Evidence of miracles.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yet many think Math is both invented and discovered.

“The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics to the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve.”
Eugene Wigner “ The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences .”

I began with the question ‘is mathematics invented or discovered?’, to which my answer is both. The possibilities for extending the domain are to be discovered. They are ‘out there’, so to speak, and in no way depend upon what we do or think.
MATHEMATICS: DISCOVERY OR INVENTION? | Think | Cambridge Core

Numbers have always been there, waiting to be discovered and so were different ways of organising them. And over time humans in various cultures have noticed patterns that emerge in numbers, and developed mathematical systems around them.
Curious Kids: how was maths discovered? Who made up the numbers and rules?

IMO there's a lot of confused, sematically ambiguous, and loose language around this. Most physical laws are mathematical statements because the patterns & regularities of the universe - necessary for any structure including intelligent observers - are based on simple fundamental principles (physical axioms, if you like), for example, 3 dimensions of space and 1 of time. Those at macro-scales are emergent from other, more fundamental, principles at micro-scales.

Take the inverse square law of gravity - it's an inverse square law not for some arbitrary or mysterious reason, but because of the 3D geometry of space. A constant force radiating in all directions will reduce with the square of the distance because the area over which it acts increases as the square of the distance; simple geometry. Similar fundamental principles underlie most other aspects of physics. The world appears to be assembled from a finite set of fundamental elements with a few simple properties; when these combine together in various specific ways and in vast numbers, why would it be surprising that mathematics can describe how they behave?

It seems to me that mathematics is discovery in as much as it explores and discovers the implications of a particular set of axioms, and invented in as much as it is a formal system we constructed to explore those implications. The standard axioms are derived from pragmatic real-world experience of counting, etc., the logic of elements and sets; but alternative axioms are possible, and have been explored, that bear no relation to how the world works but are still mathematical.

As I suggested some time ago, you could ask whether a gem cutter cleaving a gemstone discovers the faceted jewel within the stone or invents/creates it. I think it depends how you view it. Does it matter? I don't think so.

 

[stevevw]

I've heard these arguments before. Even if math is "discovered" it doesn't imply intentionality behind it. Most of math is just the consequences of some basic premises just like logic or physics.

Not a miracle, not a convincing "proof" of god.

I wasn't trying to prove God.

 

[Mountainmike]

“Twin telepathy “ I meant.
It is just anecdotes. His thesis is that whilst there is clear evidence that twins have special remote interaction , the attempt to lock them into causal laboratory verifiable forms measures a type of interaction that does not happen in practice . So the lack of measured interaction is caused by measuring types of interaction that don’t happen. Phenomena need examining on their own terms.

Saboms book is worth reading too.

The problem is that “ testable hypothesis” implies repeat or capable of repeat.

There are two insoluble problems.

Accept for the sake of argument that if something is real but happens only once. (Eg an experience out of body in which the subject gives information they can neither have known nor guessed) Then No testable hypothesis is possible. All that exists is an anecdote.
There is no way for science to conclude. It is outside the range that science can test.

Again , if you accept that for the sake of argument a specific agent did it.( it’s called a miracle if it was God) . If the agency is not detectable then only context can point to the agent, it cannot be proven either way. Miracle can only have circumstantial evidence.

But that’s a limitation of one off events that are neither reproducible nor reproduce.

Ive pointed at many. Eg The hospital verified inedia of Alexandrina da Costa. Impossible to explain, inexplicable not just unexplained, hard to discount. It breaks the rules. I can only conjecture from context why.

And even if I prove bread became flesh, lots of times, I can only use context to say what the agent was.

So how can you ever make progress?

Sure, (although that's not quite what I said) but having an incomplete model of something ultimately unknowable doesn't stop us from improving that model, and long experience has shown that it is counter-productive just to make things up that are outside of or contradictory to that model without strong evidence and a testable hypothesis.


Collecting a bunch of disparate unlikely or unexplained anecdotal and/or poorly documented claims and declaring them to be miracles that can't be explained because that's the nature of miracles, is just lazy thinking.

The history of science is a history of explanation for what was once thought inexplicable or miraculous. It's inevitable that many of such reports will be unverifiable - rare events and one-off mistakes are like that, and human nature is demonstrably susceptible to exaggeration, confabulation, misperception, misinterpretation, and a variety of biases in favour of pet beliefs and theories.

Science starts with observations and doesn't prove things. For a self-proclaimed scientist, you seem to know surprisingly little about science.

Not sure - there are quite a few books called 'Twins' (and a graphic novel). What's it about? who's it written by?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

“Twin telepathy “ I meant.
It is just anecdotes. His thesis is that whilst there is clear evidence that twins have special remote interaction , the attempt to lock them into causal laboratory verifiable forms measures a type of interaction that does not happen in practice . So the lack of measured interaction is caused by measuring types of interaction that don’t happen.

Oh yeah, the old, "It won't work in a lab setting, it doesn't like being stared at" trope. Used to hear it all the time in paranormal circles... not so popular these days.

The problem is that “ testable hypothesis” implies repeat or capable of repeat.

No, it doesn't; it implies either some observable consequence that doesn't occur (falsifiability), or some observable consequence that does occur (support). Repeatability is helpful but not essential.

Accept for the sake of argument that if something is real but happens only once. (Eg an experience out of body in which the subject gives information they can neither have known nor guessed) Then No testable hypothesis is possible. All that exists is an anecdote.
There is no way for science to conclude. It is outside the range that science can test.

If they have information they can neither have known nor guessed, that would be support for the phenomenon. But the real problem is verifying that they can neither have known nor guessed the information.

In practice, if such an 'impossible' phenomenon only ever occurs once, a sensible rule of thumb is scepticism. It's way more easy to fool people the first time, when they're unprepared, than subsequent times, when they've had time to think about it.

Again , if you accept that for the sake of argument a specific agent did it.( it’s called a miracle if it was God) . If the agency is not detectable then only context can point to the agent, it cannot be proven either way. Miracle can only have circumstantial evidence.

An agent is necessarily detectable, if only by the effect in question. But if there is a claim of some intelligent agent that is detectable only through the 'impossible' event itself, I again recommend scepticism - if the only available evidence for such an agent is a seemingly impossible event, history strongly indicates that agent will be human - and, by definition, there won't be any corroborating evidence for any other kind of intelligent agent (because it's not detectable).

In my view, the prior probability for the existence of a powerful, undetectable, intelligent, supernatural agent that acts in the world, is extremely low (YMMV). Taking account of the data that's supposed to support that hypothesis:

If we assume the existence of such an agent, what is the posterior probability that it would lurk undetected except for random, rare, minor, anecdotal or poorly documented miracles (i.e. small-scale stuff rather than levitating buildings, messing with the moon, etc)? I think it is extremely low; it's not what I'd expect from a powerful, intelligent, supernatural agent - would you?

OTOH, given that there are random, rare, minor, anecdotal or poorly documented miracles, what is the posterior probability that they are caused by a powerful, undetectable, intelligent, supernatural agent? Once more, I think it is extremely low - I think one should probably expect occasional reports of unexplained events of that kind, due to human error, exaggeration, fraud, pranks, etc. The plural of anecdotes and poorly documented mysteries isn't 'omnipotent intelligent entity'.

ISTM that whatever your prior probability, the evidence supplied is not likely to increase it - if anything, it should decrease it. Given your beliefs, I can understand if your prior for a powerful, undetectable, intelligent, supernatural agent is high, but can you give a reasonable argument why the probability of the posteriors should be more than single % figures? (btw, 'God works in mysterious ways' isn't an argument)

So how can you ever make progress?

Indeed; what progress is there to make? If your supposed agent is undetectable apart from rare small-scale random events, progress is, by definition, impossible - and scepticism seems justified.

 

[partinobodycular]

But that’s a limitation of one off events that are neither reproducible nor reproduce.

Ive pointed at many.

There's the problem, you've pointed at many, but produced credible evidence for none, only claims that such evidence exists.

 

[Mountainmike]

Its not a trope.

By definition lab setting is only for things that repeat or that can be made to repeat. Things that happen on demand. That is a subset.



Twins experiencing the death of the other can’t be repeated for obvious reasons. You would be waiting a long time with one in the lab for the other to die, unless you assisted in that

The enigma , that is consciousness , is entirely personal experience. NOBODY can deny it exists. But experience can only be anecdotal.
It cannot be confined to a lab. You cannot falsify personal experience so it is not amenable to hypothesis.

Of course it is open to fraud or wishful thinking which makes analysis hard.
And if phenomena of experience cannot be reproduced on demand , it makes analysis even harder.

But The statements exist , of those who simply cannot have known what they experienced and stated they experienced , and they cannot have experienced what they stated they knew, if consciousness is only restricted to the body.

The logical conclusion of That means you cannot know that others are not present experiencing you in consciousness only but are not visible to you when they do.
That is a Scary thought huh!

If you think inedia,( lab tested) or blood and flesh from inert matter ( lab tested)

Or bigger - the prophecy of an “ unknown light “ that bathed the north hemisphere before WWII in jan 38, or prophecy of Rwandan genocide, or the rise and fall of Russia are minor ( at a time Russia wasn’t a thing… ) , then it’s hard to know what is major.

You have no idea what the universe is. Only what you observe. Science is happy to assume that either big or small none interacting things exist ( matter) to explain the matter deficit ( actually modelling error) Indeed it would be strange if we could sense all that is there. The evolutionists mantra is that senses evolve only to a level that assists in survival. So creatures that live in the dark can’t see.

We don’t need to see non interacting conscious spirits round us to survive, so why should we sense them if they exist?

Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. On many grounds, it is not a valid hypothesis , it is only pure speculation, yet you believe it.

I am a sceptic in the true sense. I question everything.

But that’s not what I Mean.

There are apriori faith based sceptics. To them all that doesn’t fit their world view MUST be a fraud or delusion.

So they never examine evidence, they just use lazy sceptic tropes to challenge it all. It must be fraud or incompetent doctors, loopy forensic scientists, or mass hypnosis or chain of custody or pious delusion. So it’s not worth looking heh?
But everything that supports their world view they state MUST be true, like a silly Shroud RC date or bad shroud science by Mcrone for example.

300 doctors were involved in verifying Lourdes miracle 70- all the eminent medical professors say it is inexplicable. One illusionist non doctor says it’s fraud, ( who may or may not have talked to doctors) so he must be right say sceptics.

I don’t need miracles for faith so I’m easy.
The reason a priori sceptics are so combative is they need every instance to be false. They need conscioysness to be confined to their brains, Their God of science has to explain everything they believe , abiogenesis has to be true, yet sadly their science only observes and codifies what it observes . In fundamental sense it explains nothing.

The reason an apple hits you on the head, is just observation that apples normally hit you on the head. It doesn’t explain it. It only states what normally happens and logical consequences of that.

indeed turkeys experience that people are nice, not threatening , and that they bring food every day. It is only ever breached once, around Christmas.

A priori sceptic turkeys who by definition have not experienced it say it’s just an old turkeys tale. They won’t believe it till there is a peer reviewed paper, repeating it, written in Turkish! They don’t live to say they were wrong on the one occasion the pattern didn’t happen…

Oh yeah, the old, "It won't work in a lab setting, it doesn't like being stared at" trope. Used to hear it all the time in paranormal circles... not so popular these days.

No, it doesn't; it implies either some observable consequence that doesn't occur (falsifiability), or some observable consequence that does occur (support). Repeatability is helpful but not essential.

If they have information they can neither have known nor guessed, that would be support for the phenomenon. But the real problem is verifying that they can neither have known nor guessed the information.

In practice, if such an 'impossible' phenomenon only ever occurs once, a sensible rule of thumb is scepticism. It's way more easy to fool people the first time, when they're unprepared, than subsequent times, when they've had time to think about it.

An agent is necessarily detectable, if only by the effect in question. But if there is a claim of some intelligent agent that is detectable only through the 'impossible' event itself, I again recommend scepticism - if the only available evidence for such an agent is a seemingly impossible event, history strongly indicates that agent will be human - and, by definition, there won't be any corroborating evidence for any other kind of intelligent agent (because it's not detectable).

In my view, the prior probability for the existence of a powerful, undetectable, intelligent, supernatural agent that acts in the world, is extremely low (YMMV). Taking account of the data that's supposed to support that hypothesis:

If we assume the existence of such an agent, what is the posterior probability that it would lurk undetected except for random, rare, minor, anecdotal or poorly documented miracles (i.e. small-scale stuff rather than levitating buildings, messing with the moon, etc)? I think it is extremely low; it's not what I'd expect from a powerful, intelligent, supernatural agent - would you?

OTOH, given that there are random, rare, minor, anecdotal or poorly documented miracles, what is the posterior probability that they are caused by a powerful, undetectable, intelligent, supernatural agent? Once more, I think it is extremely low - I think one should probably expect occasional reports of unexplained events of that kind, due to human error, exaggeration, fraud, pranks, etc. The plural of anecdotes and poorly documented mysteries isn't 'omnipotent intelligent entity'.

ISTM that whatever your prior probability, the evidence supplied is not likely to increase it - if anything, it should decrease it. Given your beliefs, I can understand if your prior for a powerful, undetectable, intelligent, supernatural agent is high, but can you give a reasonable argument why the probability of the posteriors should be more than single % figures? (btw, 'God works in mysterious ways' isn't an argument)

Indeed; what progress is there to make? If your supposed agent is undetectable apart from rare small-scale random events, progress is, by definition, impossible - and scepticism seems justified.

 

[NxNW]

300 doctors were involved in verifying Lourdes miracle 70

You'd think they would have documented it properly and without contradictions.

- all the eminent medical professors say it is inexplicable.

Unexplained is different from inexplicable. Randi pointed out contradictions in the records and proposed a plausible explanation.

One illusionist non doctor says it’s fraud, ( who may or may not have talked to doctors)

Ah, so now you're accusing the doctors he quoted as being liars? Or not existing?

You're all over the place.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Its not a trope.

It was a common trope among paranormal claimants when their claims failed to be substantiated in well-controlled conditions. It's used less often these days, presumably because it always got short shrift at the time.

<stuff>... The logical conclusion of That means you cannot know that others are not present experiencing you in consciousness only but are not visible to you when they do.
That is a Scary thought huh!

If you could make that coherent I might be able to comment.

Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. On many grounds, it is not a valid hypothesis , it is only pure speculation, yet you believe it.

C'mon Mike - and you claim to be a scientist! As a scientist, you don't believe a hypothesis, you propose it and test it. Abiogenesis is a framework of hypotheses, proposed because all the available evidence points to life originating on the early Earth shortly (in geological terms) after it became hospitable to anaerobic life. So interested scientists want to see whether they can demonstrate how that could have happened. In doing so, they've made considerable progress and a number of unexpected discoveries.

I am a sceptic in the true sense. I question everything.

Perhaps - but, as we have seen, you aren't very sceptical when the claims match your beliefs.

I notice you didn't answer the question I asked in that post:
"...can you give a reasonable argument why the probability of the posteriors should be more than single % figures?"

 

[Mountainmike]

It is true of conscious experience in particular, and scientific process generally, that science can only address the repeatable. Not all phenomena are repeatable. I gave a specific example of documented anecdotal experiences of twins being aware of the death (or serious trauma of the other) that is impossible to test in a lab. It’s not a trope, in that case it is true.

Consciousness is a problem to test because it is anecdotal experience. Some of it is inexplicable experience.

The part you didn’t understand. With inactive brain cortex some have experienced places/ discussions/ situations they cannot have witnessed unless consciousness can separate from the body.

Take the simple example of a patient who described a conversation a doctor held with relations in another part of the building , in which she not only described the conversation, but also described the mess the doctor had made of his tie from eating sloppily earlier. Her consciousness must have been present , but it was not detectable to those in the room.
That gives the scary thought that , you are , right now , being observed by a consciousness that is undetectable to you!

You raised the paradigm that something had to be falsifiable to be a valid hypothesis. I pointed out that That test alone is sufficient to discount abiogenesis as a hypothesis for the start of life on earth. It cannot be verified experimentally.
More generally “ nonsense is nonsense even when talked by world famous scientists.”

As for evidence of so called supernatural , I don’t conclude on most of it, I am sceptical of all of it, and some of it is verifiable fraud.
But that leaves a lot for which there is good scientific evidence , that is not only unexplained , but inexplicable.

Science will never have a theory for how a statue weeped human blood, consistent with the verifiable forensic evidence we have that it did , but we know that at least one from that evidence. It violates too many ot the paradigms of the scientific model to ever be explained.
That does not apply to all such claims, and the fact of other frauds , does not negate that particular case.


We have entered a world that has replaced “ that is alright in theory, but it doesn’t happen in experimental evidence , so the theory is wrong “
to “ that is alright in practice , but it can’t happen in theory , so the experimental evidence must be wrong” the apriori belief based scepticism.
The difference is science imposing a belief set!

The evidence is everything. The scientific model is just a manmade inventiom codifying what normally happens. The universe doesn’t have to obey the model. The dependence is the reverse. The model has to follow the universe.

Science will never have an explanation for how a paralysed lady underwent a hospital trial by sceptic doctors and that she didn’t drink, eat , defecate or urinate for 40 days,whilst still maintaining weight and proper blood chemical balance. The doctors and a panel from the hospital stated it was beyond explanation,and they were right. When she passed 20 days, they still suspected fraud, and they made security even more stringent. But She passed another 20.
The evidence is what matters. Bin the theory if it doesn’t fit.

It was a common trope among paranormal claimants when their claims failed to be substantiated in well-controlled conditions. It's used less often these days, presumably because it always got short shrift at the time.

If you could make that coherent I might be able to comment.

C'mon Mike - and you claim to be a scientist! As a scientist, you don't believe a hypothesis, you propose it and test it. Abiogenesis is a framework of hypotheses, proposed because all the available evidence points to life originating on the early Earth shortly (in geological terms) after it became hospitable to anaerobic life. So interested scientists want to see whether they can demonstrate how that could have happened. In doing so, they've made considerable progress and a number of unexpected discoveries.

Perhaps - but, as we have seen, you aren't very sceptical when the claims match your beliefs.

I notice you didn't answer the question I asked in that post:
"...can you give a reasonable argument why the probability of the posteriors should be more than single % figures?"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is true of conscious experience in particular, and scientific process generally, that science can only address the repeatable.

No, it isn't true. As previously stated, one-off events generally leave evidence, which is how we know something happened. The important question is the quality of the evidence.

 

[Mountainmike]

No, it isn't true. As previously stated, one-off events generally leave evidence, which is how we know something happened. The important question is the quality of the evidence.

Not all experience leaves evidence.
If Someone feels the pain ( or death) of someone who is thousands of miles away and out of contacts, then They can only state that they did feel it. The only evidence is the death of the other,, and that the first communicated it before they could have known, also the time they felt the experience. Science can only conclude a highly unlikely coincidence. No physical evidence remains.

 

[ChristServant]

Another thread had a curious title.

Independently REPEATABLE evidence of miracles. Which is a logical contradiction in the sense that by definition researchers cannot repeat the supernatural, otherwise it wouldn’t be supernatural.

So all that can be done is
1/ to identify evidence of the unexplained.
2/ to confirm it is inexplicable, by breaking a fundamental paradigm of science as it is known
( eg prophecy as a simple example because of time arrow, consciousness outside the brain )
3/ that there is no credible means of faking the evidence.
The only repeat possible is reassessment of evidence, not repeat the event.

But 1-3 deal only with defining something as supernatural, not a miracle which ascribes a cause.

Since God is not in the model of science , nor can science proclaim Him as a verdict, a limitation of science, not God.

So all we can do is is state
4/ it occurs in the theistic context
And
5/ the church adds other conditions too


Reality is there is a lot of such evidence.
Take miracle healings at Lourdes.
The lame walk, the blind see.

The process is massive to declare it so, from a large medical panel any qualified medic can join, most are not religious. They declare inexplicable , not just unexplained. ( Lourdes medical commission do that part )

The second declaration is by the church 4/ 5/ which is just as stringent. Many healings declared supernatural by medics, don’t pass the churches criteria as miracle. .

So what is left?
Take this. A pelvic cancer before cancers were in anyway curable had destroyed all the pelvic bone to a leg bone connected only by small amounts of soft tissue.

Journey to Lourdes healing waters.
Bone reappeared albeit a shorter leg. Pain disappeared. Cancer gone.

Appeared in serious medical journals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6027009/pdf/10.1179_0024363913Z.00000000015.pdf

A medical doctor Heads up the commission for typically 10 years a time.
A couple have written books.

When miracles do happen they are ignored. I had a friend from my local gym with cancer who had tests and treatment for a good period of time and was told nothing else could be done for him. His family sent him to different practitioners with no remedy. They were then informed of a Christian healer and as a last resort my friend went there. He never believed in GOD at all. He went through the laying on of hands, prayer etc and was then told his body would react in a certain way, then reject the cancer and that he would be well after. This all came to pass as he was told and on going back to the doctors and hospital saying he felt well, tests were run and he was clear. He was told by the medical profession that they must have made a mistake with their diagnosis.

Peace be to all those in the Body of Christ.

 

[Mountainmike]

I won’t waste time most of your Post : suffice to say, the scientific model is a man made observation model of what repeats, and logical consequences of that. Read Kant. It is not the universe itself. It does not “ explain” anything, it simply determines whether observations are normal behaviour. It cannot exclude phenomena which do not conform.

The apparent “ harmony “ in it , like the elegant formula for permeability of free space is simply a consequence of definition of units.

I will just to correct an error in my post for readers :

I meant The Rotation and shape of galaxies ( not universe) does not conform to gravitation models without supposition of missing matter ( aka modelling error)

It's a space-time event with matter and energy. "Why" is a silly question.



It's *inverse* square law (relative to separation) for gravity.

The Universe doesn't rotate (to our knowledge), so why should any model or theory try to explain the rotation of the Universe?



That's just not true, we do know the difference between a bad model and missing matter. I really don't care what philosophy says. Kant wasn't a scientist and neither are you.



That's not what Nature is either. Sigh.



Whatever this non-sequitur is I can't tell. You don't write much do you?



I guess you're talking about miracles here, but your writing is hard to follow. I suggest editing before posting. It might help.



"If" is cool, but it's just a hypothetical.



Again, that's not what science is.



For the love of sanity, Use electrostatic units!



Is this supposed to be a question? A statement? A conclusion?



This is as incoherent as typical "prophesy" and can be interpreted in just as many ways.



All over the place now aren't we...

There is none. Non-corporeal souls that can interact with the body are demonstrably false. And, consciousness isn't a "chemical process". Try learning about emergent properties.



OK, I'm done now. I really don't care about your "examples".

[BTW. I got a pointy piece at XMas, it still tasted like bad, texture-less bread.]

[Edit: fixed formatting error]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not all experience leaves evidence.

All experiences leave evidence, but it may not be useful evidence, perhaps because it's inaccessible (e.g. forgotten), or because it can't be verified.

If Someone feels the pain ( or death) of someone who is thousands of miles away and out of contacts, then They can only state that they did feel it. The only evidence is the death of the other,, and that the first communicated it before they could have known, also the time they felt the experience. Science can only conclude a highly unlikely coincidence. No physical evidence remains.

Such a claim could be coincidence, and possibly less unlikely if informed by subtle indications that the other person was not well, but to be taken seriously there would need to be very strong evidence of the timings involved (timezones, etc.), which would be difficult outside of a well-controlled environment.

Extraordinary deceptions involving information that 'could not possibly be known' are possible - for example, in 2009, on live TV, the illusionist Derren Brown seemingly correctly predicted the UK National Lottery draw:

 

[partinobodycular]

Take the simple example of a patient who described a conversation a doctor held with relations in another part of the building , in which she not only described the conversation, but also described the mess the doctor had made of his tie from eating sloppily earlier. Her consciousness must have been present , but it was not detectable to those in the room.

I'm sorry if I missed the post where you referred to this case, so I haven't actually investigated it, not that that would make any difference. It would have to be extremely well documented for me to accept it as evidence. I'll readily admit that I absolutely hate, hate, hate anecdotal evidence, because it's far too prone to embellishment.

What generally happens in our everyday lives is that we'll experience something that seems out of the ordinary. It may just be a misperception or a coincidence, but none-the-less it stands out to us at the time as being unusual. So we remember it. Although perhaps not completely accurately. In most cases we simply forget about it. But sometimes we may mention this event to others, and in doing so we may embellish it a tiny little bit just to give the listener a better sense of how unusual it was. Because we want them to feel just as perplexed as we did. It's not intentional, or premeditated, or nefarious, we just want the other person to understand the unusual nature of the event. We want them to share in our astonishment.

Most of the time that's about as far as it goes. The other person will either share in our bewilderment, or they'll show a polite level of bemusement. Sometimes however we'll run into a skeptic who'll question our rationality. In which case we'll feel a strong urge to defend ourselves by doubling down on our assertions, and perhaps adding a few minor details just for emphasis. But it's those added details that are the problem, because sometimes they're born out of what we imagined happened, or information that we've attained after the fact. Put those things together and a very elaborate and convincing tale can begin to emerge, but one which wanders further and further from the original event.

Unfortunately we'll then resolutely believe that our elaborated story is the God's honest truth, and our defense of it will become more and more unwavering.

So in cases like the one you mentioned above I'm not going to buy into it unless you can give me documented evidence of the very original story, and after the fact eyewitness testimony doesn't count, it's just too prone to getting embellished.

Now if you've got a case that'll pass my smell test then bring it on, otherwise I'm simply going to dismiss it as being unreliable, for the simple reason that anecdotal evidence is just too hard to verify.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm sorry if I missed the post where you referred to this case, so I haven't actually investigated it, not that that would make any difference. It would have to be extremely well documented for me to accept it as evidence. I'll readily admit that I absolutely hate, hate, hate anecdotal evidence, because it's far too prone to embellishment.

What generally happens in our everyday lives is that we'll experience something that seems out of the ordinary. It may just be a misperception or a coincidence, but none-the-less it stands out to us at the time as being unusual. So we remember it. Although perhaps not completely accurately. In most cases we simply forget about it. But sometimes we may mention this event to others, and in doing so we may embellish it a tiny little bit just to give the listener a better sense of how unusual it was. Because we want them to feel just as perplexed as we did. It's not intentional, or premeditated, or nefarious, we just want the other person to understand the unusual nature of the event. We want them to share in our astonishment.

Most of the time that's about as far as it goes. The other person will either share in our bewilderment, or they'll show a polite level of bemusement. Sometimes however we'll run into a skeptic who'll question our rationality. In which case we'll feel a strong urge to defend ourselves by doubling down on our assertions, and perhaps adding a few minor details just for emphasis. But it's those details that are the problem, because sometimes they're born out of what we imagined happened, or information that we've attained after the fact. Put those things together and a very elaborate and convincing tale can begin to emerge, but one which wanders further and further from the original event.

Unfortunately we'll then resolutely believe that our elaborated story is the God's honest truth, and our defense of it will become more and more unwavering.

So in cases like the one you mentioned above I'm not going to buy into it unless you can give me documented evidence of the very original story, and after the fact eyewitness testimony doesn't count, it's just too prone to getting embellished.

Now if you've got a case that'll pass my smell test then bring it on, otherwise I'm simply going to dismiss it as being unreliable, for the simple reason that anecdotal evidence is just too hard to verify.

Yes, that sums it up well. What many/most people don't realise is that the exaggerations and embellishments are not generally deliberate or even conscious - in the psychology experiments where people were given fake memories of childhood experiences (famously, being lost in a shopping mall, then found by a warden/security guard), they found that when asked (a week later) to recall as much of the memory as they could remember, they had added a lot of plausible details they hadn't been given.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, that sums it up well. What many/most people don't realise is that the exaggerations and embellishments are not generally deliberate or even conscious - in the psychology experiments where people were given fake memories of childhood experiences (famously, being lost in a shopping mall, then found by a warden/security guard), they found that when asked (a week later) to recall as much of the memory as they could remember, they had added a lot of plausible details they hadn't been given.

But they were truly lost first, right?

(Interesting that I just went through this with the Lady Hope story.)

The embellishments came, but wrapped inside those embellishments were the facts of what happened.

 

[partinobodycular]

But they were truly lost first, right?

Nope, in this particular study the memories were completely false.

As with many studies there are counterarguments questioning the study's methodology and/or the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

But yes, in this case the memories were completely false.

The embellishments came, but wrapped inside those embellishments were the facts of what happened.

This is where I wish that Christians would extend this reasoning to the bible, and at least accept the possibility that some of it is the product of personal/historical/cultural embellishments. From there we can begin to have a rational discussion about which parts of it are the product of actual events, and which parts are due to later embellishments.

The problem is that once one accepts the premise that the bible may indeed contain embellishments almost all of its miraculous claims come under suspicion. It becomes a slippery slope wherein questioning one claim automatically leads to questioning all of them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But they were truly lost first, right?

(Interesting that I just went through this with the Lady Hope story.)

The embellishments came, but wrapped inside those embellishments were the facts of what happened.

No. The memory was completely false. These were, IIRC, students who were told they'd be participating in a study of childhood memories. The researchers got the parents involved and so obtained three verifiable stories of childhood escapades. But the researchers also asked the parents to come up with a plausible fourth, fictional, story about how they were lost in a mall and eventually reunited with their parents (with relevant local details, like the name of a real local mall or store and where in it they were found, etc.).

The students were told the four stories and asked to write down as much as they could remember about them. Shortly after, they were interviewed, reminded of each story, and asked to remember as much as they could. A week later, this interview was repeated, and they were asked to rate how clearly they remembered each story. They were then told that one story was false and asked to choose which one it was. 20% (5 of 24) chose a true memory and thought they remembered the false one.

These results triggered some bigger and more varied studies of a similar kind, showing that they could implant false memories in 20-40% of participants. One study using photoshopped images was able to get 50% of subjects to believe they'd been on a fictional balloon flight.

There have since been some questions over the ethics of implanting false memories, even if you later tell the individual...

Demonstrating this kind of suggestibility has been crucial in debunking many 'recovered memory' cases of childhood abuse, where self-styled therapists tried to help patients suffering anxiety, depression, etc., using outdated Freudian ideas (e.g. Oedipus complex & 'repressed memories') via leading questions. This caused a rash of claims of childhood abuse leading to broken families, court cases, and general misery for all (except the 'therapists').

Studies showing how leading questions & statements during interviews, particularly when under duress, could lead to confusion and false memories, eventually put a stop to such interviews, and police enquiry and interview techniques were also changed to avoid the problems they could cause (false recall of incidents and false confessions).

 

[chad kincham]

let’s deal with the science via evidence of medics on the medical commission. Unless Randi was on it he has no opinion of this case or any other. He was a magician not a doctor.

Apriori sceptics make a lot of money, telling skeptics just what they want to hear as Randi did. That’s not science.

As for “there is no evidence” , read the paper.

There are thousands upon thousands of testimony of Christians being healed after prayer, each one with multiple witnesses, but when I collected videos of some of them, I only saved the ones where the medical doctor involved in a miracle healing, called them a miracle - and the doctor involved would be the one in a position to know.

My favorite one so far is where a deceased ER patient, dead for 40 minutes, was resurrected by a medical doctor praying for the man - with the ER staff as witnesses