What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Peter_Plato]

It is quite obvious that you know about this issue as much as about Catholic moral theology, namely very little.

For your reading pleasure:

Lourdes Medical Bureau

This one seems very interesting:

Vittorio Micheli
Visited Lourdes: 1 June 1963.

Age 23, from Scurelle, Italy. Sarcoma (cancer) of pelvis; tumour so large that his left thigh became loose from the socket, leaving his left leg limp and paralysed. After taking the waters, he was free of pain and could walk. By February 1964 the tumour was gone, the hip joint had recalcified, and he returned to a normal life. His cure was recognized on 26 May 1976.

And “his cure was recognized” after only 12 years.

I am shocked that the doctors “recognized” the cure in such a hasty manner.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Since I have never encountered a supernatural event myself, I did not have the chance to apply the scientific method to it. At some point I might be convinced that from a scientific point of view there is no explanation, and that, on a personal level of judging the evidence – not on a scientific one, because I would have found that it lies outside what science can explain – I would be forced to believe that it was supernatural.

You are not in the position to assert that “there is no scientific explanation” - because that would require omniscience.

But I notice that you do not have any epistemological method to deal with the supernatural.

Well, ‘getting your tail between your hind legs and sneak away’ is precisely what you did after you were hammered here on morality a few pages ago (up to page 34 on this thread, now we’re already two days and two pages further). Too bad our memory is not too short to have forgotten.

Actually, I was bored by the nonsense, and found something better to do with my time. Now that the thread is somewhat back on track, I decided to look at it a little.

It is quite obvious that you know about this issue as much as about Catholic moral theology, namely very little.

I know a lot about statistical analysis, and that is what is missing from Lourdes.

For your reading pleasure:

Lourdes Medical Bureau

It is a joke. Here is a short excerpt:

For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:
The original diagnosis must be **verified **and **confirmed **beyond doubt

How can that be done after the condition is done? And about a year later? The frequency misdiagnosed illnesses is quite large. I already described the proper procedure before. If that procedure would be correctly executed, and there would still be a significant positive correlation between Lourdes and the cure, then and only then could one claim that there is “something” to it. Since you **claim **to be a scientist, you should be aware of this method.

 

[Peter_Plato]

How can that be done after the condition is done? And about a year later? The frequency misdiagnosed illnesses is quite large. I already described the proper procedure before. If that procedure would be correctly executed, and there would still be a significant positive correlation between Lourdes and the cure, then and only then could one claim that there is “something” to it. Since you **claim **to be a scientist, you should be aware of this method.

Again, you are missing the point. The “original diagnosis” had to have been verified. If there was any doubt that the original diagnosis may have been in error, that, in itself, is sufficient to nullify the claim.

The issue you are raising is precisely the one that is the concern by having this stipulation. The original diagnosis at the time of the diagnosis had to have been verified and certain at the time of original diagnosis.

You need to reread what is being stated here.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here Newton spoke as philosopher, not as a scientist. Don’t you always, rightfully so, complain that atheists often confuse science with philosophy? We theists should lead by example and not do the same.

Yes, scientists do often mix their philosophy with their science. But my point in quoting Newton was that we can be both philosophers and scientists, and we can see in science, as Newton did, some patterns of nature that suggest an Intelligent Designer God.

Since as Christians, which Newton also was, we do recognize that God intelligently designed the universe according to his Divine Will, we might be able to see some evidence of that design. That’s all Newton is saying based on his study of the solar system. Newton doesn’t even comment on evolution, so please don’t make this a biological issue that Newton was incompetent to even consider.

As Catholics you and I both believe that God intelligently designed the universe and that Man was the goal (or at least one of the goals) of his Creation. I don’t suppose that you dispute this this. Do you agree that God gave us some ability to see through science the laws (patterns) of his intelligently designed Creation?

 

[tonyrey]

…The frequency misdiagnosed illnesses is quite large. I already described the proper procedure before. If that procedure would be correctly executed, and there would still be a significant positive correlation between Lourdes and the cure, then and only then could one claim that there is “something” to it. Since you **claim **to be a scientist, you should be aware of this method.

In the absence of any scientific explanation for a very large number of recoveries from incurable diseases in answer to prayer throughout the world for over two thousand years it is unreasonable to assume that miracles** never **occur and all illnesses have been misdiagnosed.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One more remark about Barr:
Interestingly, while Barr at the time of writing the book (2003) was still somewhat more sympathetic to the idea of biological ID, in later writings he has articulated opinions more in favor of straight evolution.

Can you cite your source for this remark?

I read an article by Barr in *First Things *where he says this:

“None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong. Nor is it to deny that the ID movement has been treated atrociously and that it has been lied about by many scientists.”

firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/02/the-end-of-intelligent-design

Barr’s real objection, it seems, is not that ID is scientifically wrong, but that it doesn’t offer scientific evidence of its rightness, and further that it has set up a new antagonism between religion and science that atheists are will to exploit to the fullest extent possible.

 

[tonyrey]

This one seems very interesting:

And “his cure was recognized” after only 12 years.

I am shocked that the doctors “recognized” the cure in such a hasty manner.

There is no doubt they should have waited until he was dead so that they could perform an autopsy before reaching a conclusion.

 

[tonyrey]

Can you cite your source for this remark?

I read an article by Barr in *First Things *where he says this:

“None of this is to say that the conclusions the ID movement draws about how life came to be and how it evolves are intrinsically unreasonable or necessarily wrong. Nor is it to deny that the ID movement has been treated atrociously and that it has been lied about by many scientists.”

Barr’s real objection, it seems, is not that ID is scientifically wrong, but that it doesn’t offer scientific evidence of its rightness, and further that it has set up a new antagonism between religion and science that atheists are will to exploit to the fullest extent possible.

It is certainly the thin end of the wedge by which the role of God is reduced to negligible significance. If divine intervention has never occurred since the Big Bang - or on very few occasions - there is no reason to believe in the value of prayer.

 

[tonyrey]

As a matter of fact the alleged “miraculous” cures would be an indication that there is “something” to the claim about the supernatural, if those studies would follow the proper scientific protocol - test group (at Lourdes), control group (somewhere else), gathering a bunch of people all suffering from the same incurable malady, evaluating the prospective patients before the “cure” is administered, stopping the test at a predetermined point, performing a chi-square analysis, etc… Of course, if such a study would be executed the result would be negative, and then the usual disclaimer would follow: “God does not want to be tested”, so he purposefully tempered with the result to avoid detection. Poor God, depicted as a petty crook who attempts to avoid detection and “cooks the book” to escape.

It sounds as if you would never do anything to help your children even when they are adults without informing them you are responsible, thereby never allowing them to feel they are leading their own lives and constantly aware they are always being watched by your beady eye! You wouldn’t be a petty crook but something far worse…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is certainly the thin end of the wedge by which the role of God is reduced to negligible significance. If divine intervention has never occurred since the Big Bang - or on very few occasions - there is no reason to believe in the value of prayer.

Or miracle births!

 

[Hee_Zen]

Again, you are missing the point. The “original diagnosis” had to have been verified. If there was any doubt that the original diagnosis may have been in error, that, in itself, is sufficient to nullify the claim.

The issue you are raising is precisely the one that is the concern by having this stipulation. The original diagnosis at the time of the diagnosis had to have been verified and certain at the time of original diagnosis.

You need to reread what is being stated here.

Do you really wish to assert that **anyone **and **everyone **who wishes to visit Lourdes will be subject to a very rigorous medical exam by a team of experts? And all the paperwork is preserved just in case a “miraculous” healing might occur? If that would be the case then you are already halfway though to set up the necessary protocol to verify that there is a significant positive correlation between the place and the “miraculous” healings. Go for it, and come back when there is a strong statistical evidence. Until then all you have is a bunch of unsupported anecdotes.

Sure looks like that none of you is familiar with the proper protocol to investigate claims of this kind.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Actually, I was bored by the nonsense, and found something better to do with my time. Now that the thread is somewhat back on track, I decided to look at it a little.

No, you got scared because you didn’t have an answer. At the minimum I would expect an answer – not just any answer, a substantial answer – to post # 495, post # 496, post # 497, post # 502 (links provided for convenience).

We are waiting.

 

[Al_Moritz]

As Catholics you and I both believe that God intelligently designed the universe and that Man was the goal (or at least one of the goals) of his Creation. I don’t suppose that you dispute this this. Do you agree that God gave us some ability to see through science the laws (patterns) of his intelligently designed Creation?

Yes, I agree with this.

 

[Hee_Zen]

No, you got scared because you didn’t have an answer.

Interesting that you claim to see into my mind. Don’t just leave your day gig, because as a “seer” you would not earn money to pay for cold water.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you really wish to assert that **anyone **and **everyone **who wishes to visit Lourdes will be subject to a very rigorous medical exam by a team of experts? And all the paperwork is preserved just in case a “miraculous” healing might occur? If that would be the case then you are already halfway though to set up the necessary protocol to verify that there is a significant positive correlation between the place and the “miraculous” healings. Go for it, and come back when there is a strong statistical evidence. Until then all you have is a bunch of unsupported anecdotes.

Sure looks like that none of you is familiar with the proper protocol to investigate claims of this kind.

So you are claiming a medical exam by the patient’s own doctor would be automatically disqualified as providing any evidence of a proper diagnosis having been done? Why?

Seems to be an arbitrary demand. We can’t trust doctors to properly diagnose patients nor hospital records to contain valid evidence because Hee_Zen won’t allow those. He must stand at the gate and check you over himself to make sure that tumor in your hip and calcification of the joint wasn’t really a styrofoam ball and salt crystals tucked into your back pocket that may have fooled the doctor and X-Ray technicians, but certainly not someone seriously determined to be a little more vigilant regarding the miraculous “cure” you are planning on passing off on unsuspecting atheists.

Proper protocol is crucial here. Everything must be predetermined beforehand or we cannot seriously allow that a miraculous cure could have happened.

You must be great fun when a magician is hired to perform at a party you are attending checking sleeves and looking for hidden pockets just to be sure he isn’t pulling something over on the crowd.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Interesting that you claim to see into my mind. Don’t just leave your day gig, because as a “seer” you would not earn money to pay for cold water.

Blah, blah…prove that I am wrong by answering the posts in a substantial manner.

 

[tonyrey]

Do you really wish to assert that **anyone **and **everyone **who wishes to visit Lourdes will be subject to a very rigorous medical exam by a team of experts? And all the paperwork is preserved just in case a “miraculous” healing might occur? If that would be the case then you are already halfway though to set up the necessary protocol to verify that there is a significant positive correlation between the place and the “miraculous” healings. Go for it, and come back when there is a strong statistical evidence. Until then all you have is a bunch of unsupported anecdotes.

Sure looks like that none of you is familiar with the proper protocol to investigate claims of this kind.

It still sounds as if you would never do anything to help your children even when they are adults without informing them you are responsible, thereby never allowing them to feel they are leading their own lives and constantly aware they are always being watched by your beady eye! You wouldn’t be a petty crook but something far worse…

Are you familiar with the proper protocol to investigate claims about the origin and power of your own mind ? Or doesn’t that fall into the category of miracles? If not why not? Have you found any significant positive correlations in that direction?

 

[Al_Moritz]

So you are claiming a medical exam by the patient’s own doctor would be automatically disqualified as providing any evidence of a proper diagnosis having been done? Why?

Seems to be an arbitrary demand. We can’t trust doctors to properly diagnose patients nor hospital records to contain valid evidence because Hee_Zen won’t allow those. He must stand at the gate and check you over himself to make sure that tumor in your hip and calcification of the joint wasn’t really a styrofoam ball and salt crystals tucked into your back pocket that may have fooled the doctor and X-Ray technicians, but certainly not someone seriously determined to be a little more vigilant regarding the miraculous “cure” you are planning on passing off on unsuspecting atheists.

Proper protocol is crucial here. Everything must be predetermined beforehand or we cannot seriously allow that a miraculous cure could have happened.

Indeed. Here is a link from the Economist that provides further details:

Miracles under the microscope

 

[Peter_Plato]

Do you really wish to assert that **anyone **and **everyone **who wishes to visit Lourdes will be subject to a very rigorous medical exam by a team of experts? And all the paperwork is preserved just in case a “miraculous” healing might occur? If that would be the case then you are already halfway though to set up the necessary protocol to verify that there is a significant positive correlation between the place and the “miraculous” healings. Go for it, and come back when there is a strong statistical evidence. Until then all you have is a bunch of unsupported anecdotes.

Sure looks like that none of you is familiar with the proper protocol to investigate claims of this kind.

I know you would prefer assessing the patient yourself with a fine toothed comb, but it seems the protocol used surpasses even your requirements above.

Patients are first examined by Dr Theillier, in consultation with their attending doctors, since most of the sick come in organised pilgrimages complete with their own medical entourages. Dr Theillier also consults the patient’s regular doctor, back at home, for a case-history.

Next, the patient is sent packing, to return the following year with his full medical records. These are then considered by Lourdes’ international medical association, made up of doctors in town for the pilgrimage who take an interest in the case. Up to 250 different doctors will pore over the records, and poke and prod the patient, for three years running. If the cure still stands up to scrutiny, the case is passed on to the international medical committee—20 experts, not all Catholic—who meet annually to decide such matters. One or two doctors who specialise in the condition will take charge of the patient, calling him in for further tests and re-examining the records. They then present the case to their peers for a vote.

 

[Hee_Zen]

SProper protocol is crucial here. Everything must be predetermined beforehand or we cannot seriously allow that a miraculous cure could have happened.

And that is what is missing.