Is science at odds with philosophy?

[Mountainmike]

This dialogue is useless.
In the early days I posted bona fide summaries of what pathologists found .
That’s not evidence they said.

I posted links that nobody read.
Sites just like the one you linked , except it wasn’t archive!
To videos nobody watched. So I stopped posting links.
Why should I waste my time?

That’s not evidence either they said , despite it was pathologists explaining what they did and what they found. Pertinent heh?

The question of videos is fascinating.

since nobody here will buy a book,

I once posted a link to the late Alan Adler porphyrin chemist in a one hour intensive discussion of chemistry demolishing the sceptic nonsense about the shroud. He explained the chemistry, how it was different between the RC sample and shroud body , the spectra and so on. The blood and serum pathology.
“ we don’t watch YouTube said the usual suspects”

But there is the thing. What I remember of academia all those years ago, when I spent some years there too, is the main interchange was conferences!! I bet nothing has changed…

( Actually professors and senior academics behaving like big kids , using questions to insult each other, it was not a pleasant - or useful - experience but… I digress, so back to the theme )

Later conferences started supplying dvds too, still later online streaming.

So This video of Adler I linked on YouTube was his conference presentation. Those with deep pockets like me could buy the compendium of papers.( it’s still a good book)
So conference videos are out seemingly.
“ that’s not evidence” they said.

Yet pick other threads on here, and you see , guess what videos! So it’s only videos about the science of religious phenomena that are ruled out here, including entire conferences.

I relate this because of tixtla.

A group of scientists investigated tixtla on behalf of the episcopal commission. I lost count after ten, so all I can say it was a lot!
The record of the commission was broadcast in a 1hr30 video, because the commission wanted it public. There is of course a dossier too, the essence of which became castarnons book.
Ie it was THE record of the investigation. It wasn’t a talking shop.
It was THE conference on tixtla, I suggested linking it.
“ we don’t watch videos say the muppets”
It’s not evidence they all screamed!


Seriously. Streuth.
Then all the lazy tropes came out. It’s a substitution, it’s a fraud, it’s contamination. one even posted a link to skepdic! Not one considered whether the objection mattered, just so long as it was objected.


Nobody actually considered whether the objection made sense.
How could they , they don’t read evidence!

For me it’s no issue . Fake or real. I don’t have a vested interest,
So I look at it objectively.

A sceptic can’t afford any of them to be true. For the sceptic faith they all have to be false.

I get it!
Believe what you will.
Ridicule if you must.
But don’t ever pretend the refusal to buy a single book is other than preferring ignorance to the scary thought they might be real.

if anyone is actually intersted, start with the cardiologists book. It has lots of references to go digging furthers.

I’m off to discuss with people who are interested instead.

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



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?



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



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



I am tired of a scientific illiterate calling me lazy.



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

Sad.



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?

 

[Mountainmike]

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

But then if you got hold of linolis paper…. It looks like every other paper.
When in Rome, he does like a Roman.
The date of lanciano is why I suggested you all look at tixtla, Buenos airies, sokolka and legnica. Much more recent and so sophisticated testing.

And if you looked at the science of the shroud and sudarium, instead of sceptic twoddle about it , I suggest following Adler , Rogers , fanti , and the EDICES team papers about the sudarium. ( like most science it will cost you)

You would know the shroud is a real shroud of a crucified man, that matches the sudarium forensically a thousand years older than the muppets dating of it.
Nobody takes that RC date seriously any more. It broke the first rule of science and computing. Garbage in. Garbage out. But then the only archeologist involved - meacham - said it would fail before they did it. He urged them to use proper protocols and they refused. His book is worth reading too,

 

[Opdrey]

This dialogue is useless.

Because so far I'm the only one looking at the real scientific stuff.

I posted links that nobody read.
Sites just like the one you linked , except it wasn’t archive!
To videos nobody watched. So I stopped posting links.
Why should I waste my time?

Because I wasted mine on your behalf.

That’s not evidence either they said , despite it was pathologists explaining what they did and what they found. Pertinent heh?

So far I'm the only one who has talked about the technical details.

But there is the thing. What I remember of academia all those years ago, when I spent some years there too, is the main interchange was conferences!! I bet nothing has changed…

I no longer believe you actually have any real association with science. I'm so sorry to tell you.

A group of scientists investigated tixtla on behalf of the episcopal commission. I lost count after ten, so all I can say it was a lot!

Why don't you stick with just one miracle at a time. This feels like a Gish Gallop.

But don’t ever pretend the refusal to buy a single book is other than preferring ignorance to the scary thought they might be real.

Again, the fact that you won't discuss the details of the research you thought was so moving tells me all I need to know.

if anyone is actually intersted, start with the cardiologists book. It has lots of references to go digging furthers.

Why do you avoid the link I provided? It is about your favorite research.

I’m off to discuss with people who are interested instead.

No you aren't. You will just go do the same thing somewhere else.

Remember, though, Mike: YOU BROUGHT UP THE TOPIC. YOU REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY TECHNICAL DETAILS. I HAD TO GO FIND THEM. Now you want to run away.

Color me surprised.

 

[Opdrey]

But then if you got hold of linolis paper…. It looks like every other paper.
When in Rome, he does like a Roman.
The date of lanciano is why I suggested you all at tixtla, Buenos airies, sokolka and legnica. Much more recent and so sophisticated testing.

And if you looked at the science of the shroud and sudarium, instead of sceptic twoddle about it , I suggest following Adler , Rogers , fanti , and the EDICES team papers about the sudarium. ( like most science it will cost you)

You would know the shroud is a real shroud of a crucified man, that matches the sudarium forensically a thousand years older than the muppets dating of it.
Nobody takes that RC date seriously any more. It broke the first rule of science and computing. Garbage in. Garbage out. But then the only archeologist involved - meacham - said it would fail before they did it. He urged them to use proper protocols and they refused. His book is worth reading too,

Gish gallop.

 

[Mountainmike]

Gish gallop.

Believe what you will.
Ridicule if you must.
But don’t ever pretend the refusal to buy a single book is other than preferring ignorance , to the scary thought it might all be real.

For the record: The first book I linked was to tixtla , all the forensic reports , when you could get a free trial to read it, nobody did. Lots of science. Lanciano is older and doesn’t have the full set of inexplicable features because of it.

You prefer sceptic tropes.

As for reading an archive of a site with no pictures, not the book with all the detail? Or the paper? Streuth… what a cheap skate!

 

[SelfSim]

Streuth… what a cheap skate!

Strewth! What a con-man!

 

[partinobodycular]

As for reading an archive of a site with no pictures, not the book with all the detail?

Okay, here you go Mike, pictures and everything.

https://www.keepingfaith.me/resources/common/pdfs/The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - Historical, Theological, Scientific and Photographic Documentation.pdf

Does this one meet with your approval?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Okay, here you go Mike, pictures and everything.

https://www.keepingfaith.me/resources/common/pdfs/The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano - Historical, Theological, Scientific and Photographic Documentation.pdf

Does this one meet with your approval?

So we go back 1200 years. Did I read that right?

Shouldn't we be able to prove this every Sunday?


@partinobodycular, I'm not sure why I quoted you, but have a quote!

 

[SelfSim]

A real scientific conclusion there ..
From the Summary:

It is true, the stupefying scientific results simply record a fact, but man, since he is a man, is called to read and understand the facts and understand their meaning, their meaning for his life.

In this way, the fact becomes a sign. The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano is a sign of God.
The sign stands on this side of faith. The leap of true faith is done only with free adhesion of the conscience. Faith is like love: either it is free or it is nothing.

The Miracle does not bring faith, which remains a free gift of God that man welcomes. But even if it does not grant faith, the Miracle is like a lamp that lights up the horizon. With it, God opens a path into the human heart. But it is up to humanity to either open itself up to Eternity or to close itself within its own dark little world.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A real scientific conclusion there ..
From the Summary:

indeed.

I paged through that link. There were 20 pages of religious platitudes and "history" before the forensic report.

That conclusion (by the examiner of the sample) is "something".

 

[Opdrey]

Believe what you will.
Ridicule if you must.
But don’t ever pretend the refusal to buy a single book is other than preferring ignorance , to the scary thought it might all be real.

As I noted I can go to the bookstore and find book after book after book with evidence for UFO's, Bigfoot, ghost hauntings, etc. These things may also exist, just like the miracles you prefer.

For the record: The first book I linked was to tixtla , all the forensic reports , when you could get a free trial to read it, nobody did.

I did not see that link in our conversation so it clearly predated me.

As for reading an archive of a site with no pictures, not the book with all the detail? Or the paper? Streuth… what a cheap skate!

I don't usually need pictures in my books to get information from them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But then if you got hold of linolis paper…. It looks like every other paper.

No, it really doesn't. I skimmed through the site capture on The Wayback Machine, which doesn't have the images. I now see @partinobodycular has found the full paper that you were unwilling or unable to provide.

A superficial reading shows your claims about the blood to be mistaken - in fact, they provide a table of the 'miracle' blood compared to 10 normal control samples. The conclusion is: "The Eucharistic Miracle Blood in Lanciano showed markedly decreased levels of chloride, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium and sodium as compared to human blood samples, normally dried. On the other hand, calcium levels were highly increased in the Blood from Lanciano". The serum comparison showed that the protein distribution in the dissolved sample was similar to normal human blood: "The percentage composition of proteins in the liquid tested is similar to that known for human normal Blood serum".

I haven't seen anything in that paper to suggest anything miraculous. I think a possible hypothesis is that this could be a late medieval relic from a turbulent time for European religion when the veneration of relics was extremely popular and every major church needed something to display - in this case, some blood and a slice of heart from a dissection or autopsy.

The earliest potential text mention seems to date around the late 16th century, referring to a discussion in the 11th century - but as the paper says, "nothing can prevent us from seeing in it an implicit, genuine and established relationship with the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano of which it sounds like the faithful echo", IOW, unsubstantiated wishful thinking; there's no credible evidence to support this.

So, as I suggested from the start, provenance is a serious problem for this claim.

 

[Mountainmike]

I did not see that link in our conversation so it clearly predated me.

Accept that this has gone on a long time. I have no idea who has read what: what I can say is I provided a link that nobody read.

I don't usually need pictures in my books to get information from them.

And that I guess is the problem with this entire conversation. That is facetious: because everything from tissue sections (important for pathology) to such as diagrams, spectrograms and graphs in general are indeed pictures which are vital in many such discussions.

.....

So the following is a genuine attempt at accomodation, to highlight why our remarks miss each other. Respect the attempt. So why is it our remarks are lost on each other?
So please do not pick nits. This is an attempt to explain why we are not connecting.

When I say a forensic lab says this is AB blood with no DNA profile, you say where is the academic paper that shows that? I say...I dont need one, because a forensic lab said it. So from my perspective, I can trust someone quoting the forensic lab

The statement is good enough. You say - real science is done in universities or needs confirming there. And there is no paper, with background, objective , method statement , discussion . But the forensic lab, simply says is or is not human blood. So we get stuck in a loop.

How do we resolve it?

Let us start with an obvious example. Where do I go to get tests on my eyes ? Answer an optician. Or in US terms an eye doctor. Horses for courses. They are the ones who have the equipment and accreditation to do those tests. Sure - universities are involved in research of eyes, eyesight and test equipment, but they are not the place to get eye tests done.

So what is a so called eucharistic miracle? It is when a red patch is found on a wafer. What are the questions that need to be asked? Is it blood? Is it human blood? Is it human tissue? What kind of tissue? Is it recently alive? Does it show trauma? And so on...

Who in the world normally answers those questions? Who does that as a day job? Forensic labs. That is the question they answer every day. They also have to do it, to the satisfaction of courts.

So why would you trust them? And the answer is in the nature of accredited labs.
As someone whose source of income for the last few years, has been shareholding in just such, indeed it is has bought me several houses, I do know what I am talking here. I do not run it, I did help set it up. Mine was bio pharm, but all the same issues apply. It is all about. Certainty. Quality Assurance.


First, when they do a test, they do not look it up in a book.
There are standard operating procedures that are followed to the letter, and continuous testing that assures that the processes give the right answers. So when you order a test, you know exactly what will be done. Then what is done is quality controlled too. It is not just the tests and processes that are validated. So is the entire lab. Air is controlled and particulates, water is controlled, staff are controlled, reagents are both controlled at procurement and tested. Systems ensure samples do not get mixed up and cannot cross contaminate. It is a major issue of conformance. The entire labs go through adaptations of good manufacturing pracice. They cannot manufacture or do accredited tests without licence. All products are assayed to get profiles of all impurities. All cell lines controlled etc. They are like fort knox compared to the average university lab.

No university can afford to do that. It is horrendously expensive and a straight jacket for progress.
.
But it is also what is needed, if you want to say to a court, "this was the blood of the accused" or whatever.

So the forensic reports are not in essence an objective , a method statement , discussion etc. It is simply the test outcome. All know what the test was because that is in the SOP.

Then we come to flesh identifications. The bit where pathologists get involved. They look for many pointers. In the case of heart tissue it is about striation, the age of the sample can affect pyknosis etc, so in essence it is done visually also with stains, but also there are indeed tests that identify muscle from such adipose tissue. The pathologists are also specialist, so there are cardio specialists. Zugibe was one. So was Barbara Engels at Legnica, and one whose name I forget at tixtla. But when after all that they conclude cardiac tissue, or showing signs of trauma (eg elongated white cells) it is highly they got it right. They have seen thousands of cadavers. Zugibe wrote a lot of papers on the heart, and books about forensic pathology.

So my point is , forensic medicine is not set up to try and advance knowledge, (universities) it is in essence there to make an extremely thorough job of applying what is already known with few mistakes (accredited labs).

When it comes to these samples, all show the same test results from accredited labs and pathologists. They conclude - human blood - type AB - lots of human DNA - no nuclear DNA profile (which is unique , but consistent), heart myocardium. Signs of trauma. Lots of white cells. They have a mitochondrial DNA from middle east. Most of that is just standard stuff. Maybe they get it wrong once. They do not get it wrong four times, all confirmed by repeat, in four different places, with four different teams.

So the forensic reports are brief (science moved on from Lanciano). But the statements they make are backed by SOP and accreditations. So they didnt make a mistake. And when I quote them, it is not my qualifications you rely on, it is the accreditation of the labs.

The ony reasonable question you can ask is WHY no DNA profile was found and why heart myocardium was found. Not whether.

Big foot does not have any of that test data, so comparison is a straw man..

Now do you see where I am coming from?

 

[Opdrey]

And that I guess is the problem with this entire conversation. That is facetious: because everything from tissue sections (important for pathology) to such as diagrams, spectrograms and graphs in general are indeed pictures which are vital in many such discussions.

Diagrams are indeed important, but more important is the details of the tests run at this stage. Since neither you nor I are experts on myocardial tissue.

When I say a forensic lab says this is AB blood with no DNA profile, you say where is the academic paper that shows that? I say...I dont need one, because a forensic lab said it.

I need the article because articles lay out the details of the analysis. Books sold in bookstores for the "popular press" are usually very light on this. The fact that you couldn't discuss any of them in detail indicates to me that the books you have lack that information.

So from my perspective, I can trust someone quoting the forensic lab

Fair enough, but if a real scientist comes along and asks for more details that means that they would like to see something a bit more than just what some author wrote in a book that they clearly want to sell to readers.

The statement is good enough. You say - real science is done in universities

I SAID NO SUCH THING. You don't understand what I'm saying at all. That's because you have no real experience in the lab. Universities are not the only place that publish articles. I gain this experience from having worked in far more labs than you have. I've been at the bench for the better part of 30 years in labs ranging from US government labs to university labs and industrial R&D labs.

How do we resolve it?

We don't. It would require you to have a better grasp of how science is done and communicated.

Let us start with an obvious example. Where do I go to get tests on my eyes ? Answer an optician. Or in US terms an eye doctor. Horses for courses. They are the ones who have the equipment and accreditation to do those tests. Sure - universities are involved in research of eyes, eyesight and test equipment, but they are not the place to get eye tests done.

And if the optometrist wrote ME a letter saying that Mike has presbyopia I would be fine accepting that. That would be A-OK.

But if the optometrist wrote a book and sold it to me for $25 and it said Mike's eyes are mystical and can see in 33 1/3 spacial dimensions and contain several pieces of alien electronics I would be VERY SKEPTICAL.

Do you see the difference? I'm serious. This is the key to the whole disagreement.

When it comes to these samples, all show the same test results from accredited labs and pathologists. They conclude - human blood - type AB - lots of human DNA - no nuclear DNA profile (which is unique

And a HUGE red flag.

So they didnt make a mistake.

Again, if you actually had analytical science experience you'd realize that statement is absurd in the extreme. No real scientist claims "we didn't make any mistakes!" There is ALWAYS room for error in real science. That's what differentiates real science from junk.

Now do you see where I am coming from?

I do. You come from a place of profound lack of understanding of science at its most basic. Specifically analytical chemistry/biology. You speak in terms that sound like most Creationists challenging biology and geology. They have "science" they believe in explicitly simply because someone in a lab coat told them it was good science.

 

[Mountainmike]

You will notice:
the ones I suggest you research are tixtla, buenos aires, sokolka, legnica.
Why? because
1/ The origins are known. Red areas of eucharistic wafers. In several cases the scientists are seen cutting the samples that were analyzed. The origin is not reasonably disputable.
2/ The flesh is human heart myocardium that shows trauma and beating traumatized.
3/ The blood is real human blood consistenly type AB
4/ White cells are visible that should not be there, and show the samples as recently live. Which is inexplicable according to pathologists. Also it shows trauma or beating.
5/ These are is in the era of DNA testing, that shows no nuclear profile but do they do show a middle east mitochondrial profile.
6/ That combination is unique. It was common between them despite being repeated by multiple people in multiple times in multiple indepedent teams.

There was no "conferring" or fiddling of results like there was on the shroud dating.

I have been consistent in stating all the above. All is verified in forensic reports if you ever decide to look. None of you looked at tixtla whilst you had the chance to do it free. Now it will cost you.

There are also a few unusual details analysed on each one.
For tixtla it was the electron micrographs, that show the blood had come from a micro network of effectively veins. It was not coating the wafer, it was coming out of it.


But Lanciano shows
1/ at least one paper was written, since you all obsess about the dubious relevance of papers, which is not normal for a forensic examination (the context in which I raised it)
2/ It is human heart myocardium (the first time that was confirmed) - the section has the tissue types of both chambers, top to bottom.
3/ It is real human blood type A/B

The inexplicable.
4/ It is inexplicable how such a consistent section of myocardium was cut long before the era of surgery
5/ Cadaver soft tissue starts to liquify after days.
It is inexplicable how either the flesh or blood survive to still be recognisable as heart tissue and blood today. Something is preserving them, and , no chemical preservatives found.

Finally...
Also others like the Sudarium (facecloth ) show similar characteristics of mitochondrial, type AB , no nuclear profile.
So does the statue of cochabamba. Blood profile and DNA results the same, but in that case smashed up epithelial cells with a few thorn cells.

I believe this is true of the Tunic of Argentuille too, but I am not totally certain. My technical french may not be reading the nuance correctly. The books by ( prof) Lucotte are in french.

The profile is consistent. A lot of ocasions.

No, it really doesn't. I skimmed through the site capture on The Wayback Machine, which doesn't have the images. I now see @partinobodycular has found the full paper that you were unwilling or unable to provide.

A superficial reading shows your claims about the blood to be mistaken - in fact, they provide a table of the 'miracle' blood compared to 10 normal control samples. The conclusion is: "The Eucharistic Miracle Blood in Lanciano showed markedly decreased levels of chloride, phosphorus, magnesium, potassium and sodium as compared to human blood samples, normally dried. On the other hand, calcium levels were highly increased in the Blood from Lanciano". The serum comparison showed that the protein distribution in the dissolved sample was similar to normal human blood: "The percentage composition of proteins in the liquid tested is similar to that known for human normal Blood serum".

I haven't seen anything in that paper to suggest anything miraculous. I think a possible hypothesis is that this could be a late medieval relic from a turbulent time for European religion when the veneration of relics was extremely popular and every major church needed something to display - in this case, some blood and a slice of heart from a dissection or autopsy.

The earliest potential text mention seems to date around the late 16th century, referring to a discussion in the 11th century - but as the paper says, "nothing can prevent us from seeing in it an implicit, genuine and established relationship with the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano of which it sounds like the faithful echo", IOW, unsubstantiated wishful thinking; there's no credible evidence to support this.

So, as I suggested from the start, provenance is a serious problem for this claim.

 

[Opdrey]

For tixtla it was the electron micrographs, that show the blood had come from a micro network of effectively veins.

What, specifically, indicated the origins of the blood?

It was not coating the wafer, it was coming out of it.

Or soaking into it. Last I checked bread products are usually relatively absorptive.

1/ at least one paper was written, since you all obsess about the dubious relevance of papers,

You mean "dubious relevance of technical details" .

which is not normal for a forensic examination (the context in which I raised it)

You make these blanket claims which are simply untrue. A forensic examination WILL have along with it a detailed write up of the procedures and the results. And a forensic analysis CAN EASILY BE PUT INTO A PAPER along with all the other details of the case.

If it were sufficiently interesting and supported that it could stand up to review by outside sources.

Maybe if it proved the existence of God Almighty it would be the most amazing paper ever!

4/ It is inexplicable how such a consistent section of myocardium was cut long before the era of surgery

Now you're back at the 1200 year old sample, right? Have you ever seen "documentaries" about how aliens built various ancient structures because the blocks were so big and fit so tightly no one at that time could have carved them as precisely or moved them as far?

5/ Cadaver soft tissue starts to liquify after days.

The 1200 year old sample was characterized as "mummified". Soft tissue can be naturally preserved in the right conditions.

It is inexplicable how either the flesh or blood survive to still be recognisable as heart tissue and blood today. Something is preserving them, and , no chemical preservatives found.

Soft tissue has now been found in a few rare dinosaur bones. Is that a miracle?

I believe this is true of the Tunic of Argentuille too, but I am not totally certain. My technical french may not be reading the nuance correctly. The books by ( prof) Lucotte are in french.

You seem to believe in a huge number of miracles.

 

[Mountainmike]

I will respond to three points only.
1/ Not " I couldnt respond in detail".
I didnt respond in detail. I linked the Tixtla book whilst on free trial for a period. It is not now.
I am simply not going to copy pages and pages of copyrighted works because you refuse to pay for them. The summary of tixtla is on the web. The points I made above. The detail is in castarnons book with all the forensic reports, you can also watch as the recording of the conference presentation to the episcopal investigation. You will not do any of them, so we are stuck, but not because "I could not" but because "I did not".

I have the italian paper on lanciano. I paid (I recollect) north of $20 to get it at least 10 years ago. I have the book including linolis report. That too cost at east $10 That is so old and the report so brief, it is on the web. But I knew those sections were there for anyone that looked. It is time all of you searched this stuff out. That is research.

2/ For one lab to make a mistake. True -but unlikely with an accredited lab the procedures are tight.
On tixtla alone they repeated the DNA tests at at least 3 labs to be sure.
Then with all five phenomena I cite showing the same, it is staggeringly unlikely they were all in error.
Let us suppose an accredited lab gets a test wrong 1 in 1000 (it is better than that)
Repeated by 3 labs it is 1 in 10 to 9.
But let us suppose that is a systematic error in the sample, not the test.
There are still 4 other phenomena showing the same.

It is staggeringly unlikely the results are wrtong.
As for the pathology - which is really important - the slides of heart myocardium showing white cells.
They are there for all to see.

So red flag or not... As much as you dont want to believe it, the default assumption has to be the data is right in this case. You cannot impose what you think should happen and prefer it to what it actually did happen.

You can retest it (they did) , and if you think that might be a systematic error, you can look for confirmation in other places (they did) and also they retested those.

There are simply too many of these to ignore.
The likelihood of error now is vanishingly small. The question is why not whether.

You cannot impose a subjective answer to the tests. You cannot Tell them to repeat them until they get the "right" results, or ignore them unlesss they are the "right" results.
Sure it turns the world upside down (or it does for some).
Einstein hated the philsophical consequences of quantum phenomena.

3 / A report with a cover on that anyone can buy is called a book! Tixtla book, says what they did, how they did it, the tests they ran , the reports they got, the conclusions they made, the sectional photos. That is a report.

The cardiologist in the book I recommended, spoke to all the key players and linked their reports and explained the technical details. It is a useful reference.


And if you ever expect a reply again, spare me the insults.
Can we carry on a dialogue without them?

The ones whose judgement you question is those who made the forensic reports.
Like you, I have worked in academia, government labs, private sector....... In my own small way I made a few breakthroughs, in rather different areas to yours. I have made some dollars setting up an accredited lab - I know what it takes. I know how much it costs and all the process that makes sure you can trust it. It has pushed stuff through medical regulatory.

Never once have I question your competence. I have questioned whether you have studied enough on THESE to make many of the comments you make , which do not stand scrutiny on the data. I have stated I think your certainty of the validity of the scientific model is not justified. Many philosophers agree with me.

So please do not question mine.
One unusual result is interesting. Two is confirmation. A lot of them in several places by several accredited labs, is "beyond reasonable doubt". That is how it is viewed by a court.

You come from a place of profound lack of understanding of science at its most basic. .

 

[SelfSim]

Q1) Has the sample been dated by modern methods? (Eg: isotopic decay analysis).
The paper given in post #527 assumes as a posit that the sample 'extraction event' occured in the 8th Century, albeit based on converging verbal recounts (some documented). There is no hard physical law based evidence supporting this assumption, however.

P1) The analysis relies, (in part), on assumptions about the environmental conditions it 'must have' encountered throughout the supposed ages. (The monks supposedly stretching the sample with nails/timber, in order to avoid rigor mortis contraction distortions). Yet, it also leverages the absence of any preservation chemicals as evidence:
'It may be underlined that in no histological section any picture appears which could suggest a previous treatment of the tissue with mummifying substances such as those used in the past for the preservation of tissues'.
IOW, its possible that preserving chemicals may still have affected the sample, as human handling of the sample is clearly evident, and it was not stored in chemically isolated environment.
Thus, deliberate chemical treatment hasn't been ruled out in the chemical analysis by directly implemented controls over the dependent/independent variables involved.
(A lack of evidence is an insufficient basis for ruling anything out, in this case).

P2) This entire analysis follows the process of confirming or refuting a supposed 'miracle'. A properly based scientific analysis starts out making no such assumptions about the validity or otherwise, of its hypothesis. This is not the scientific method approach. The context of objective science is physical/chemical law .. not the posited truth (or otherwise) of the existence of miracles.

 

[partinobodycular]

P2) This entire analysis follows the process of confirming or refuting a supposed 'miracle'. A properly based scientific analysis starts out making no such assumptions about the validity or otherwise, of its hypothesis. This is not the scientific method approach. The context of objective science is physical/chemical law .. not the posited truth (or otherwise) of the existence of miracles.

To wit:

This investigation, performed between November 18th, 1970 and March 4th, 1971, had the following aims:
a) to check the histological structure of the ligneous - hard tissue, left as Flesh;
b) to define if the hardened stony - cretaceous substance left as Blood has the same characteristics of this;
c) to point out what biological species Flesh and Blood belong to;
d) to find out the Blood group in both tissues;
e) to investigate on the protein and mineral components of the Blood.​

The investigation seems to presume from the outset that the sample is indeed flesh and blood. Such an assumption could lead to a less than rigorous methodology. And if the same methodology was followed in the investigation of subsequent Eucharistic "miracles", then the same outcome might not be so surprising.

This seems even more plausible when one considers the fact that numerous cases of supposed Eucharistic miracles have been documented in North America, and as far as I can ascertain, all have turned out to be fungus. Is there a difference in methodology between the investigations undertaken in North American as opposed to those undertaken elsewhere which could explain the discrepancy?

 

[Opdrey]

I am simply not going to copy pages and pages of copyrighted works

LITERALLY NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO DO SO. We are simply asking you to tell us the details of the analyses and discuss it like a scientist would.

2/ For one lab to make a mistake. True -but unlikely with an accredited lab the procedures are tight.
On tixtla alone they repeated the DNA tests at at least 3 labs to be sure.
Then with all five phenomena I cite showing the same, it is staggeringly unlikely they were all in error.
Let us suppose an accredited lab gets a test wrong 1 in 1000 (it is better than that)
Repeated by 3 labs it is 1 in 10 to 9.

You are talking in generalities. That isn't the statistics of the individual tests. You have yet to provide a single number on anything from all your readings. So either the books you have don't include ANY statistical analysis of the data or you don't understand it enough to point it out to us.

As for the pathology - which is really important - the slides of heart myocardium showing white cells.
They are there for all to see.

Given your lack of experience with hear tissue morphology, what, exactly would you gain from seeing a picture of it?

.
There are simply too many of these to ignore.

And, again, how about all the books on "real hauntings"? And UFO's.

The likelihood of error now is vanishingly small.

You would be able to tell us the actual likelihood of error if you cared enough about the actual science to read it. But again that isn't important to you because the science isn't the key part...the proof of the miracle is all you care about.

Next time you wish to talk to people who actually have significant experience in science look for the following:

F-test
t-test
p-value
Mean
Standard Deviation
Median

You cannot impose a subjective answer to the tests.

I'd be happy with an objective answer.

You cannot Tell them to repeat them until they get the "right" results

Again, no one is suggesting this be done. Why do you insist on bearing false witness against people you are debating with?

3 / A report with a cover on that anyone can buy is called a book! Tixtla book, says what they did, how they did it, the tests they ran , the reports they got, the conclusions they made, the sectional photos. That is a report.

And yet you can't even be bothered to summarize technical details for us?

And if you ever expect a reply again, spare me the insults.
Can we carry on a dialogue without them?

You are reasonably insulting as well. Calling me "lazy" and making up things about me that I never said.

I would suggest that you might wish to reacquaint yourself with Matthew 7:3

Like you, I have worked in academia, government labs, private sector.

I mean no offense but I honestly have trouble believing this claim.

...... In my own small way I made a few breakthroughs, in rather different areas to yours. I have made some dollars setting up an accredited lab - I know what it takes.

You have done a very good job of hiding it.

One unusual result is interesting. Two is confirmation. A lot of them in several places by several accredited labs, is "beyond reasonable doubt". That is how it is viewed by a court.

This isn't a court of law. I thought you understood this. You should be able to provide us with statistical data explicit in the studies you rely on.