Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Mountainmike]

You are dealing with multiple instances.
Multiple experts. Rechecked in all cases by peers.
The source of those findings are stated.
eg striations, intercalcated discs, position of nucleus, shape and type of white cells.

So one person can get it wrong on one day. Particularly with necrotic tissue. But that is the surprise. These samples were alive shortly before identification as proved by white cells. They should not be alive, particularly when in distilled water for so long, which should have osmotically exploded the cells, but they were alive as witness white cells which had not lysed. The flesh had not putrified either. !

This many people are not going to get it wrong, so many times in so many places, not least because the slides are out there to see, and such as the cardiologist who wrote that book, looked at the slides and agrees!

This is one of the areas where I have a problem with the conclusions stated in the investigation. Is the finding of "traumatized heart myocardium" based solely on the expert's subjective opinion? I.E does the expert simply look at the slide and decide what type of tissue they're looking at? If so, then I can think of a number of historical instances in which an expert's biases influenced their conclusions, and that conclusion subsequently influenced the conclusions of the experts who came after them.

I wonder about which conclusions drawn by the investigation are based on objective tests, and which are based on an expert's opinion.

 

[Opdrey]

So one person can get it wrong on one day. Particularly with necrotic tissue. But that is the surprise.

"necrotic tissue".

These samples were alive shortly before identification as proved by white cells.

Alive shortly before identification, but necrotic.

No nuclear DNA sequence but alive just shortly before? Mummified showing homogenization, but good enough to identify without error.

This is pretty amazing stuff.

 

[Mountainmike]

Noise and error are the most important thing in the sciences.

Spare me the generic tropes.

What is your "error" hypothesis that is consistent with facts. The sections of tissue are not a number, and in any event there is no easy systematic or correlated error process you can point at..

Let us hear your contamination hypothesis? That contaminates with heart myocardium? Cannot happen.

In the real world.....you are saying you disagree with the identification (for reasons unstated) , it was something else (unnamed) repeatedly misidentified, that could have been contamination (with no statement of how).

So what could it have been , let us have some critical thinking! Not sweeping generalisations.

All this evidence is simply stating what is THERE.
You need a hypothesis that contests what is there consistent with the analysis of it.

I am genuinely interested.
If they were faked, how was it done?

Your main argument seems to be...because it cannot happen (in your world view) it must be an error. Alas the model has to fit the data, the data does not have to fit the model.

 

[Mountainmike]

"necrotic tissue".



Alive shortly before identification, but necrotic.

No nuclear DNA sequence but alive just shortly before? Mummified showing homogenization, but good enough to identify without error.

This is pretty amazing stuff.

I said it was not necrotic.

That is the surprise. Despite how long it was in vitro.
It showed recent signs of being alive, demonstrated by white cells. I said tissue identification is harder with necrotic tissue, which generally liquifies quickly as the cells start to lyse, or in distilled water, they simply blow up with osmotic pressure. But all the significant features of cardiac tissue were found. eg intercalcated discs.

 

[Opdrey]

Spare me the generic tropes.

Sorry, it's just 30 years of actual science background talking.

Your main argument seems to be...because it cannot happen (in your world view) it must be an error.

Another misrepresentation of my points. But I have come to expect no more from you.

 

[Mountainmike]

Is there possible error in identifying heart muscle microscopically?

Sigh.
Keep to the subject. Stick to it.

What is your hypothesis. Contamination or error?
You cannot throw both hypotheses as a haze, when you are not able to defend either.

If contaminant , what was the contaminant. There is so much independent evidence, if you want to dispute the results, you must have a hypothesis that FITS

You suppose a contaminant that LOOKs like heart tissue, that was POSSIBLE to be on the samples, and shares the characteristics tested.

What was it?

You want to just throw words at a page, and hope that smoke=fire.

 

[Opdrey]

I said it was not necrotic.

The 1200 year old Lanciano sample was described in the actual ARTICLE as:

"The tissue structure appears markedly abnormal due to the lack of histochemical detectability of nuclei and to some degree of global homogenization." and "...At last, the action of long centuries on the Miraculous tissue, provoked the loss of anatomic pieces and consequently only one cavity was formed. Therefore, it is evident that without any cover, all the fluid phase inside the tissue was lost, making it mummified and reducing its size, that results lower compared to a normal heart."

The tests chosen to analyze this were chosen because: "For the histological study of the ancient Flesh in Lanciano Lenzi's method was used, which is well adapted to mummified tissues."

That alone is sufficient call into question some of the observations. That is a source of potential error.

The only folks who claim zero error possible in their decrees are religious people. Scientists don't talk like that.

 

[Mountainmike]

On visual recognition, neither do I , I leave it to pathologists. But then having an OH who is a molecular biologist, helps explain the geek language and to point at what matters in the pictures.

And here is my view.
When Lanciano came in as "myocardium" , type AB blood, I thought "that was interesting"
It was one test , of uncertain origin. It goes on the interesting, follow this, list.

When buenos airies came in and was multiply tested, as heart myocardium type AB blood, I thought that is a pattern now. That qualifies as evidence,
it is not proof of anythign.

When the white cells showed life that pathologists could not explain it went on the "possible miracle" list.

When tixtla confirmed all the above, the onus was then for doubters to disprove. The pattern was clear. THe onus was on doubters to come up with a hypothesis for why it was false.

When sokolka and legnica came in, independently, my view is the evidence is not reasonable disputable. The only argument now is arguments about how. Not whether.

So no. I did not in the first instance believe it. I thought it interesting/possible, not proven, despite having a book with 100 other similar events listed. You read that right!

Now it is for sceptics to come up with a CREDIBLE reason why not which accounts for all the evidence. If they come up with one that WORKS to explain ALL the data, good for them.

This is where my lack of knowledge in biology comes to the fore. I have no real appreciation for visual analysis of things like this. I have plenty of experience with identifying stuff under a microscope by appearance and morphology, and as such I know that it is always possible to "infer" some aspects.

I understand @Mountainmike 's point of us all operating on "faith", especially when it comes to science we are not experts in, but to out of hand simply dismiss the possibility of error or misidentification is absurd in the extreme.

This discussion is nothing like an actual discussion of the facts. This is Mountainmike decreeing that it must be true because a lot of skilled people he doesn't know said it was and there's almost no chance for error or misidentification or anything because contract labs did something that someone else wrote about. Oh, yeah, and university labs don't know how to do science.

 

[Opdrey]

Sigh.
Keep to the subject. Stick to it.

I am. I'm honestly asking. You clearly haven't spent much time identifying things with a microscope so let me inform you: sometimes things are not clearly what they are. I can tell you what they looked at from the article if you would like.

What is your hypothesis. Contamination or error?

Both, either, I don't know. That's the point. I KNOW there's the potential for error in ALL measurement/analysis.

 

[Mountainmike]

You clearly haven't spent much time identifying things with a microscope so let me inform you: sometimes things are not clearly what they are. .

Clear enough for other cardiac specialists (like the one who wrote the book I referred) to confirm all the pathology stated. He also discusses other fascinating issues, like the meaning of that enzyme list on lanciano...

 

[Mountainmike]

Tixtla, sokolka, buenos airies, legnica
All recent. Many pathologists agree.

Stop focussing on lanciano... it is 1000 years old. The "miracle" is it still is recognisable as heart myocardium (or so the pathologist said)

The 1200 year old Lanciano sample was described in the actual ARTICLE as:

"The tissue structure appears markedly abnormal due to the lack of histochemical detectability of nuclei and to some degree of global homogenization." and "...At last, the action of long centuries on the Miraculous tissue, provoked the loss of anatomic pieces and consequently only one cavity was formed. Therefore, it is evident that without any cover, all the fluid phase inside the tissue was lost, making it mummified and reducing its size, that results lower compared to a normal heart."

The tests chosen to analyze this were chosen because: "For the histological study of the ancient Flesh in Lanciano Lenzi's method was used, which is well adapted to mummified tissues."

That alone is sufficient call into question some of the observations. That is a source of potential error.

The only folks who claim zero error possible in their decrees are religious people. Scientists don't talk like that.

 

[Opdrey]

Stop focussing on lanciano... it is 1000 years old.

But so far that's the only one we have any direct information from the analysis on.

I thought we could discuss a miracle at a time, but if one is turning out to be inconvenient I can also see why you'd want to drop this one.

The Lanciano example is good because it provides a huge amount of information about potential error in the analyses. Not that it necessarily means the analysis is wrong, just to show you that REAL scientists always discuss these things with the caveat of possible error.

But if you can find us a paper with a similar outline of the details of the analyses for your many, many, many other favorite miracles we can discuss it!

 

[partinobodycular]

When buenos airies came in and was multiply tested, as heart myocardium type AB blood, I thought that is a pattern now. That qualifies as evidence,
it is not proof of anythign.

Sorry for neglecting this thread but I've been diligently trying to corroborate your claims. Especially as it pertains to peer review and confirmation. Unfortunately I'm trying to take them one at a time. Currently I'm trying to find the WHO review of Linoli's Lanciano investigation. So far no luck. As to Buenos Aires however it seems that as of January 2022 there are no published results of Dr Castanon's investigation. Not simply that I can't find them, but that there actually are none, only interviews and conferences. No published results.

Meanwhile I'll keep looking until I simply lose interest.

 

[Opdrey]

Sorry for neglecting this thread but I've been diligently trying to corroborate your claims. Especially as it pertains to peer review and confirmation. Unfortunately I'm trying to take them one at a time. Currently I'm trying to find the WHO review of Linoli's Lanciano investigation. So far no luck. As to Buenos Aires however it seems that as of January 2022 there are no published results of Dr Castanon's investigation. Not simply that I can't find them, but that there actually are none, only interviews and conferences. No published results.

Meanwhile I'll keep looking until I simply lose interest.

It is a sad state when you are forced to find supporting evidence for another person's claims which they support by simply screaming "Buy the book".

Maybe Mike is a rep for a publishing house.

 

[partinobodycular]

@Mountainmike, I've been looking for about three hours now for any evidence of this WHO/UN report published in December 1976 supporting Linoli's conclusions. So far all that I've found are claims that such a report exists, many with an alleged quote from that report:

"science, aware of its limits, has come to a halt, face to face with the impossibility of giving an explanation."
​

Usually, if you can give me an exact quote from something Google can find at least some trace of the original, but not in this case. In fact I can find no evidence that a "Higher Council of the World Health Organization" has ever existed. In fact, after searching the WHO archives for at least an hour, my impression is that this is something that WHO would never concern themselves with. So my conclusion after three hours of searching is that this claim about an alleged WHO/UN report is complete bs.

Now if you would like to prove me wrong please do. I would be more than eager to read that report.

 

[Mountainmike]

It is a sad state when you are forced to find supporting evidence for another person's claims which they support by simply screaming "Buy the book".

Maybe Mike is a rep for a publishing house.

Which Buenos miracles do you mean? 92, 94 or 96.
The only place you will find the first two reports on 92, 94 are in castarnons ( first) book. So yes he did.

The summary are in Serafinis book and an interesting commentary.

But I presume you mean 96: in which tesoriero took the lead, so the forensic reports are in his name. He paid for the testing which cost a fortune as did travelling all over the world. Research costs Money.
So information costs money. So books cost money.

Detail in tesorieros books, since he took the lead on it, although castarnon copied the reports in his which I detect led to somewhat of a falling out between them.

Castarnons is the definitive book on tixtla.

Meanwhile …
nature magazine costs a fortune.

Chemistry world is junk, seriously @Opdrey
we Chuck it in the bin before read it. The most interesting article I ever saw was the chemistry of a cheese sandwich! But If you want the printed copy or membership to get it, that is not cheap either.

The last conference proceedings I bought cost the best part of 100.
I pay subscriptions of several hundred for stuff that interests me.

Yet you tightwads won’t pay a penny for knowledge.
But then I am a scientist, so I know I have to pay…..
I’m not in the academia bubble that is gifted it.

The WHO report, don’t bother. I assumed it was one more piece of wiki disinformation that such a thing happened or existed . But it turns out it actually it did. Serafini read it at the sanctuary and says don’t waste your time, it adds nothing : but it is referenced from his book.

 

[Opdrey]

The last conference proceedings I bought cost the best part of 100.
I pay subscriptions of several hundred for stuff that interests me.

You have now spent infinitely more time telling us how much you spent for books and things than you have providing actual literature citations.

Yet you tightwads won’t pay a penny for knowledge.
But then I am a scientist, so I know I have to pay…..

I wish you had actually gone to grad school and had to defend a thesis or dissertation. I don't think this type of response to questions would pass muster.

I’m not in the academia bubble that is gifted it.

LOL. What a narrow view of the world of science you have. So narrow. So uninformed.

 

[Opdrey]

Chemistry world is junk, seriously @Opdrey
we Chuck it in the bin before read it. .

I never mentioned Chemistry World to my knowledge. I don't read it.

But I understand you have no experience or knowledge of chemistry so it is not surprising that that's the only magazine you know about.

 

[Mountainmike]

I never mentioned Chemistry World to my knowledge. I don't read it.

But I understand you have no experience or knowledge of chemistry so it is not surprising that that's the only magazine you know about.

You didn’t . I did. I pointed out that even junk costs money, that comes through our door every month. ( it’s the U.K. royal society professional chemists institution magazine ) So do my professional institution magazines cost money: they are rather Better than chemistry world.

Why do you expect free? I seriously don’t get it.

 

[Mountainmike]

I wish you had actually gone to grad school and had to defend a thesis or dissertation. .

You do love your assumptions, that alone disqualifies you as a scientist. I did indeed defend a thesis. It doesn’t define me, and I don’t feel the need to mention it in every single post like you do.

Not least because the issues Of this thread depends on the qualifications and accreditation’s of the pathologists.
Not mine or yours.

Empty vessels…