, I’d like to note that yes, believers of other religions also have more options than you while considering miracles of religion other than their own. That’s why it’s unreasonable to pretend that we can only respond to miracles of other religions with “Didn’t happen!” that is the only option you yourself have.

Alright, let’s say for the sake of argument that demons are real, and are the actual objects of worship for other religions. Alright, so my question still stands: where is the demonic activity on video? How would we know it’s a demon? What if it is actually Leprechauns? Or space aliens? There are cameras everywhere, all the time. Why…nothing? No witches? No haunting? Shouldn’t we be seeing more of this kind of thing?

That sounds extremely vague…

So, in other words, that vague summary is the best you can do?

This thread isn’t the place for me to present my alternative theory. I am not going to respond to your solicitation in this thread, because I don’t want to be accused of being a proselytizer and get banned. I have been censored before and don’t want to torpedo this thread.

 

[inocente]

The facts are what they are. One cannot translate four dimensional events into one. Miracles involve reality that is beyond what is captured by our current limited laws which describe and explain nature. I would suggest using the study as a direction sign to something amazing. Personally speaking, it by no means affects my faith other than being an example of how God would act in this world from his position outside of time. It is a sort of miracle, and like other phenomena in that category, I doubt that it can be replicated. That is why the OP is so much nonsense to me. All this is all about interpretation, understanding, the connection between the two linked mysteries of self and other. Where one sees miracles, another will see merely the noise that randomly arises within any system.

God from outside time creates all time. Within His eternal vision, all is now. We exist within a finite now that witnesses our transformation through time. Each of our moments is a part of the one eternal moment within God’s vision of His creation. God created the universe in a step-wise fashion and maintains it, all being ever now to Him.

He created the natural structure in which we meet one another and to which we connect intellectually through the understanding of physical laws. While that which governs and shapes this world is fixed in itself, it is mutable as part of the greater structure of creation which exists through an act of God’s will here now and everywhere. Every effect, every little change from what might otherwise be expected, impacts on everything else since it is all connected, one universal act of creation by God. It is all one miracle but we identify the anomalies as being the result of His intervention. Because it is all now to God, some miracles have their cause eons earlier, emerging through the processes that constitute the passage of time. One of these might be the conjunction of Jupiter and Venus in the constellation of Leo happening two years or so BCE. Wise men of the time would have interpreted this as portending the birth of a great king. The cause is in eternity and manifested at the beginning of stars and galaxies in our universe in order to appear at the appropriate time.

This is all too absurd for some people to believe; it is impossible for them to detect and interpret miracles as such. As self-other, we are connected to the world and its Creator through thought/understanding/knowing/love which is not only passive screen but, beyond the ego’s control, participates in the formation of what is out there. This is far too long and to vague for my liking, but it’s the nature of the beast.

Sent from my iPhone

Because the study proves that years after the patients were in hospital, someone who has never met them, but only has a list of their first names, prays that they got better more quickly, and the statistics prove that God changed history so they left hospital a few days earlier?

But if God had them leave hospital earlier, wouldn’t God have to make all manner of other changes to history? Aunt Bettie was now able to go to that birthday party and drove home drunk and killed that kid, when she would still be in hospital if her first name hadn’t been on that future list?

Does the Church teach this? Are there Catholics everywhere earnestly praying that God changes history so their loved ones didn’t die in road accidents?

There may be just a few little theological issues with this multiverse slot-machine God. What was wrong with the God of order?

 

[tonyrey]

Because the study proves that years after the patients were in hospital, someone who has never met them, but only has a list of their first names, prays that they got better more quickly, and the statistics prove that God changed history so they left hospital a few days earlier?

But if God had them leave hospital earlier, wouldn’t God have to make all manner of other changes to history? Aunt Bettie was now able to go to that birthday party and drove home drunk and killed that kid, when she would still be in hospital if her first name hadn’t been on that future list?

Does the Church teach this? Are there Catholics everywhere earnestly praying that God changes history so their loved ones didn’t die in road accidents?

There may be just a few little theological issues with this multiverse slot-machine God. What was wrong with the God of order?

The God of order would lack love and compassion…

 

[Aloysium]

Because the study proves that years after the patients were in hospital, someone who has never met them, but only has a list of their first names, prays that they got better more quickly, and the statistics prove that God changed history so they left hospital a few days earlier?

But if God had them leave hospital earlier, wouldn’t God have to make all manner of other changes to history? Aunt Bettie was now able to go to that birthday party and drove home drunk and killed that kid, when she would still be in hospital if her first name hadn’t been on that future list?

Does the Church teach this? Are there Catholics everywhere earnestly praying that God changes history so their loved ones didn’t die in road accidents?

There may be just a few little theological issues with this multiverse slot-machine God. What was wrong with the God of order?

You repeat the same points, not grasping what I’m trying to say. It would appear to be the case that one has to know before the words make sense. Only then can one hear. What the study tells me is that it’s not about us being in control. He inspires, assisting us in communicating with Him our needs which He has always known. It’s not about random slot-machine events. The order is miraculously brought into existence for the good by Him, He who is Goodness, Beauty, Exiatence itself. I suppose since you have figured it all out, there would be no point praying, just sitting there with the living Ocean of compassion, out there, inside, holding infinity in His hands. Sometimes He winks and smiles at us in time, from eternity.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Well, if you say you were lying there…

OK, you were not, you only wrote in a way that could be misinterpreted. And, interestingly enough, you did misinterpret the source.

For the source does not say that DNA was looked at in 1970. It says the last (that can also mean “last before this one”) test happened then. It talks about comparison being made now.

So, how comes you didn’t notice this mistake of yours…? Didn’t you think such mismatch would have been a bit too obvious? Weren’t you sceptical of your own findings?

I mean, that was the first thing I checked. I looked at the source of the claims in the article, which was a NC Register article. whose language rules out such an interpretation.

Unfortunately, it appears that available evidence does not support those claims… And it doesn’t look like you were very sceptical of them…

 

[MPat]

They have different interests? Natural differences? I’m not sure. Why are some people good at golf, why are some people artistically talented?

OK, I guess this line has led nowhere…

Why is it disrespectful? Well, you have moved the goalposts to a cure for blindness. Originally I suggested a re-grown limb. However, I would be willing to accept a cure of blindness with additional verification. I’m willing to move to your new goalposts if you will allow some modifications.

I didn’t move any goalposts. You have said you would believe if you’d see a video of a [any?] miracle in Lourdes. Then, in order to help your imagination, I gave a more specific example.

And “Why is it disrespectful?”… If you do not see the answer, ask yourself how many times you have personally checked if a blind man is really blind. And then ask yourself why the answer is “zero”.

You’re right, you encouraged me to understand that I don’t actually know whether I would accept a miracle on video.

You’re welcome.

So, I said “probable” because it seems probable to me, based on my past behavior. It would seem reasonable to believe in Catholicism if such a miracle were captured on video, but I can’t guarantee that I would act reasonably. What mystifies me is how you seem to know I wouldn’t accept it.

Oh, I do know. By the way, that knowledge has been tested: for example, I was pretty sure you’d reject the four videos I have offered.

You see, you are not the first man who doesn’t believe miracles.

You hold a belief that miracles are impossible. When you look at a miracle claim, you simply apply that belief. Naturally, you prefer any other explanation. If such explanation had to be somewhat detailed, you might run into a contradiction, but in fact you’ll accept “Maybe someone will think of something.”, which cannot appear to be obviously wrong. You might note you did just that in case of miracle of St. Januarius.

Of course, that’s circular: supposedly, you are testing a set of beliefs (let’s say, Catholic doctrine) that includes the belief “Miracles can happen.”, but then you add a belief “Miracles cannot happen.”, get a contradiction (note that actual evidence doesn’t matter here) and conclude that “Miracles cannot happen.” (and “Catholicism is false.”) - which just so happens to be one of the premises. But you look at the things one step at the time, thus you do not notice the circularity.

Now, of course, conversion is not impossible. But it has little to do with evidence. Your physical and mental shape is far more important.

By the way, all that is common knowledge. If you want an illustration (with the sceptic being portrayed rather sympathetically), just watch an episode “Feeling Pinkie Keen” from the first season of “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic”.

Similar points have also been made by Edward Feser in blog post “Pre-Christian apologetics” (edwardfeser.blogspot.lt/2014/05/pre-christian-apologetics.html). Speaking of which, maybe you could look at outline in there and point out at which point do you stop agreeing?

I mean, without also allowing belief in absurdities and every other religion. The evidence must allow only Catholicism, and exclude every other paranormal/religious belief (for me to believe in Catholicism, that is).

Thank you, that’s clearer.

Alright, let’s say for the sake of argument that demons are real, and are the actual objects of worship for other religions. Alright, so my question still stands: where is the demonic activity on video? How would we know it’s a demon? What if it is actually Leprechauns? Or space aliens? There are cameras everywhere, all the time. Why…nothing? No witches? No haunting? Shouldn’t we be seeing more of this kind of thing?

My dear, you are checking if something is compatible with Catholicism. In order to do so, you have to temporarily throw out all your beliefs and make a temporary assumption that Catholicism is true. And if you make a temporary assumption that Catholicism is true, you get belief that demons exist for free. If you cannot bring yourself to make such assumption even to show it to be false, your reasoning on this point won’t be worth anything.

This thread isn’t the place for me to present my alternative theory. I am not going to respond to your solicitation in this thread, because I don’t want to be accused of being a proselytizer and get banned. I have been censored before and don’t want to torpedo this thread.

OK…

 

[MPat]

I mean, that was the first thing I checked. I looked at the source of the claims in the article, which was a NC Register article. whose language rules out such an interpretation.

How does it rule it out? The only sentence with “1970” is “They have been scientifically tested a number of times, with the last one being in 1970.” and it can be interpreted in precisely the same way (“last” meaning “last before this one”).

I’m afraid that my points still stand - your claims to be more sceptical and more competent than believers are still not supported by evidence, and bias in favour of claims you like seems to be a far more likely explanation…

 

[JapaneseKappa]

How does it rule it out? The only sentence with “1970” is “They have been scientifically tested a number of times, with the last one being in 1970.” and it can be interpreted in precisely the same way (“last” meaning “last before this one”).

I’m afraid that my points still stand - your claims to be more sceptical and more competent than believers are still not supported by evidence, and bias in favour of claims you like seems to be a far more likely explanation…

Yes. It describes in detail the analyses that were supposedly performed, and none of them involved a re-evaluation of the Lanciano samples. If you want to prove I was incompetent in my assessment, simply give me a link to the report that describes the Lanciano re-analysis (e.g. who did it, and what was measured.)

If you can’t do that, then I will stand by my earlier assertion. I am more competent at evaluating the claims, because I correctly identified the actual state of affairs from a flawed set of claims. To have assumed that a second analysis had taken place despite the article’s failure to explicitly state this would have made me too gullible (i.e. not skeptical enough.)

 

[MPat]

Yes. It describes in detail the analyses that were supposedly performed, and none of them involved a re-evaluation of the Lanciano samples. If you want to prove I was incompetent in my assessment, simply give me a link to the report that describes the Lanciano re-analysis (e.g. who did it, and what was measured.)

If you can’t do that, then I will stand by my earlier assertion. I am more competent at evaluating the claims, because I correctly identified the actual state of affairs from a flawed set of claims. To have assumed that a second analysis had taken place despite the article’s failure to explicitly state this would have made me too gullible (i.e. not skeptical enough.)

Actually, assuming that a second analysis hasn’t taken place with such evidence also makes you gullible, just in a different way.

Also, let’s look at one sentence once more:

I am more competent at evaluating the claims, because I correctly identified the actual state of affairs from a flawed set of claims.

But you have given no indication of “actual state of affairs” that would be independent of yourself. In effect, you have checked that you agree with yourself and from that have concluded that you are “more competent at evaluating the claims”. I am afraid that this fact alone is pretty strong evidence against your claim…

If you were truly sceptical and competent in the way you claim, you would have concluded that: 1) the article is ambiguous on that point, 2) you do not know what analysis was performed, 3) you do not know if you are sceptical and competent in the way you have claimed.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Actually, assuming that a second analysis hasn’t taken place with such evidence also makes you gullible, just in a different way.

Also, let’s look at one sentence once more:

But you have given no indication of “actual state of affairs” that would be independent of yourself. In effect, you have checked that you agree with yourself and from that have concluded that you are “more competent at evaluating the claims”. I am afraid that this fact alone is pretty strong evidence against your claim…

If you were truly sceptical and competent in the way you claim, you would have concluded that: 1) the article is ambiguous on that point, 2) you do not know what analysis was performed, 3) you do not know if you are sceptical and competent in the way you have claimed.

My claim of competence was conditional on your inability to provide a link to the second analysis, it was not a universal “I am right.” I notice that you have still failed to provide such a link. Therefore, I still claim superior competence.

 

[MPat]

My claim of competence was conditional on your inability to provide a link to the second analysis, it was not a universal “I am right.” I notice that you have still failed to provide such a link. Therefore, I still claim superior competence.

Oh, I didn’t say you are not going to claim superior competence.

And I also was not claiming that the second analysis was performed, but that we do not know if it has been performed.