Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Opdrey]

He (rightly) notes he is catholic, but the book is about the science. He notes the tests they ran, limitations of them,

And you can't even describe even one of those to us? Sounds like you don't understand what he wrote sufficiently.

Opdrey should admit he is incapable of looking at what is actually there.

You should admit you are incapable of describing the science that convinced you. Which means you probably didn't understand it, but it confirms your faith so it's all good.

It radiates in all that he says. What do you think of @Opdrey latest nonsense?

That Opdrey has spent more time working chemical labs than you have spent reading your favorite books?

They do not publish findings in journals. They issue reports.

Lack of peer review. Cool.

Universities are OK for ideas. Ideas are their business, not generally forensic testing.

Oh please. You clearly don't know a thing you are talking about. This is absurd.

University departments are generally far too sloppy for that. So the reports used on these are better than most universities can produce.

How did YOU get the reports? Please provide a citation. And please don't just tell us to buy your favorite book on Amazon. That's the kind of thing a scientific illiterate says.

Since those who comment are registered to practice as pathologists in a number of countries and states, their testimony is viewed as expert in a court. Some are also cardiac specialists with numerous publications.

More appeal to authority. Really, really lazy reasoning. Just the bottom of the barrel.

So your argument is against the pathologists, not the cardiologist who wrote that book.

Our arguments are against the person who clearly knows next to nothing about science telling us we are lazy for asking for scientific information.

 

[Mountainmike]

More appeal to authority. Really, really lazy reasoning.
.

No actually . I just prefer the comments of those who actually analysed the samples in a GMP lab,

to the apriori opinion of someone who admitted he would not accept them because of how his science would be altered by them. So admission of bias.

But here’s the thing.

-the model must follow the evidence.

- the evidence doesn’t have to follow the model! It didn’t!

 

[partinobodycular]

True. I excoriate your for expressing an opinion on something you know nothing about.

Which would seem to include everybody here except you. But what's discouraging is that you seem to be completely unwilling to address our ignorance, other than to point it out, and tell us to go buy the book. It would be nice if you could be a bit more helpful.

For example, Opdrey has questioned the chain of custody, would it really be that difficult for you to lay it out for us? Instead, your response seems to be...'the chain of custody is impeccable, take my word for it'.

Two options. Study it or stay silent.

You all take the third, attack it (and often me) with no evidence, then condemn it as superstitious nonsense.

Or we could do the civil thing, we ask you questions and you answer them.

Your one contribution is to attack one of the people involved of many involved, who holds a chair in legal forensic medicine.

I would think that the credibility of your experts is a valid line of questioning, seeing as how it seems to be the keystone of your argument. Am I not allowed to question the credibility of your "experts"?

Whilst admitting you have never even read a book.

Technically I said that I have never bought a book...not that I have never read one. Admittedly though, I haven't read many, and I have no desire to. You may have noticed however that this is the 21st century and information isn't confined only to books. Although surprisingly, in the case of your "miracles" that does seem to be the case.

A Turkish hacker group that has done some notorious things , including hacking the Russian ministry of defence, hacking the iron dome in Israel, so they only bother with serious threats, also hacked the small church website in Buenos airies that houses a couple of the miracles ( yes there were several, not just one) .

That shows you how seriously islam takes these as a threat to their world view!

Here again your bias is showing. You're basing your conclusion on assumptions about what Turkish hacker groups do and don't normally do. How do you know this? How do you know what their intent was? How do you know how threatened they feel?

You don't. You've reached a conclusion based on limited information and assumptions, the very thing that you've been excoriating others for doing. At least in our case this is a discussion forum. We're supposed to offer alternative scenarios. We're supposed to question your claims, and you're supposed to defend them. You seem to be unwilling or unable to do the latter.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He (rightly) notes he is catholic, but the book is about the science. He notes the tests they ran, limitations of them, he explains the jargon, some of the limitations, and he explains the cardiology. The book itself has no bias, other than to report what he found.

Read it. Same deal. If you buy it. Read all of it. And you claim you did not learn anything from it, I will send you an amazon voucher to the price.

Just as you MUST declare your bias as a sceptic.
You are not objective. You quoted skepdic once! Is that "authority?"

Opdrey should admit he is incapable of looking at what is actually there.
It radiates in all that he says. What do you think of @Opdrey latest nonsense? That "contamination" accounts for traces of heart tissue!!! He will say anything to contest it. Do you think anyone else but him (apparentlY) leaves heart tissue on what they touch?

You need to get out of the mindset that academia is the only source of truth. It is not.

Indeed for reliable reports of forensic pathology criminal path labs are used, that have procedures to GMP. They do not publish findings in journals. They issue reports. Universities are OK for ideas. Ideas are their business, not generally forensic testing. University labs are rarely regulated or authorized test labs for expert witness for courts. University departments are generally far too sloppy for that. So the reports used on these are better than most universities can produce.

Since those who comment are registered to practice as pathologists in a number of countries and states, their testimony is viewed as expert in a court. Some are also cardiac specialists with numerous publications.

So your argument is against the pathologists, not the cardiologist who wrote that book.

My main question is where are all the peer-reviewed scientific papers published on these revolutionary discoveries? isn't that how scientific discoveries are made available to the scientific community for comment and possible replication? Did they not think they would pass scrutiny?

 

[Opdrey]

No actually . I just prefer the comments of those who actually analysed the samples in a GMP lab,

No, when your primary proof is listing the number of degrees they have rather than showing us ANY actual science you've read, it's an appeal to authority.

to the apriori opinion of someone who admitted he would not accept them because of how his science would be altered by them. So admission of bias.

Can we actually have an honest conversation? Doesn't feel like it. But I'll reiterate. If you came on here and claimed you had a book that proved perpetual motion machines were real I would IMMEDIATELY doubt you precisely because it would upend all of physics. You will have to PROVE the point.

I asked this before but you dodged it so I'll ask it again:

Were you a Catholic before you read these proofs of miracles? Or did they re-affirm your version of Christianity?

Here's why I ask this: it seems you are amazingly invested in these being true. You don't talk like a scientist because a scientist will always admit that nothing is ever 100% proved. But literally nothing you've said indicates even a modicum of doubt. That's great for religion, not science.

If you actually read my posts honestly you will see that at no time have I decreed these "miracles" are "false". I simply doubt they are true based on what you've shared, and based on my 30+ years experience in the lab and working as an R&D chemist.

That's the difference between me (an actual scientist) and you (an actual religious person). You can brook no question in your perfect faith. I, however, am open to the possibility of my error.

That's how I know you aren't doing this scientifically.

 

[Opdrey]

My main question is where are all the peer-reviewed scientific papers published on these revolutionary discoveries?

@Mountainmike has vaguely mentioned an "Italian journal", but he will NOT give us that reference.

isn't that how scientific discoveries are made available to the scientific community for comment and possible replication?

No, but it's how books are sold at the neighborhood Catholic Book Store.

Did they not think they would pass scrutiny?

They don't have to worry about that. They are speaking to the faithful so no additional scrutiny is needed. Even @Mountainmike doesn't care about the details enough to understand the science sufficient to explain it to anyone else. It's faith. That's great. His faith brings him comfort. It isn't science, but it has the patina of science, and that think coating is all that is needed. QED.

 

[Mountainmike]

It’s hard to have a scientific discussion with a man who thinks general contamination on samples can look like heart tissue.

I do prefer the opinions of professional expert witnesses commenting in their area of professional expertise about samples they have actually studied.

( vs the rantings of a priori sceptics who refuses to even look)

The paper on lanciano by linoli is well known. If you have not found it, you have not looked. It’s on pubmed. That is the problem. Refusal even to look them up.

But here’s the real difference between us.

I don’t need this to be true. I’m easy either way. So I look at the science and conclude one way or other. I can be objective.

But sceptics cannot afford a single one to be true. That’s why a priori bias is built into every word they say. They aren’t looking to discover the truth ( the meaning of science) . They are looking for any excuse to debunk them.

It’s fascinating that all the same false tropes of bias were levelled at Sturp for thinking the shroud was real. Yet nobody ever did fault Jackson’s science.

On the other hand Adler did rip mccrone to shreds. A priori Sceptics always lose objectivity around religious items. The false dating was the product of sceptic bias too. After incompetent testing, They even cheated the results in nature as an FOI proved.

@Mountainmike has vaguely mentioned an "Italian journal", but he will NOT give us that reference.
.

 

[Opdrey]

It’s hard to have a scientific discussion with a man who thinks general contamination on samples can look like heart tissue.

You keep hammering on this. So, by all means, DESCRIBE the technical details that made the forensic experts CERTAIN it was heart tissue. What specific aspects of it were hear tissue?

The paper on lanciano by linoli is well known.

ANOTHER CLUE! Mountainmike is getting closer to telling us the mystical "Italian journal"!

If you have not found it, you have not looked. It’s on pubmed.

Another clue!

Mike, it is clear you don't know the first foreign thing about literature citations.

That is the problem. Refusal even to look them up.

BECAUSE YOU WON'T TELL US WHAT THE CITATION IS!!!!!!

Now I can look up something! Just a tick. BRB.

 

[Opdrey]

For the people who actually know what a scientific literature citation looks like this is it:

Linoli O. Ricerche istologiche, immunologiche e biochimiche sulla carne e sul sangue del miracolo eucaristico di Lanciano (vii secolo) [Histological, immunological and biochemiccal studies on the flesh and blood of the eucharistic miracle of Lanciano (8th century)]. Quad Sclavo Diagn. 1971 Sep;7(3):661-74. Italian. PMID: 4950729.

I would ask @Mountainmike if he read it in the original Italian but I bet he'd never confess one way or the other.

This article, I might note, is from 1971. 51 years ago. IF I can find a copy online I will attempt to read it, but I will at least be honest enough to admit I don't read Italian and I have no idea what this particular journal is about.

 

[Opdrey]

I might also note that the Pubmed article appears to be about a miracle from the 8th century.

Hmm, I wonder if in the course of 1200 years something could have made it into the mix that might throw off the analyses.

Hmmmmm.....

 

[Opdrey]

OK, @Mountainmike I tried to find a copy of the article online but could only pull up citations. Given that it is an article that is over 50 years old in an Italian journal it's simply not going to be easily retrievable.

That's where you come in. You clearly have read it and can easily explain the details. From the article please provide this to me:

1. What tests were run, specifically, not just generally, to determine the nature of the tissue
2. The sample was in storage by the church, obviously, for 1,200 years. Is there ANY possibility that there was any alternative explanation? (The article will clearly outline possible errors as well as any limitations on the quality of the sample).

That's it! Just tell us some technical detail.

Here's my current assumptions and I am hoping you prove them wrong:

A) You have not personally read or seen the article itself, and likely haven't even seen a translated copy

B) You don't personally understand the science or the analyses run sufficient to explain them to anyone.

C) The existence of the article you found out about from whatever book you read on this and that was enough to prove it all to you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The paper on lanciano by linoli is well known. If you have not found it, you have not looked. It’s on pubmed. That is the problem. Refusal even to look them up.

The title is on PubMed: the content, not so much:

PMID: 4950729
No abstract available​

PubMed records contain citation information (e.g., title, authors, journal, publication date) and abstracts of published articles and books. PubMed search results do not include the full text of the journal article...​

Why not just post a link to this well-known paper?

 

[Hans Blaster]

.

 

[Opdrey]

Hey, @Mountainmike, I've found some info on the article you like. I had to go onto the internet archives but here it is: The book of The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano

So let's look at this together!

From the Results section:

The tissue structure appears markedly abnormal due to the lack of histochemical detectability of nuclei and to some degree of global homogenization.

There's a pretty big red flag right off the bat. The tissue is "abnormal" and likely due to being 1200 years old, mummified and they couldn't find any nuclei in the cells (?)

Here's how they determined myocardial tissue:

Last, endocardial structures can be seen, well detectable due to a "lamina" of fibrous tissue with papillar `hills'. In the deeper areas the myocardial tissue can be seen with a clear syncytial structure....

So, again, we have mummified tissue that shows some degree of "global homogenization" and other abnormalities but appears to have features in line with myocardial tissue. Fair enough. But remember, there's always the possibility that when examining degraded tissue somethings may not be perfectly identified. But, let's go on.

Note their conclusions on this point:

we are dealing with a striated muscular tissue which for its diffuse syncytial junctions among the fibres, appears to be of myocardial origin,

Not to put too fine a point on it, it appears to be of myocardial origin. This is how scientists talk. They don't claim perfect knowledge. It "appears to be".

III. MICROCHEMICAL STUDIES ON BLOOD
Teichmann's reaction modified by Bertrand with hydrochlorate hematine and Takayama's reaction with hemo-chromogen, have been carried out on the ancient Blood in Lanciano with negative results, together with human Blood samples normally dried, which gave positive results.
Oxidase research (Stone and Burke's tests) gave highly positive results on the test sample and on control human normally dried Blood.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Something I was BEGGING you to provide but you couldn't. Here's potential issues with these analyses:

The negativity of Teichmann-Bertrand's test and Takayama's test does not exclude the presence of Blood, as these tests can become negative due to sample denaturation.
A positive oxidase test, generally indicating the presence of Blood, can occur also with organs contaminated by vegetable extracts or metal traces.
Paper thin layer chromatography (Franchini) is a validated test to identify the presence of Blood even in badly preserved samples which are not positive for haemoglobin.

They obviously concluded that it was hematological in nature, but they clearly lay out POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION SCENARIOS

Now it is interesting to me that you mocked and ridiculed my questions about contamination, but that's probably because you yourself have not read the actual chemistry either.

Now this is all well and good. The authors found that there was, preserved in a Church a material that apparently has been around for 1200 years. The science found it was blood and probably myocardial tissue.

But I can't stress enough that it has sat around in a church for 1200 years venerated as a holy object. Need I remind you that in the Middle Ages there were so many pieces of the True Cross that the original cross would have been about the size of a forest. People in pre-scientific times were easily mislead, easily duped or simply made mistakes.

If I am faced with a 1200 year old sample that I am TOLD is, according to tradition a miracle and it tests out to be human tissue and blood...how rational would I be in simply accepting that as opposed to the much more mundane possibility that it isn't really a miracle material at all. It was just some blood and muscle someone put up as a "miracle"?

Again, I cannot stress enough (and you can't deny it enough): I am not saying this is ipso facto NOT a miracle. I am, however, saying that something that's been gathering dust in a monstrance for 1200 years in a Church may not be a miracle because so many alternative explanations come to mind easily.



[/quote]

 

[Opdrey]

The title is on PubMed: the content, not so much:

PMID: 4950729
No abstract available​

PubMed records contain citation information (e.g., title, authors, journal, publication date) and abstracts of published articles and books. PubMed search results do not include the full text of the journal article...​

Why not just post a link to this well-known paper?

I did it for him and I even found a discussion of the analyses on the Internet Archive. Apparently those of us who are "lazy" do more to help Mike than Mike himself. I guess we know how important the "science" is to him.

 

[Mountainmike]

Or the more obvious alternative.

I have the Italian article which cost money to get copied from the scientific archives . But that rules it out for people who expect stuff for free..

I also have the translation in the book by samacacchia , but that rules it out because you don’t do books.

It was reanalysed 10 years later , but that’s in a book too.
Much better tissue section pictures. But books are a Nono.

I’m not wild about the 1988 book by nasruti, as distributed by the sanctuary but it does annexe the entire report by linoli too. Photos are not as well reproduced

All of the above referenced in the book by Serafini.

It is also discussed in endless videos you won’t watch , and summarised in pdfs you won’t read.

I think you would of course do better looking at one of the later ones, when testing was more advanced.

Castarnons book on tixtla, half full of forensic reports is you guessed, it a book! And you don’t do books or videos hearing them tao through the science.

You could get that book loaned free for a month on sscribd, I gave the link here. That’s when I discovered I am wasting my time,
Only one looked, And anyway you won’t read books.


In conclusion:

So I would much rather you believe there is “ no evidence”.
You are too much a cheapskate to find it.

You will be happier and I waste less time talking to those not interested!

repeat.
Contamination by visitors cannot explain why the sections are cardiac tissue.
People don’t leave cardiac tissue by accident.

OK, @Mountainmike I tried to find a copy of the article online but could only pull up citations. Given that it is an article that is over 50 years old in an Italian journal it's simply not going to be easily retrievable.

That's where you come in. You clearly have read it and can easily explain the details. From the article please provide this to me:

1. What tests were run, specifically, not just generally, to determine the nature of the tissue
2. The sample was in storage by the church, obviously, for 1,200 years. Is there ANY possibility that there was any alternative explanation? (The article will clearly outline possible errors as well as any limitations on the quality of the sample).

That's it! Just tell us some technical detail.

Here's my current assumptions and I am hoping you prove them wrong:

A) You have not personally read or seen the article itself, and likely haven't even seen a translated copy

B) You don't personally understand the science or the analyses run sufficient to explain them to anyone.

C) The existence of the article you found out about from whatever book you read on this and that was enough to prove it all to you.

 

[Opdrey]

I have the Italian article which cost money to get copied from the scientific archives . But that rules it out for people who expect stuff for free..

Then why did you mock my suggestion of "contamination" when possible contamination scenarios are explicitly discussed?

Why did you not mention any of the scientific details?

I also have the translation in the book by samacacchia , but that rules it out because you don’t do books.

Stop it. I'm likely FAR more well read than you are. Just stop.

It is also discussed in endless videos you won’t watch

Videos? LOL. Sorry, I'm a scientist. I don't get my primary information from YouTube.

, and summarised in pdfs you won’t read.

STOP BEARING FALSE WITNESS. I FOUND A TECHNICAL DISCUSSION OF YOUR ARTICLE WHICH YOU COULDN'T PROVIDE AND I DISCUSSED IT IN TECHNICAL DETAIL.

DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

Now try discussing the science for a change. Or not. It won't surprise me if you just run away now. Someone actually discussing what you hoped would just be hand-waved away.

 

[Mountainmike]

Stop it. I'm likely FAR more well read than you are. Just stop.

no you are not .
I have several books and papers on lanciano.

You forage around in web archives to stop paying a penny.

I suggested you look at tixtla , much more recent and so is the testing.
It happened only decades ago, so there is a far better record.

But perhaps you are missing the most interesting fact of lanciano.
It is still recognisable as cardiac tissue after hundreds of years. How? It should not have survived. How was a section cut in the days before surgery that happens to be the size of a wafer. Why is the chemistry that of fresh blood?


For the record I linked the book on tixtla, full of forensic reports, whilst on free trial on scribd. Nobody read it, they preferred their apriori opinions.
Which is why I can’t be bothered to link.

And I repeat the statement I made about your lazy illinformed trope on contamination with reference to Buenos airies.

Contamination CANNOT explain why they found flesh and blood. It wasn’t dropped by visitors by accident or whatever your stupid nonsensical assertion was

Because it is cardiac tissue. Visitors don’t leave cardiac tissue. And after three years all the white cells should have lysed in distilled water, indeed that should have happened in the time these samples were in the labs. They didn’t.

So your lazy hypothesis accounts for nothing.

seriusly, you keep believing they are fake.
You know better than all the pathologists and cardiologists of course.
You will be happier.

I will keep reading the evidence and science, not having to put up with sceptic nonsense. We are both then happy.

 

[Opdrey]

no you are not .
I have several books and papers on lanciano.

If your only metric is how many "miracle of Lanciano" books you have....

You forage around in web archives to stop paying a penny.

I didn't realize the only information you would allow was something I paid for.

So you disavow the link I provided which describes the research?

Which is why I can’t be bothered to link.

And what do you do when someone with superior research skills like myself FINDS that information? YOU REFUSE TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS WHAT I FOUND.

And I repeat the statement I made about your lazy

So far I'm the only one on here talking about the technical details. Sorry. YOU appear to be lazy one.

So your lazy hypothesis accounts for nothing.

I am tired of a scientific illiterate calling me lazy.

seriusly, you keep believing they are fake.

I see your witness for Christ does NOT include the commandment to not bear false witness.

Sad.

I will keep reading the evidence and science, not having to put up with sceptic nonsense. We are both then happy.

Maybe you'll stop bearing false witness about people. Remember, this proves your faith is real, that God is real. So maybe you should act accordingly?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I did it for him and I even found a discussion of the analyses on the Internet Archive. Apparently those of us who are "lazy" do more to help Mike than Mike himself. I guess we know how important the "science" is to him.

Well done you! That's got to be the weirdest 'scientific' paper I've seen - it's unusual to assume the nature of the material before testing it... they report finding a slice of old human heart muscle and some blood that they claim to be miraculous because dissections only started in the 14th century - coincidentally close to the shroud dating - a time when religious relics miraculously multiplied