| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1407.1 | coupla more little details | SCCAT::DICKEY | | Wed Jan 02 1991 22:13 | 22 |
| This news item and the crowds in Colfax, etc., was continuously
on the local radio news here in the San Francisco Bay Area for
the couple of weeks or so before Christmas (Colfax is a small town
in the Sierra foothills about 3 or 3 1/2 hours' drive east of San
Francisco). A few extra tidbits I picked up not included in Topher's
UPI article above are: 1) some physics professor or "optics guy"
(don't know if it's the same one mentioned in the article) theorizes
that the heat generated by the hanging lamp has gradually warped over
the years whatever the surface on the lamp is that's doing the
reflecting so that only now is this phenomenon being noticed, and
that, sooner or later, for the same reason (heat/warping) the phenom-
enon should alter/change/go away . . . I'd expect some change to occur
as well due to seasonal variation in the sun's position; 2) there's
a restaurant in Colfax coincidentally name "Madonna's Cafe" (or some
such, Madonna appears in the restaurant's name) that has been doing a
land-office business from the crowds, who apparently like the connection
between the restaurant name and the phenomenon; 3) a similar
phenomenon was reported to be occuring shortly before Christmas
in the restroom of a gas station somewhere in Texas. Devinely
inspired or otherwise, I did find this to be a neat little news
story, especially just before Christmas.
|
| 1407.2 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly' | Wed Jan 02 1991 23:11 | 16 |
| re: .0
It is ever thus. I find the church officials' attitudes most
unfortunate. They are perfectly free to believe what they want
to believe about God, miracles, divine intervention, and so on.
But it is disturbing to find that in this particular instance,
when a prosaic explanation is so clearly established, the
official in charge of the church dismisses it with a wave of the
hand.
This reminds me of Anatole France's comment when he visited
Lourdes and noticed all the crutches that the "cured" had
thrown away: "What? No wooden legs?" ;^)
Joel
|
| 1407.3 | *Believing* and *knowing* are two different things altogether | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Fri Jan 04 1991 17:45 | 27 |
| Re.2
Joel,
The last sentence in the article was meant for you. It was also used
in "Travels" by Michael Crichton, a book highly recommended for those
who especially think of themselves as skeptics. It's pretty amusing.
When my car broke down on the way to exit 2 just before Christmas,
creating a far different holiday for me than the one I'd planned on,
the Subaru dealer said it was the timing belt/chain, and of course he
was right. My car had 56K miles on it, and they usually break between
50-54K. So far everything is fine.
But because of these coincidental events, an incredibly deep meaning of
the season was revealed to me, along with several other revelations
while at Kripalu which I wrote down...in about 20 pages worth of single
line college-ruled paper. And I was only there for two nights.
From your perspective, this car breaking down bit is anything but
divine intervention, because after all there is a perfectly valid,
scientifically logical explanation for it. Etc., etc.
Enjoy your perception of reality. I would find it a bit limiting
however.
Cindy
|
| 1407.4 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Fri Jan 04 1991 19:07 | 35 |
| re: .3
I'm not sure where "perception of reality" enters into the case
as presented in the basenote.
What we have is a church that has garnered mucho money and
mucho attention because of sunlight reflected/refracted
through glass. Would that the miracle could occur at night
or on a cloudy day. But no - only when the sun is in the
proper position in the sky and with nothing earthly intervening
do we see the miracle. Surely something miraculous could be
so constructed as to actually go beyond something so mundane?
If there are in fact miracles let them be miraculous. And
let us acknowledge that everything everyone claims to be
a miracle is not in fact a miracle. I mentioned Lourdes.
Did you know that since 1954, when the International Medical
Committee of Lourdes was formed (composed of Catholic
doctors) for the purpose of investigating alleged miracles,
the Roman Catholic Church itself has accepted only 13 cases
as miracles? So there is a precedent for the Church to
acknowledge when miracles are not in fact miraculous.
This is clearly the case here, as represented by the basenote.
You and the church officials and anyone else are perfectly
free to conclude that miracles happen, even if they did not
happen in this particular case. You are also free to
label as "limiting" a view of reality that notices that
what is happening at this church is not a miracle.
Joel
|
| 1407.5 | A miracle by any other name...... | DELREY::MILLS_MA | To Thine own self be True | Fri Jan 04 1991 19:39 | 18 |
| Joel,
I find your replies to this note somewhat confusing. While
acknowledging that everyone has a right to their opinion, you then
label those opinions "unfortunate". Whay should Church officials be
less believing in miracles than the many who have flocked to see this
apparition? In fact, the fact that they _are_ Church officials would
seem to imply that they believe in miracles. Whether this is or not, a
miracle is immaterial. I think the bishop (?) expressed his views quiet
nicely, he gave enough choices to satisfy 'almost' everyone.
IMHO, miracles are in the 'eye of the beholder'; if they make someone
feel better when they were despondent before, healthy when they were
ill before, and believe when they didn't have faith in anything before,
then they truly are miracles.
Marilyn
|
| 1407.6 | | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Fri Jan 04 1991 20:15 | 36 |
|
Re.4
Joel,
Neither the article in .0 nor my reply in .3 mentions the word
'miracle'. And nobody is saying that the appearance of the figure
somehow 'breaks' the laws nature as we know them today. So, I would
concur - indeed what is described in .0 is not a miracle (using the
American Heritage Dictionary definition of the word).
There are occurrences of this kind all over the world. For example, at
Chichen-Itza in Mexico, the pyramid stairs display the shadow of a
snake slithering up the steps at the soltices. Probably this pyramid
was built with this occurrence in mind.
It sounds a little bit unusual, however, that the church would be built
'just right' so that the light image would appear at the time and in
the way that it did. A miracle? No. Divine intervention within the
laws of Nature (synchronicity)? Possibly. If there had been a miracle
to find in any of this, it would have been the production of this
figure through a series of seemingly unrelated events - the precise
angles at which the church is situated, the kind of glass, the
placement of...etc. To get all these things just right and have this
happen without the builders and designers intending it to be this way,
this is probably the miracle. Or just a series of coincidences.
Depends on how you look at it.
Like my car's timing chain breaking at the most opportune moment it
possibly could have, thus leading me to some amazing experiences
recently, no, this was not a miracle either, since laws of nature were
not broken (it *was* supposed to break right around the time it did).
Divine synchronistic intervention? Yes (according to my perception of
reality). And I'm getting good at this ycyor stuff too. (;^) (;^)
Cindy
|
| 1407.7 | Many viewpoints. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Fri Jan 04 1991 20:18 | 56 |
| RE: .5 (Marilyn)
There is nothing contradictory in Joel accepting the right of others to
their own opinion and yet feeling that a particular opinion is
"unfortunate". I accept, for example, the right of people to believe
in Nazism (though not the "right", of course, for them to act in all
ways according to those beliefs), but can still view those beliefs as
socially destructive and personally repugnant.
RE: (Joel)
Joel, what is being expressed here is that there are two different
philosophies about the nature of "miracles." The first is the
traditional viewpoint: that God/the-Gods show His/Her/Their power
through supernatural means -- by intervening and setting aside natural
law.
The second, more modern viewpoint is that God(s) show H/H/T power
*through* the natural law which He/She/They decree. According to this
viewpoint what makes something a miracle is its power to spiritually
inspire. It is unimportant whether or not it has a conventional
explanation or not.
I believe that the Catholic church accepts the existence of *both*
types of "miracle".
You also seem to be showing a strong lack of skepticism for the
apparent rationalistic explanation. I have seen a lot of glib
explanations made for apparent anomalies, which are presented with
great authority and yet consist purely of speculation, and may even be
grossly inconsistent with easily discovered facts about the phenomenon.
We don't know how the investigation was made, but it would be not at
all unusual for such debunkings if it was based entirely on knowledge
of the time of day, and newspaper accounts of the appearance of the
image. He may only "know" that the light is there, for example, since
it is *has* to be there for his explanation to work.
Do I think that there was something supernatural or even paranormal
taking place? I think that it is extremely unlikely -- but the
newspaper article does not give us a basis for deciding that the
debunkers explanation is plausible, nor that the church officials
should be criticized for not accepting it as settled by his proposed
explanation.
We also need to be skeptical about the completeness of the newspaper
accounts as to what the church officials actually said. The quotes
presented might easily have been embedded in a statement including
claims that they had consistently warned the "pilgrims" that the
image was probably not miraculous in the supernatural sense, and that
they accepted the optical hypothesis as very likely true.
Remember: skepticism is highly admirable -- but only when it is applied
impartially to all claims, including those which reinforce your
existing beliefs.
Topher
|
| 1407.8 | bravo ! | DWOVAX::STARK | Can you feel it ? | Fri Jan 04 1991 20:47 | 6 |
| re: .7,
> Remember: skepticism is highly admirable -- but only when it is applied
> impartially to all claims, including those which reinforce your
> existing beliefs.
This is another TC classic. Well said ! :-|
|
| 1407.9 | like a skeptic... | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Mon Jan 07 1991 14:40 | 148 |
|
re: .5 (Marilyn)
I didn't label anyone's opinion unfortunate. What I said was:
"I find the church officials' attitudes most unfortunate."
Not opinion; attitude. And what I find unfortunate is their
attitude, not about miracles in general, but about this one
in particular. As for the supposedly contradictory aspect,
I believe Topher said it better than I and I will not repeat
it, only state my agreement.
> Note 1407.6
> CGVAX2::PAINTER
> Neither the article in .0 nor my reply in .3 mentions the word
> 'miracle'. And nobody is saying that the appearance of the figure
> somehow 'breaks' the laws nature as we know them today.
I am saying it. Light on a wall refracted through stained
glass is a perfectly mundane occurrence. The appearance
of an image of the Virgin Mary with no explanation as to
mechanism would be miraculous. Please note difference between
"light on a wall" and "image of the Virgin Mary."
> It sounds a little bit unusual, however, that the church would be built
> 'just right' so that the light image would appear at the time and in
> the way that it did. A miracle? No. Divine intervention within the
> laws of Nature (synchronicity)? Possibly.
Since you mention this I shall state that I regard the existence
of a creator/god/divine entity to be an unproven hypothesis.
I have not seen any valid evidence to support the contention
that such an entity, in order to create natural laws, would not
have to resort to powers unknown to humankind. We must
disagree on the premise.
I am not aware that synchonicity is a law of nature. I am
aware of this concept within Jungian psychology.
> Note 1407.7
> CADSYS::COOPER "Topher Cooper"
> RE: (Joel)
> Joel, what is being expressed here is that there are two different
> philosophies about the nature of "miracles." The first is the
> traditional viewpoint: that God/the-Gods show His/Her/Their power
> through supernatural means -- by intervening and setting aside natural
> law.
> The second, more modern viewpoint is that God(s) show H/H/T power
> *through* the natural law which He/She/They decree. According to this
> viewpoint what makes something a miracle is its power to spiritually
> inspire. It is unimportant whether or not it has a conventional
> explanation or not.
And a third viewpoint is that the second viewpoint is a
fallback position, classically unfalsifiable, taken as
the lack of evidence for viewpoint number one became
ever more clear. One area where lack of evidence for
traditionally defined miracles has reared its head is
in the canonization process.
> You also seem to be showing a strong lack of skepticism for the
> apparent rationalistic explanation. I have seen a lot of glib
> explanations made for apparent anomalies, which are presented with
> great authority and yet consist purely of speculation, and may even be
> grossly inconsistent with easily discovered facts about the phenomenon.
> We don't know how the investigation was made, but it would be not at
> all unusual for such debunkings if it was based entirely on knowledge
> of the time of day, and newspaper accounts of the appearance of the
> image. He may only "know" that the light is there, for example, since
> it is *has* to be there for his explanation to work.
Actually, I am in fact skeptical of skeptics. Please see
my 1407.4 where I twice use the phrase "as represented by
the basenote." But, not having been on the scene, I cannot
offer an alternative explanation. It seems to me, though,
that the church officials accept the relationship between
sunlight/glass/image on wall as their position, post-skeptic,
was not to deny this relationship, but to pull in miracle
explanation number two, as defined by you above.
> Do I think that there was something supernatural or even paranormal
> taking place? I think that it is extremely unlikely -- but the
> newspaper article does not give us a basis for deciding that the
> debunkers explanation is plausible, nor that the church officials
> should be criticized for not accepting it as settled by his proposed
> explanation.
I disagree. The newspaper explanation, light shining through
glass, is perfectly plausible as compared to the alternative
and original position of the church. The church officials
are highly deserving of criticism as they continue to
allow - perhaps even encourage - people to spend money to
travel to this area, people who believe they are witnessing
a miracle. I will guess here: had the initial sighting of
this light been immediately identified as being tied to
light/window, we never would have heard a word about it.
But, having been misidentified as a miracle, the church
(by "church" I mean this particular church, not the
Catholic church as a whole) now has a vested interest
in maintaining the illusion. In which endeavor they are
not maintaining the best interests of their parishioners.
> We also need to be skeptical about the completeness of the newspaper
> accounts as to what the church officials actually said. The quotes
> presented might easily have been embedded in a statement including
> claims that they had consistently warned the "pilgrims" that the
> image was probably not miraculous in the supernatural sense, and that
> they accepted the optical hypothesis as very likely true.
This is true. See above. I do not think any of us has
data beyond the basenote and the first reply. More data
could either change or reinforce one's view of the
situation.
> Remember: skepticism is highly admirable -- but only when it is applied
> impartially to all claims, including those which reinforce your
> existing beliefs.
Again, I agree with this statement.
Let me ask: do you find much evidence of skepticism in this
conference? Aside from yourself and Mr. Kallis I find
(in more than a year of read-only participation) very
little skepticism and quite a bit of completely uncritical
acceptance of the most fantastic claims. You have no
doubt noticed that I do not try to engage debate in
topics established for the purpose of reinforcing belief
in this that or the other extraordinary claim. I am
hardly a skeptical crusader.
But in this particular case (again) I believe the local officials
give the strong appearance in engaging in behavior which
is not beneficial to their parishioners or (particularly)
to the people who spend much money and time, traveling
from afar, to witness a non-miraculous miracle. And
I believe they need to be called on this.
Joel
|
| 1407.10 | | DICKNS::STANLEY | What a long strange trip it's been... | Mon Jan 07 1991 15:37 | 4 |
| Lets see what happens when the apparition begins to appear on cloudy
and rainy days. :-)
Mary
|
| 1407.11 | Sceptical filtering vs. Assertions of scepticism | DWOVAX::STARK | Can you feel it ? | Mon Jan 07 1991 17:10 | 51 |
| re: .9, Joel,
> (in more than a year of read-only participation) very
> little skepticism and quite a bit of completely uncritical
> acceptance of the most fantastic claims. You have no
I was struck by your mention of this conference and people's
replies; characterized as sceptical or non-sceptical. This made
me think about the distinction between the *philosophy* of scepticism,
the personal *attitude* of scepticism, and the use of public
*assertions* of scepticism, each of which obviously has a place, but not
necessarily the same place. I find the *attitude* usually a weakness,
since it is a filter which biases for existing personal history and against
incoming information, and once established seems to prevent much in
the way of significant further learning, which I put great value on.
The *philosophy* seems useful during certain times, such as when I
need to cut down a plethora of options and make a choice of
action, or when I need to establish whether a particular source of
information is credible. Applying the sceptical eye equally to
existing concepts and new data points seems imperative in this case,
as was stated before.
The *assertion* of scepticism seems to be in still a third
category, and is what we are necessarily referring to when we refer to
replies in a conference. I may not think a particular note contains
much credible information, but I have to question my own motives when I
feel as if I have to declare that contrary opinion in a public
conference. Am I trying to discredit the source because I think it is
dangerously false information and I need to save the world from it ?
Or am I trying to prove how clever I am by letting people know that I'm
not being 'duped' by incredible stories ? Or do I just feel a need to
express my opinion as a form of catharsis ? Or maybe something else ?
I can think of a number of reasons why although I am sceptical of
something; that I might NOT want to assert that publically, because of my
interpretation of various kinds of guidelines, or because the losses
due to inhibiting further responses (because of the way group dynamics
seem to work) would be greater than the benefits made by making the
assertion, or because there simply seems to be no good reason to
make that assertion other than that is happens to disagree with my
current expectations or belief system.
That's why I'm 'sceptical' of the implication that people are
some how overly accepting because they don't make public assertions
of scepticism, which is what I infer from the quoted passage above.
kind regards,
toddy
|
| 1407.12 | reply to your reply | DELREY::MILLS_MA | To Thine own self be True | Mon Jan 07 1991 17:26 | 27 |
|
Re .9 (Joel)
I stand corrected on the attitude vs. opinion debate. You did state
attitude, _but_, since their attitude, especially that of the parish
priest is directly linked to his opinion as to whether this is or not a
miracle, my statement still stands. You make an accusation, or so I
read in your replies that somehow these church officials are
reinforcing the idea that this is a miracle to somehow get people to
come to their church presumably to obtain larger donations or have more
visitors than they normally would. I contend that a more reasonable
explanation is that they themselves believe this to be a miracle. Are
they exempt from belief just because they are clergy and not part of
the layity? As a religion, the Catholic church, among others, depends
on a belief system that most of us in this conference have trouble
with, there are many in this world, however, that have no question that
all that it preaches is in fact, God's truth. In your statements you
attach a hypocrisy to these priests that, IMO is totally biased, based
on _your_ opinion as to whether this is or not a 'true' miracle.
One last note, just because Topher's second explanation of miracle does
not meet with your criteria for one, doesn't make it any less possible.
As someone said, God works in mysterious ways. Why not use what's
already available?
Marilyn
|
| 1407.13 | next unseen | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Mon Jan 07 1991 19:03 | 15 |
| Re.9
Joel,
>I am not aware that synchronicity is a law of nature.
I didn't say it was. You completely misinterpreted what I wrote.
But it doesn't matter. I get the 'feeling' that you're more interested
in being 'right',etc., than you are willing to truly communicate and
try to find some common ground between us that we can both (all)
comfortably stand on and agree upon. Therefore, I'm bowing out of this
discussion.
Cindy
|
| 1407.14 | Very high recommendation | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Mon Jan 07 1991 19:12 | 4 |
|
You really must read "Travels" by Michael Crichton, Joel.
Cindy
|
| 1407.15 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Mon Jan 07 1991 19:17 | 152 |
|
> Note 1407.11
> DWOVAX::STARK
> I was struck by your mention of this conference and people's
> replies; characterized as sceptical or non-sceptical. This made
> me think about the distinction between the *philosophy* of scepticism,
> the personal *attitude* of scepticism, and the use of public
> *assertions* of scepticism, each of which obviously has a place, but not
> necessarily the same place. I find the *attitude* usually a weakness,
> since it is a filter which biases for existing personal history and against
> incoming information, and once established seems to prevent much in
> the way of significant further learning, which I put great value on.
Actually, to my way of thinking, a skeptical attitude is
less likely to bias one against the receipt of further
learning. Who lives by data must die by data. If I
say: The data lead to conclusion A, I must be prepared,
when new and better data is forthcoming, to notice that
conclusion B is more likely.
Contrast that to belief systems which do not rely on
objective data and rely instead on upspecified mysteries,
magic, unknown energy systems, miracles, etc. Those who
hold, generally, to such beliefs, are immune to contrary evidence.
Remember here the old saw about how you cannot reason someone
out of a position they have not been reasoned into.
> The *philosophy* seems useful during certain times, such as when I
> need to cut down a plethora of options and make a choice of
> action, or when I need to establish whether a particular source of
> information is credible. Applying the sceptical eye equally to
> existing concepts and new data points seems imperative in this case,
> as was stated before.
Then we agree on this point.
> The *assertion* of scepticism seems to be in still a third
> category, and is what we are necessarily referring to when we refer to
> replies in a conference. I may not think a particular note contains
> much credible information, but I have to question my own motives when I
> feel as if I have to declare that contrary opinion in a public
> conference. Am I trying to discredit the source because I think it is
> dangerously false information and I need to save the world from it ?
> Or am I trying to prove how clever I am by letting people know that I'm
> not being 'duped' by incredible stories ? Or do I just feel a need to
> express my opinion as a form of catharsis ? Or maybe something else ?
I guess we agree here, because as you know, my typical
behavior when confronted with a note that seems not to
have credible information, I do not comment.
> I can think of a number of reasons why although I am sceptical of
> something; that I might NOT want to assert that publically, because of my
> interpretation of various kinds of guidelines, or because the losses
> due to inhibiting further responses (because of the way group dynamics
> seem to work) would be greater than the benefits made by making the
> assertion, or because there simply seems to be no good reason to
> make that assertion other than that is happens to disagree with my
> current expectations or belief system.
Yes, this is why, averaged out over the course of a year,
my replies in this conference are so infrequent.
> That's why I'm 'sceptical' of the implication that people are
> some how overly accepting because they don't make public assertions
> of scepticism, which is what I infer from the quoted passage above.
I'm not really looking for people to stand up and say
they're skeptical of this or of that. What I refer to is
the high number of notes that state, as assertions, with
not a trace of evidence, that truly fantastic things
are not only true, but to be taken as a matter of course.
Now let me pose a question: let us, for the sake of argument,
assume that there are people who can channel the spirits of
deceased individuals. Let us also assume (again, for the
sake of argument) that there are people who _say_ they
are channelers, but are in fact charlatans.
Without some standards to help us determine the genuineness
of a particular channeler we can have no way of separating
wheat from chaff, no defense against being conned.
And without at least some measure of skepticism, we are
helpless in the face of charlatans, are we not? I do not
see much in the way of such standards in this conference.
> Note 1407.12
> DELREY::MILLS_MA
> Re .9 (Joel)
> I stand corrected on the attitude vs. opinion debate. You did state
> attitude, _but_, since their attitude, especially that of the parish
> priest is directly linked to his opinion as to whether this is or not a
> miracle, my statement still stands.
Oh, you're a skeptic, eh? ;^)
> You make an accusation, or so I
> read in your replies that somehow these church officials are
> reinforcing the idea that this is a miracle to somehow get people to
> come to their church presumably to obtain larger donations or have more
> visitors than they normally would. I contend that a more reasonable
> explanation is that they themselves believe this to be a miracle. Are
> they exempt from belief just because they are clergy and not part of
> the layity? As a religion, the Catholic church, among others, depends
> on a belief system that most of us in this conference have trouble
> with, there are many in this world, however, that have no question that
> all that it preaches is in fact, God's truth. In your statements you
> attach a hypocrisy to these priests that, IMO is totally biased, based
> on _your_ opinion as to whether this is or not a 'true' miracle.
All I ask of the local church is that they apply the same
rigorous miracle-investigation standards that the church
heirarchy applies when investigating alleged miracles at
Lourdes or when considering someone for sainthood. Given
the church's own guidelines - not just my opinion - I
believe we can confidently state the the local officials,
barring some new information, were derelict in their duty.
I guess we will disagree as to our opinions on the officials'
states of mind.
> One last note, just because Topher's second explanation of miracle does
> not meet with your criteria for one, doesn't make it any less possible.
> As someone said, God works in mysterious ways. Why not use what's
> already available?
I regard Category II miracles as for more likely to occur
than Categoy I miracles. The Church or you or Topher
or anyone else is free to speculate on what constitutes
a miracle. My point was that (in part, at least) the
movement for allowing Category II miracles was due
to canonization investigators inability to verify Category
I miracles. And that Category II miracles are very
convenient things to have around, if you wish to
describe something as miraculous. It means that
almost anything with spiritual significance can be
described as a miracle.
Personally, I will admit that when it comes to miracles,
if such there be, I would like to see truly amazing
things. Like legs growing where there were no legs
before, things like that. My position is that if there
is a prosaic explanation, there is not (to my viewpoint)
much of a need to seek miraculous explanations.
Joel
|
| 1407.16 | | DELREY::MILLS_MA | To Thine own self be True | Mon Jan 07 1991 19:42 | 35 |
|
Re .15 (Joel)
> Oh, you're a skeptic, eh? ;^)
Oh, yes. Didn't you notice? You will see that my comments throughout
this note have not been to 'prove' that this is indeed a true miracle
per the standards set down by you and Topher. If cornered in to a black
and white opinion, I'm bound to say that I don't _believe_ this is a
miracle, based on the information given, but who am I to say?
> All I ask of the local church is that they apply the same
> rigorous miracle-investigation standards that the church
> hierarchy applies when investigating alleged miracles at
> Lourdes or when considering someone for sainthood. Given
Why are Vatican clergy more right in deciding what is a true
miracle than a lowly parish priest? Just because they've been doing it
longer doesn't mean they're any more correct than he. I contend that
for skeptics that do not wish to believe, there can be _no_ conditions
in determining a miracle that are not suspect.
In one of your notes, you stated that (here I'm quoting from memory)
that since 1954, there have been only 13 accepted miracles at Lourdes.
Even with the most rigorous of tests, that seems like a very high
number. I have always held miracles as a one of a kind thing. To have
13 in 37 years, which is about 1 every three years is a pretty good
record don't you think? As I stated before, a miracle is in the 'eye'
of the beholder. I suspect some if not most of those miracles, were
possible because the people _believed_ that Lourdes contains some
powers not found anywhere else. Which is not a miracle at all, or is
it?
Marilyn
|
| 1407.17 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Mon Jan 07 1991 20:16 | 42 |
| re: .16
Actually, when I said you were a skeptic I was joshing you
about being skeptical about what I meant. Just a little
light-heartedness.
As for the Vatican et. al. being a better authority than
a lowly parish priest, I feel their methods are less likely
to produce unfortunate situations like the one under
discussion here. And I was also pointing out that it wasn't
just _my_ opinion, it was the practice of the church. Do
you feel that caution is called for in the declaration
of miracles?
The Church has recognized 13 miracles, but deeper analysis
casts doubt even on those 13. 4 of the 13 cases, for instance,
are cases of Multiple Sclerosis, as disease where, studies
show, up to 75 percent of patients show no sign of the disease
25 years after diagnosis. MS patients in fact figure prominently
in the faith healing/miracle cure claims because of the nature
of the progress of the disease. It naturally often looks to
be cured when it is only in a strong remission.
Another case, accepted (I think) in 1963 involved a woman who
was certified as having been cured of Budd-Chiari Syndrome.
This woman died of Budd-Chiari Syndrome in 1970. I do not
know if her name was removed from the accepted/miracle list.
Detailed analysis of the other cases reveal similar problems,
such as mis-diagnosis, etc. So there is in fact professional
doubt as to the validity of any of the Lourdes miracles.
The Church's method is rigorous, but I would not very few
methods relating to anything to be 100% perfect. So I'm
not pointing a critical finger at the Church to which my
wife and children belong! Only trying to say that there
is precedent within the Church to proceed with caution
when miracles are being claimed. Pronouncing miracles
before a critical investigation can produce false hopes
in people, which is an expense not so easily recovered.
Joel
|
| 1407.18 | The writing on the wall... | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Mon Jan 07 1991 20:52 | 189 |
| RE: . 9 (Joel)
Let me start out by emphasizing where our differences lie (as seen from
my viewpoint, of course).
To me the article presents evidence that an apparent anomaly ("miracle"
in the classic sense) has occured, that a generally qualified person
has provided an explanation for the anomaly (though it does not specify
the evidence on which he based his conclusion) which, if true, would
remove its anomolous status, and that church officials commented after
the fact that (to introduce some distinguishing vocabulary for
convenience) it is not necessary for the phenomenon to be anomalistic
for it to represent a significant "spiritual" event.
What do I believe? I believe that it is very, very unlikely that the
event was truly anomalistic. I believe that it is very likely that the
actual explanation is essentially optical in nature (although other
alternatives exist -- e.g., the image of Christ which appeared on a
Mexican? church a few years ago, which turned out to be a picture of
Chris Christopherson showing through the whitewash from an old poster).
And I believe that it is likely that the profs explanation is
substantially correct.
And I believe that it is a virtual certaintly that we have been given
a very partial picture of events and expressed viewpoints, heavily
influenced, however much the reporter has attempted to compensate, by
the reporter's and his/her informants' biases (please note that the
structure of the story is such that it is likely that it was instigated
by the prof., possibly "giving" the story to a reporter he believed
would be sympathtetic).
You on the other hand, seem to feel that the "skeptical attitude" is
that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the professor's theory
should be assumed to be correct and that anyone involved can have no
rational reason for failing to endorse it. Furthermore, you seem to
take it as given that the Church officials previous to the debunking
actively encouraged the supposition that events were anomalous, and
that their rather conventional supposed belief that God accomplishes
His goals sometimes through natural law is a hypocritical sham -- that
their proper response to the (assumed unquestionable) debunking was to
tell the faithful that the devotion and faith that they had been
showing was meaningless and ridiculous. (I don't believe that and I
am not a deist, much less a Catholic).
Sorry, I don't see any skeptical basis for any of this in the story.
There is no evidence here for the mercinary hypocracy you allege, even
if we accept the newspaper account as (you'll pardon the expression)
gospel. Certainly the story is *consistent* with your accusations, but
it is equally consistent with the professor being a mercinary hypocrite
who failed to find any explanation, and so simply invented a plausible
one to gain publicity (no, I don't believe it is likely, but I reject
it on prior grounds, not on the direct content of the story).
> And a third viewpoint is that the second viewpoint is a
> fallback position, classically unfalsifiable, taken as
> the lack of evidence for viewpoint number one became
> ever more clear. One area where lack of evidence for
> traditionally defined miracles has reared its head is
> in the canonization process.
Yup, and unquestionably individuals have espoused the unimportance of
the anomalous only upon the anomalousness of some phenomena that they
"had an interest in" being called into question. I know no basis,
however, for any claim that this is *usually* the case, and a great
deal of evidence that it frequently is not.
For example, it is generally believed by historians of science that
modern science arose where and when it did *specifically* as a result
of a sincere belief in this very doctrine. It was the movement of
Christian theology away from the traditional reliance of "God manifest
through miraculous physical intervention" and "God manifest through
spiritual/mystical intervention" found in virtually all religions to
the concept of "God manifest through the unfolding of His Divine Plan"
which allowed the evolution of the scientific worldview. This is not
an abstract, academic, highly interpretive thesis, but one which can
be backed up directly by the writings (including private
correspondence) of early modern scientists such as Bacon, Galileo and
Newton. Their explicitly stated motivation was to better understand
God by uncovering the mechanisms of His Divine Plan -- by comprehending
what mechanism God has chosen to create His Miracles with.
> It seems to me, though, that the church officials accept the
> relationship between sunlight/glass/image on wall as their
> position, post-skeptic, was not to deny this relationship, but to
> pull in miracle explanation number two, as defined by you above.
I see absolutely no evidence anywhere in this story that there
"post-skeptic" position varied significantly from their "pre-skeptic"
position. I will say that it is quite common for the Catholic Church
to respond to reports of apparent "miracles" *prior* to any
investigations by any skeptics within or without the Church pretty much
exactly as the Church officials were reported to have responded after
the investigation (one might even say that its "the standard response").
Let me point out, once again, that we do not know how much the Church
officials queried for comment by the reporter knew about either the
incident or the professor's investigations/conclusions, nor what else
they may have said, nor precisely to what they were refering to in
their quoted remarks -- even assuming the *accuracy* of the story.
> I disagree. The newspaper explanation, light shining through
> glass, is perfectly plausible as compared to the alternative
> and original position of the church. The church officials
> are highly deserving of criticism as they continue to
> allow - perhaps even encourage - people to spend money to
> travel to this area, people who believe they are witnessing
> a miracle.
The newspaper explanation is a perfectly plausible explanation for a
events which might be described as was described here. It is a
radically implausible explanation for other events which might also
be described as was described here. There is sufficient basis here,
to conclude that "the explanation is the most likely one", but not,
I think, sufficient basis to conclude that those who have much more
complete sources of information then we do are necessarily hypocrites
if they do not endorse the position that the case is closed. The only
evidence for that is (cynical) faith. You have no evidence, except
faith, that either the church or the Church have *ever* encouraged
people to believe that the incident was anomolous in nature. You have
no evidence, except faith, that both the church and the Church have
failed to discourage people from believing that the incident was
anomolous in nature (it would, of course, given the Church doctrine on
the existence of miracles, be improper for the Church to disallow such
belief prior to a Church investigation of the claims).
> I do not think any of us has data beyond the basenote and the first
> reply. More data could either change or reinforce one's view of
> the situation.
But skepticism represents more than simply a claimed willingness to
change ones opinion if presented with further evidence. It represents
the withholding of opinion until there is sufficient evidence. You
state vehemently some opinions based on evidence ranging from small
and unreliable to completely non-existent. You criticize the church
officials change in stance, for example, without the slightest evidence
that their stance has changed in the slightest here.
> Let me ask: do you find much evidence of skepticism in this
> conference? Aside from yourself and Mr. Kallis I find
> (in more than a year of read-only participation) very
> little skepticism and quite a bit of completely uncritical
> acceptance of the most fantastic claims. You have no
> doubt noticed that I do not try to engage debate in
> topics established for the purpose of reinforcing belief
> in this that or the other extraordinary claim. I am
> hardly a skeptical crusader.
Nor did I say that you were. I merely pointed out that you seemed to
me to be acting like one in this regard -- I don't know why.
I find, in this forum and in others, a great deal of uncritical
thinking, some in opposition to conventional scientific beliefs and
some in support of such beliefs. (I always find it amusing when I am
cast in the role of "the skeptic" since outside this conference and a
few other forums, my being a parapsychologist gets me viewed as a
"pseudoscientist", an "anti-skeptic" an "irrationalist" and (if they
accepted such descriptions) "Satan's minion".)
Skepticism is admirable, but *expressing* skepticism is not always so.
Why do you assume that there are not others who forebear as you do or
even more thoroughly. I know for a fact (since I am frequently
contacted off-line) that many people (including those with
unconventional, "irrational", non-rational and/or non-critical beliefs
on one or more subjects) are skeptical of many claims but choose for a
variety of reasons not to express their skepticism. Sometimes it is
most useful to deal with things within someones worldview rather than
trying to impose your own (however well justified it seems to you).
I also rather suspect that you might see more people providing
plausible conventional explanations for things, when appropriate, if
I weren't around to do it.
> But in this particular case (again) I believe the local officials
> give the strong appearance in engaging in behavior which
> is not beneficial to their parishioners or (particularly)
> to the people who spend much money and time, traveling
> from afar, to witness a non-miraculous miracle. And
> I believe they need to be called on this.
And I think that you have projected this appearance on a few ambiguous
hints, based, presumably, on your preconceptions. I agree that *if*
they have actively encouraged a belief in something that they know or
strongly supect is a falsehood for their own, personal gain, and to the
detriment of the pilgrims, then they are deserving of criticism. I just
see no basis for concluding that this has occured in this case.
Topher
|
| 1407.20 | got longer than I'd hoped... | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Mon Jan 07 1991 23:03 | 196 |
| re: .18 (Topher)
I appreciate your detailed and thoughtful response. But since
these notes are (including extractions) starting to get
pretty lengthy I will only answer what I feel are your
major points. If you feel I have ignored an important point
or have used "selective" editing let me know and I'll be
responsive.
> Let me start out by emphasizing where our differences lie (as seen from
> my viewpoint, of course).
My view of where our differences lie is in how we read
the basenote. (see below)
> To me the article presents evidence that an apparent anomaly ("miracle"
> in the classic sense) has occured, that a generally qualified person
> has provided an explanation for the anomaly (though it does not specify
> the evidence on which he based his conclusion) which, if true, would
> remove its anomolous status, and that church officials commented after
> the fact that (to introduce some distinguishing vocabulary for
> convenience) it is not necessary for the phenomenon to be anomalistic
> for it to represent a significant "spiritual" event.
1. I am not sure what you mean in this context by "evidence"
but it is quite clear to me that Professor Phelps went
to the church and examined it first hand, e.g.:
"Light is coming through a large stained-glass window behind
the pulpit... It hits the light fixture and bounces off
onto the wall above a statue of Jesus and forms the
apparition." "There is some slight focusing that happens
because of the bent shape of the fixture." And so on -
Phelps has pretty precise details on the inside of the
church and the method whereby the image is produced.
2. The church officials quoted said more than that "it
is not necessary for the phenomenon to be anamolistic
for it to represent a significant "spiritual" event."
Said Parish Coordinator Ed Molloy: "I don't care
what the skeptics think... God created light. He
can do with light whatever he wants... I don't care
what they may discover scientifically. It happened
at this particular time. There's a message for us
who believe."
This is willful disregard of the evidence. And as
I have said, I wonder what would have been the attitude
had the explanation been immediately forthcoming. (?)
> And I believe that it is a virtual certaintly that we have been given
> a very partial picture of events and expressed viewpoints, heavily
> influenced, however much the reporter has attempted to compensate, by
> the reporter's and his/her informants' biases (please note that the
> structure of the story is such that it is likely that it was instigated
> by the prof., possibly "giving" the story to a reporter he believed
> would be sympathtetic).
What you are doing in this paragraph is drawing what you
feel to be reasonable and logical inferences on the basis
of what you read in the story. I do the same thing, and
when I do you say things like: "And I think that you have
projected this appearance on a few ambiguous hints,
based, presumably, on your preconceptions."
I would suggest that we should both feel free to draw
conclusions we feel to be reasonable and logical without
having to be chided about not having "evidence" and
so forth.
> You on the other hand, seem to feel that the "skeptical attitude" is
> that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the professor's theory
> should be assumed to be correct and that anyone involved can have no
> rational reason for failing to endorse it. Furthermore, you seem to
> take it as given that the Church officials previous to the debunking
> actively encouraged the supposition that events were anomalous, and
> that their rather conventional supposed belief that God accomplishes
> His goals sometimes through natural law is a hypocritical sham -- that
> their proper response to the (assumed unquestionable) debunking was to
> tell the faithful that the devotion and faith that they had been
> showing was meaningless and ridiculous. (I don't believe that and I
> am not a deist, much less a Catholic).
I do say that the prof's theory is far more believable than
the miraculous hypothesis, and on this point we are in
agreement. As for the things about "no rational reason"
and "hypocritical sham" I of course said nothing of the
sort.
> For example, it is generally believed by historians of science that
> modern science arose where and when it did *specifically* as a result
> of a sincere belief in this very doctrine. It was the movement of
[etc.]
You are to my knowledge correct in this. Einstein himself
spoke in various ways of understanding God's plan. Forgive
me, but I do not see the connection here with my note.
> I see absolutely no evidence anywhere in this story that there
> "post-skeptic" position varied significantly from their "pre-skeptic"
> position. I will say that it is quite common for the Catholic Church
> to respond to reports of apparent "miracles" *prior* to any
> investigations by any skeptics within or without the Church pretty much
> exactly as the Church officials were reported to have responded after
> the investigation (one might even say that its "the standard response").
As above, this is a conclusion I draw and I believe a reasonable
one. It is clear from the article that the officials were
unaware of the light/glass/wall relationship prior to the
examination by Professor Phelps. Since they did not know
of this relationship, it is reasonable to conclude that
their belief, miracle-wise, was more in line with Category
I; that is, for conventionally unexplainable reasons, the
image of the Holy Virgin has been appearing on the wall.
Having been confronted with the physical mechanism, Ed
Molloy clearly had to take a position which considered the
new data. The new position is more in line with the
Category II-type miracle.
> if they do not endorse the position that the case is closed. The only
> evidence for that is (cynical) faith. You have no evidence, except
> faith, that either the church or the Church have *ever* encouraged
> people to believe that the incident was anomolous in nature. You have
> no evidence, except faith, that both the church and the Church have
> failed to discourage people from believing that the incident was
> anomolous in nature (it would, of course, given the Church doctrine on
> the existence of miracles, be improper for the Church to disallow such
> belief prior to a Church investigation of the claims).
The evidence here consists of the fact that the event was
widely known and clearly well publicized in the community
well beyond the church. As .1 pointed out, thousands of
people from miles around have flocked to this church.
I believe it is a reasonable conclusion that a strong
cautionary statement from cognizant church officials would
have helped alleviate this situation. If the officials
made such a statement it is not alluded to in the basenote
article. There are, as the Church realizes, sins of
commission and sins of omission.
This is best case.
> But skepticism represents more than simply a claimed willingness to
> change ones opinion if presented with further evidence. It represents
> the withholding of opinion until there is sufficient evidence. You
> state vehemently some opinions based on evidence ranging from small
> and unreliable to completely non-existent. You criticize the church
> officials change in stance, for example, without the slightest evidence
> that their stance has changed in the slightest here.
Skepticism, to me, is alot of things, including the above.
But it is fundamentally the belief that one must be
cautious in accepting miraculous claims, that natural
explanations are a priori more likely, and that the
burden of proof is on those who make the claims.
> Skepticism is admirable, but *expressing* skepticism is not always so.
> Why do you assume that there are not others who forebear as you do or
> even more thoroughly. I know for a fact (since I am frequently
> contacted off-line) that many people (including those with
> unconventional, "irrational", non-rational and/or non-critical beliefs
> on one or more subjects) are skeptical of many claims but choose for a
> variety of reasons not to express their skepticism. Sometimes it is
> most useful to deal with things within someones worldview rather than
> trying to impose your own (however well justified it seems to you).
> I also rather suspect that you might see more people providing
> plausible conventional explanations for things, when appropriate, if
> I weren't around to do it.
I make no such assumption, which is why I asked the question.
Naturally I do not have access to your VAXmails or other
off-line contacts. As for forbearance to criticize, as
you note I do practice such forbearance, for the most part.
I may practice less forebearance in the future, as this
conference's stated purpose is to discuss psychic phenomena
and the welcome mat is open to those from all sides of
the belief spectrum.
What I will continue to forebear is barging in on notes
entered by people with belief systems radically different
than mine. Communication does not take place. But
I responded in this case because, though you and I may
not agree, I believe we are at least in the same
solar system when it comes to the role of science.
Joel
|
| 1407.21 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Mon Jan 07 1991 23:07 | 6 |
| re: .19
Excellent points, thanks.
Joel
|
| 1407.22 | Leave the jolly elf alone :-) | DWOVAX::STARK | Play hard, and excel | Tue Jan 08 1991 00:54 | 85 |
| 1407.24 | wow. | DWOVAX::STARK | Play hard, and excel | Tue Jan 08 1991 11:12 | 8 |
| re: .23, Paul,
That was beautiful. To me, it WAS poetry. Understanding
the nature of metaphorical communication is a great gift,
I believe, and you seem to have developed some insights
into it that aren't expressed very often.
Todd
|
| 1407.25 | double wow
| ATSE::FLAHERTY | Peacing it together | Tue Jan 08 1991 13:07 | 8 |
| Paul,
Thank you for your replies .19 and .23. Joel seemed to be missing something
that happens in the communication here. I felt we were being labelled as
'gullible' when that is not the case. Your notes explained the situation
eloquently.
Ro
|
| 1407.26 | commercial applications | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Tue Jan 08 1991 13:40 | 44 |
| re: .22
Yes, I have to agree, good note and thoughtful points.
re: .25
I don't know that "gullible" is the right word. But I do
see a lack of guidelines that would help separate wheat
from chaff in the world of the professional psychic/channeller,
whatever.
Now let me point out that this is more a philisophical than a
practical issue with me, as I do not spend money in that way.
And I would not state that I am absolutely immune from being
conned in some other context. The bunko squads have files
filled with guys like me, who feel they might be immune,
who fell prey to a charlatan nonetheless.
But whatever cons I might fall for, you can be certain that this
particular type of con isn't it. Because I avoide such situations
(where money is at stake, that is) altogether. Those who
are inclined to spend money like this would be well advised, in
my opinion, to exercise extreme caution when they are asked
to open their wallets - and, worse perhaps, their hopes -
to someone who claims to have paranormal powers.
I have seen extraordinary claims in this conference. Some
of these claims are in favor of individuals who clearly
benefit financially from the fact that reasonably rigorous
standards are not applied to their claims. It frankly
saddens me to see people taken in this way. As I say, I'm
not so sure that "gullibility" is the issue. Methodology,
perhaps, or a very human ability to set critical standards
in one area but not in another.
Anyway, I'm not the one in the direct line of fire and
it isn't I who will attempt to set up such standards. No
doubt it must be personal. I, again, would only caution
against giving money to people who advertise themselves
as having paranormal powers, as the risks of being conned
by a conscious con artist are exceedingly high.
Joel
|
| 1407.27 | | DICKNS::STANLEY | What a long strange trip it's been... | Tue Jan 08 1991 14:07 | 7 |
| I've always admired Paul, he is very astute.
And I guess we must all be careful who we trust with our money these
days... stock broker, banker... the standards have broken down
everywhere.
Mary
|
| 1407.28 | Good Intentions ... | DWOVAX::STARK | Play hard, and excel | Tue Jan 08 1991 14:53 | 21 |
| re: .26,.27,
I think your points are very well made, Joel, and Mary, anything that has
a perceived value to people is subject to criminal attempts to take
advantage of people.
*My* response is mostly to the apparent widespread link between
(paranormal fields of study) and (criminal deception) because of its
obviously ambiguous nature. In spite of that ambiguous nature,
from my perspective, it is no more necessary to de-bunk or deny
paranormal or spiritual experiences in a paranormal notesfile than it
is to de-bunk insider trading in a STOCKS_AND_BONDS notesfile. I trust
people to know that getting deceived is bad-ness and to use their
own criteria.
I guess it partly comes down to our attitudes toward
and perceived responsibility toward others, and what we think would
help them persue their own lives, whether they need to be saved from
deception, or whatever ... ?
toddy
|
| 1407.29 | Really accepting other viewpoints. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Tue Jan 08 1991 15:00 | 100 |
| RE: .20 (Joel)
> 1. I am not sure what you mean in this context by "evidence"
> but it is quite clear to me that Professor Phelps went
> to the church and examined it first hand, e.g.:
>
> <<Quotes from the article>> And so on -
> Phelps has pretty precise details on the inside of the
> church and the method whereby the image is produced.
On how he *believes* the details of the church interior and the method
whereby the image is produced. I agree that the Prof was probably
there, but I think that it is going way too far to say that "it is
quite clear" that he was. Why our difference? I think that you are
being *insufficiently* skeptical of skeptics.
I have seen too many self-proclaimed skeptics freely invent whatever
details are necessary to support their explanation. Readers of their
speculations naturally believe that those details are observations
which support the thesis. In fact, they are conclusions made on the
basis of the theory. The "skeptic" feels no need to distinguish the
two since in his (almost always his, as it turns out) mind the
alternative to his explanation is an unexplained anomaly -- which is
unacceptable. Their speculations *must* be true, and therefore any
assumptions that they needed to make *must* be true as well. In a
paper I wrote in college I refered to this as "The Sherlock Holmes
Technique" since it is based on the principle espoused by Sherlock
Holmes that "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left,
however improbable, is the truth."
They also frequently leave out any apparent facts which are contrary to
their thesis. How do they justify it? Under field conditions some
observations will be due to distorted perceptions and/or memory,
misreporting, etc. By the Sherlock Holmes principle, such observations
may be reliably identified as those incompatable with the proposed
explanation, and why confuse things by bringing up errorful
observations?
Let me make very clear that this is not a rarety. It is commonplace to
varying degrees among many well known (to use, I think, your apt
phrase) "crusading skeptics".
> 2. The church officials quoted said more than that "it
> is not necessary for the phenomenon to be anamolistic
> for it to represent a significant "spiritual" event."
>
> Said Parish Coordinator Ed Molloy: <<quotes>>
>
> This is willful disregard of the evidence.
Let's look at what he said:
> "I don't care what the skeptics think... God created light.
Translation: God is the source of the material universe and of natural
law.
> He can do with light whatever he wants... I don't care what they
> may discover scientifically.
Translation: God is still in control, and the anomolous nature or its
lack is irrelevant.
> It happened at this particular time. There's a message for us
> who believe."
Translation: What is important here is the spiritual content of the
event as perceived by the faithful.
Yes, this is "willful disregard of the evidence", but only in the sense
of an explicit statement that the evidence is irrelevant to the point
that they consider important.
> And as I have said, I wonder what would have been the attitude had
> the explanation been immediately forthcoming. (?)
Probably different, because the incident would have been perceived
differently by the faithful -- but that hypothetical is irrelevant,
from their viewpoint, what matters is what *did* occur, not what might
have occured.
What *did* occur is that an event occurred -- which means by their
beliefs that God willed an event to occur -- which inspired and
extended the faith of many. It is *not* important to them whether
the event was truly anomalous or only appeared so. What was important
was that God had created events which inspired, whether He did so
within the structure of His natural law or without it.
A true anomaly is prefered since it continues to inspire, but
ultimately the physical explanation for the event under these
conditions is a question, as perceived by the modern Church, for
science *not* religion. There are other circumstances, where the
Church seeks evidence of anomaly *as* evidence for something about
God's will (i.e., the "holiness" of a relic or the conferance of the
role of Saint by God on some person), where it applies scientific
standards, but this is not (yet, at least) one of those circumstances.
Time to eat, more later.
Topher
|
| 1407.30 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Tue Jan 08 1991 15:05 | 37 |
| re: .28 (Toddy)
I see your point. And as you know, I don't try to do much
in the way of "debunking" in this file.
But for the record, allow me to quote from 1.2 in this
conference:
1. Subject matter
This conference is for the purpose of discussing the psychic
phenomena and related topics. It is not constrained to any
particular area, but rather is conceived as a place where we
all can benefit from a variety of viewpoints.
So, it may be a matter of semantics, I guess. But if someone
sees a note that expresses views the reader disagrees with,
it is within the guidelines of the conference to express that
disagreement. Whether or not the expression of disagreement
constitutes an attempt to "debunk" the statement is a matter
of opinion and would certainly vary depending upon the manner
in which the disagreement is expressed. Note 1.2 contains
excellent and very specific guidelines designed to show the
proper way to express disagreement in this conference.
Thus, if I or anyone seems to be expressing opinions in
ways not allowed by the conference rules, give a holler.
Otherwise, we should all feel free to enter into discussion
and present our opinions. Even when those opinions are
not normative for this conference.
Agreed? ;^)
Joel
|
| 1407.31 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Tue Jan 08 1991 15:20 | 31 |
| re: .29
Time to eat? Well, later for me as well as I will be trotting
off to the dentist. Quite literally I am shaking with fear...
So you feel that I am not skeptical enough of this skeptic.
And I feel that you are not skeptical enough of Mr. Malloy.
I guess my confidence in this case, though you may feel it
is an a priori bias, is just that this is seemingly such an
easily verifiable conclusion. It is not represented as
anything particularly complext. We're not talking about
transient phenomena like swamp gas. Mr. Optics Prof's
solution could be easily verified, or refuted, by anyone
on the scene, including Mr. Molloy.
You know, what other skeptics in other situations might or
might do or have done does not really speak to this case.
As I say, it's an easy one for anyone on the scene to check
out.
To speak more generally about skepticism of skeptics would
you feel better about my apriorism if I presented an
article by a skeptic with which I disagreed? My skepticism
is related to the complexity of the situation, the expertise
of the skeptic, the method of examination, the plausibility
of the argument, etc., etc. I can only take it case by
case and we seem to disagree about this case.
Joel
|
| 1407.32 | | DICKNS::STANLEY | What a long strange trip it's been... | Tue Jan 08 1991 15:27 | 6 |
|
Lets try an experiment.
Lets make it happen on a rainy day.
Mary
|
| 1407.33 | The nature of rational discourse. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Tue Jan 08 1991 16:50 | 64 |
| REL .20 (Joel) continued:
>> And I believe that it is a virtual certaintly that we have been given
>> a very partial picture of events and expressed viewpoints, heavily
>> influenced, however much the reporter has attempted to compensate, by
>> the reporter's and his/her informants' biases ...
>
> What you are doing in this paragraph is drawing what you
> feel to be reasonable and logical inferences on the basis
> of what you read in the story.
Actually the conclusions I have drawn here are almost entirely a priori
-- that is why I felt that there was sufficient evidence for "virtual
certainty". What I said applies equally to every newspaper report of
any incident. I did not mean to imply that there was anything
different about this story, or that these statements were based on its
details.
>> ... (please note that the structure of the story is such that it is
>> likely that it was instigated by the prof., possibly "giving" the story
>> to a reporter he believed would be sympathtetic).
Here I *do* draw conclusions -- weak ones -- on the basis of the
report's specific content. If everyone agrees or doesn't care then
it can be left there. If someone disagrees that the conclusion is
justified, or simply doesn't see how it could be, then I am quite
prepared to give my reasons for believing it to be so -- and to
possibly have flaws in my reasoning pointed out to me.
>
> I do the same thing, and when I do you say things like: "And I
> think that you have projected this appearance on a few ambiguous
> hints, based, presumably, on your preconceptions."
>
> I would suggest that we should both feel free to draw conclusions
> we feel to be reasonable and logical without having to be chided
> about not having "evidence" and so forth.
I quite disagree at least with the latter part. I am simply applying
the "critical thinking" you spoke of as lacking in this conference.
I think that "we should both feel free to draw conclusions we feel to
be reasonable and (/or) logical", but we should also both be prepared
to have our logic and/or presumptions challenged. This is called
"rational dialog". Of course, if you were to say "I don't really have
a logical basis for these claims -- it's just how I feel." Then that
would change the rules of the game and I could only reply that that
is your priviledge.
As near as I can tell, your argument boils down to, essentially, that
there is no evidence in the story that the Church officials acted
responsibly, therefore we may conclude that they acted irresponsibly
and they should be criticized. One of the ways that you seem to feel
that they failed to act responsibly was in failing to endorse the
Prof's explanation. There seems to be here the thinking that since the
story lacks evidence of the Prof's irresponsibility we must conclude
that he acted responsibly. Both conclusions seem to be simply a matter
of preconceptions about the behavior of debunking professors and of
church officials. The specific story *seems* (and I strongly emphasize
that seems) to be only a vehicle on which to project a particular
interpretation to illustrate a broader criticism.
(I'm going to start replying in smaller chunks, I think, so --- to be
continued).
Topher
|
| 1407.34 | Opinions and words. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Tue Jan 08 1991 17:20 | 32 |
| RE: .20 (Joel) continued
> I do say that the prof's theory is far more believable than
> the miraculous hypothesis, and on this point we are in
> agreement.
And I see no evidence here that the Church officials are in
disagreement -- though I think it is reasonable to assume that since
Church doctrine is that miracles (in the anomalous sense) do occur
that they think the miraculous hypothesis somewhat more likely than
we do. This would reduce the relative liklihood of the two hypothesis
but does not mean that that think the occurance of the miraculous in
this case is the more likely, either a priori or a postori.
> As for the things about "no rational reason" and "hypocritical
> sham" I of course said nothing of the sort.
The specific words are mine, but they seem to me to accurately express
what I take to be your point. You criticized the Church officials for
failing to tell the pilgrims that a conventional explanation for the
phenomenon had been found. Presumably, such a criticism would be
unjustified if they had a "rational reason for failing to endorse it",
so your criticism implies that you believed that they *have* no
rational reason.
If they know that there is strong reason to believe in the natural
origin of the phenomena but fail to inform the pilgrims (in roughly
your words "allow their parishoners to continue to believe...") of
this out of purely selfish reasons than that would be accurately
described, IMHO, as a "hypocritical sham".
Topher
|
| 1407.35 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Tue Jan 08 1991 17:33 | 44 |
| re: .33 (Topher)
A quickie before I go off to the tooth-yanker...
1. No, I'm not trying to change the rules, I am asking
that we both play by them. I do not have a problem with
your making statements based on (your own words from .33)
"almost entirely a priori" or "Here I *do* draw conclusions --
weak ones --..." etc. If I disagree with your conclusions,
though, I won't complain that there is no "evidence" to
support them. I will do my best to point out what I
feel to be flaws in the argument.
You do see the difference, don't you?
2. No, my argument does not boil down to, "essentially,
that there is no evidence in the story that the Church
officials acted responsibly, therefore we may conclude that
they should be criticized." I have in fact presented the
reasons why I have concluded that my position may be
reasonably inferred from the situation.
As for preconceptions, do we not all of us have preconceptions?
My preconception here is that miraculous intervention is
always far, far less likely than the normal operation of
natural law. We have someone who by all appearances is
qualified to study phenomena involving light, has studied
this phenomenon, which is relatively static and easily
verifiable, we have the (in effect) business manager of
this parish saying that he doesn't care what any scientists
say, he's going to believe what he believes, we have
thousands of people flocking to the church, people who
did learn of this event through osmosis. Do you doubt
that the church has the power to stop this? Did they
stop it?
Frankly, this extended exchange seems to me to be much
ado about very little. There are strange and anamolous
occurrences out there. This one seems pretty tame, to me.
Joel
|
| 1407.36 | Deducing pre-skeptic position. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Tue Jan 08 1991 17:50 | 33 |
| > It is clear from the article that the officials were
> unaware of the light/glass/wall relationship prior to the
> examination by Professor Phelps. Since they did not know
> of this relationship, it is reasonable to conclude that
> their belief, miracle-wise, was more in line with Category
> I; that is, for conventionally unexplainable reasons, the
> image of the Holy Virgin has been appearing on the wall.
I do not think that one can conclude from the fact that they didn't
know the (supposedly) true explanation that they accepted and
promulgated the anomalous hypothesis as the truth. A belief in
anomaly, either absolute (i.e., a belief in the supernatural) or
relative to current, mainstream scientific beliefs (i.e., a belief in
the paranormal), is quite compatable with a belief that any particular
incident is very likely to be explained in conventional terms.
For example, I believe, for what I consider to be good reasons (whether
they *are* good reasons is not particularly relevant) in a specific
anomolous phenomenon or group of phenomena labeled "PK". I do not,
therefore, reject the possibility that the image might not have been
produced via PK. But I do think it unlikely. And while my
"pre-skeptic" evaluation of its liklihood would be higher than my
"post-skeptic" evaluation, that does not mean that I would have thought
it likely before reading the skeptic's conclusions.
All I can do is point to many similar incidents in the past (some of
which have never been adequately explained) where the church officials
involved said pretty much the same thing as was reported as the
"post-skeptic" postion here -- with the addition of statements about
the liklihood that the incident was not a "miracle" in the anomalous
sense.
Topher
|
| 1407.37 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Wed Jan 09 1991 14:33 | 40 |
| re: .34, .36 (Topher)
In .18 you said:
You on the other hand [referring to myself, j.g.] seem to
feel that the "skeptical attitude" is that in the absence
of evidence to the contrary the professor's theory should
be assumed to be correct and that anyone involved can have
no rational reason for failing to endorse it.
My interjection: I believe that Mr. Molloy does not have a
rational reason for believing what he believes. Please note
the difference between `has no rational reason' and 'can have
no rational reason.'
Furthermore, you seem to take it as given that the Church
officials previous to the debunking actively encouraged
the suppostion that events were anomalous, and that their rather
conventional supposed belief that God accomplishes His goals
sometimes through natural law is a hypocritical sham -- that
their proper response to the (assumed unquestionable) debunking
was to tell the faithful that the devotion and faith that they
had been showing was meaningless and ridiculous. (I don't
believe that and I am not a deist, much less a Catholic).
Now Topher, all of the above bears a vague resemblance to what I
have stated in this string, but a vague resemblance only. You are
taking me to be generalizing where I am in fact being specific.
And you are imputing to me beliefs that I do not state nor
do I imply - such in what I would have the Church officials
say to the faithful.
It isn't what I said, it isn't what I implied, and it isn't
what I believe. I can state it no more plainly than that.
Joel
|
| 1407.38 | Everything is okay...unless it involves money... | MISERY::WARD_FR | Going HOME---as an Adventurer! | Wed Jan 09 1991 16:44 | 42 |
| re: "the crew in this note" (but specifically Joel)
Sorry, I was in Maryland for a few days and just got in
here...I haven't read every reply in detail (too long at this
time) so I won't reply to the topic, per se.
I noticed, Joel, the importance you attached to money. IN
fact, money was "the bottom line" for you. I don't have time
for a disertation on money, but in this regard, one is available
(a disertation, that is.) No matter how twisted someone can get,
no matter how erroneous their intellect is, no matter whether
they are emotionally constipated or not, what *really* matters
is whether or not they are parting with their money. And by
God, if you must part with money, you better make it "right!"
Well, Joel, I guess it's safe to say that I disagree with
your perception on money (as well as disagreeing with lots of
other things, too, I'm sure. ;-) )
I will only say a couple of things...I don't feel like writing
hundreds of lines on this (at least not today...:-) ) One,
the more *real* one makes something physical (money, in this case,)
the less likely it is to attain it (and therefore the more "valuable"
it becomes, the more of a liability it is, the more one has to watch
it, the more of a scarcity consciousness that pervades, the more
centered around the item, etc., etc., etc.)
The other thing, keep your beliefs "tight" and you will discover
a very frustrating and disconcerting world to live in, especially
as you get older and older. Be willing to see things with humility,
that is, in a new vein, and more possibilities will become
probabilities. Actualities come from probabilities. What I'm
saying is that with rigid, limited beliefs, actual reality becomes
insipid, narrow, predictable and eventually closed, finite,
extremely mortal in every sense...
Skepticism has it's place, to be sure. Thankfully within my
own life I have lifted enough skepticism out of the way to have
reached understandings and insights that no amount of money could
ever replace. I am grateful for my evolution, which is personal,
and from my perspective would rather give everything I monetarily
own (and clearly I'm not just "paying" ;-) lip service to this)
to have it than to remain lost in a world that has no future...
the world of the current consensus.
Frederick
|
| 1407.39 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Wed Jan 09 1991 17:08 | 16 |
| re: .38
Money isn't the be-all and end-all for me. My feelings
about money/parnormal are that this is the line I personally
draw. We may all believe what we wish, and more power to us.
But none of us has the right, legally or morally, to rip
other people off.
Thus, a conscious charlatan, be they a bogus channeler, a
banker, a three-card monte expert, whatever, is guilty
of fraudulent acts. The money aspect is just a lever that
moves a belief from benign/nobody else's business, to a
public concern.
Joel
|
| 1407.40 | Take my watch,too...... | DELREY::MILLS_MA | To Thine own self be True | Wed Jan 09 1991 20:28 | 26 |
|
Re. the last few,
Joel (do you feel you're getting more than your share of attention here
;^) ?)
In regards to the money issue, you stated some notes back that in other
areas you may as vulnerable to 'con artists' as the next guy, but not
in the area of the paranormal. From this I infer, and I beg your pardon
if I read into it more than you intended, that you are somehow superior
in this area than others in this notefile because while you
cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in all things, thus presumably
subject to duping in some areas, you will not be so in *this* sense.
I detected a real "thank G--" I'm not *that* dumb attitude.
As someone else stated, that would be true given your set of standards
for evaluating the "wheat from the chaff", but that is not the way most
of us view ourselves, reality or anything else.
In the world I live in, and I suspect a lot of others in this
conference as well, money would be the last thing I would regret losing
if I found myself "conned". I value my ability to trust others far more
than I value my pocketbook.
Marilyn
|
| 1407.41 | Sincere belief in non-anomalous miracles. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Wed Jan 09 1991 20:35 | 26 |
| RE: .20 (Joel) continued.
> You are to my knowledge correct in this. Einstein himself
> spoke in various ways of understanding God's plan. Forgive
> me, but I do not see the connection here with my note.
The point was that you seemed to be predicating part of your criticism
on the assumption (preconception) that the belief that God operates,
at times, *through* natural law in order to accomplish His Plan, is
one which is not really held sincerely. That it is merely a fall-back
justification only mentioned to avoid embarrasment and loss of
collection-plate revenues when objective proof emerges that what was
declared the operation of God's will could be conventionally explained.
This is entirely untrue. The belief is sincerly and actively held by
many Christians including Catholics. I pointed out, as way of example,
that it is widely believed among experts of such things that modern
science would not exist if not for the widespread and sincere belief
in this point -- even to a philosophical *preference* to these "non-
anomalous" miracles. (The similar belief by Einstein is, of course,
wholly irrelevant, since he was Jewish. A similar belief by modern
Christians, whether or not they are scientists, is relevant to my
point only to the extent to which it represents a consistency with
the beliefs of the founders of modern science).
Topher
|
| 1407.42 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Wed Jan 09 1991 21:19 | 33 |
| re: .40
The reason why I will never be duped by a parnormal con
artist is because I do not spend money in that area.
Ergo, I will never be conned here. If I was inclined
to spend my money this way, I would probably be even
more vulnerable than most others in this conference.
Hope this clears that up.
re: .41
I pointed out that type-II miracles, as described by yourself,
are a classically unfalsifiable hypothesis and that as such
can be used to justify just about anything as a miracle. But
that does not mean that no one sincerely believes in
such miracles. In fact I am aware that those who rule on
canonization proceedings do believe in such miracles.
But none of this changes the fact that so defining miracles
creates a tool that can be double-edged. Whether or not
this tool is used in a particular case by a particular
person is, I suppose, a matter of judgement.
I mentioned Einstein, by the way, to point out that not
only was what you said true, we don't even have to go
back so far. He believed in god, albeit not in a
traditional Christian or even Jewish sense. But if we're
talking about using science to understand God's laws, Einstein
fits right in, Jewish or not.
Joel
|
| 1407.43 | Value difference well identified | DWOVAX::STARK | Play hard, and excel | Wed Jan 09 1991 22:56 | 17 |
| re: .40, Marilyn,
Excellent point about different values. I feel this way
as well. I'd rather risk a little bit of ego, time, money, and energy
on a possibly fruitful venture that also had a possibility of
'conning' me, and trust my critical abilities;
than hold my resources tight to my chest and be so afraid of appearing
stupid or losing a little bit that I rarely learned or experienced
anything new. That's not a snide reference to Joel, by the way,
who has had more than enough attention already :-) :-) it's just
a general statement of preference.
toddy
> money would be the last thing I would regret losing
> if I found myself "conned". I value my ability to trust others far more
> than I value my pocketbook.
|
| 1407.44 | My $.03 worth | CARTUN::BERGGREN | Caretaker of Wonder | Thu Jan 10 1991 14:15 | 21 |
| Stopping by for a moment -
Regarding Joel's preference not to spend $ in the field of the
paranormal and take the chance of being "conned" -- I feel his
concern is valid. There are both kinds of people "out there" --
those who operate with integrity and those who do not, and then
everything in between.
Fortunately a meaningful, growthful life does not hinge on the
advice and/or counsel of any intuitive device, whether it be a
channeler, tarot cards, or crystal healing session... it depends
on our own heart and the process by which it speaks to us and how
we act upon what we hear, (imho).
Btw, I was not here during the "reign" of the Cosmic Anchovie, our
resident skeptic.... but perhaps Joel is another incarnation of this
persistent, invigorating energy. :-) :-)
Welcome!
Karen
|
| 1407.45 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Thu Jan 10 1991 14:35 | 23 |
| re: .44
The "Cosmic Anchovie"? What a great moniker!
As to not spending money on psychics, yes, of course, I worry
about being conned. I also don't play poker with strangers,
either, preferring penny ante with family.
But my choice here is based also on my perception that benefits
from such interactions are more likely to accrue to those
with a stronger belief in the physical reality of the
phenomena. If one wants to say that my perceived lack of
benefit would be the result of negative energy, not being
open, whatever, so be it.
I have, however, been in attendance at a few different
psychic experiences and enjoyed those experiences. True,
I did not feel that anything anamolous was happening, but
I did them in the spirit of fun and (of course!) kept my
fat anchovy mouth shut! ;^)
Joel
|
| 1407.46 | Your man in Geneva | GVAADG::DONALDSON | the green frog...hopping onward | Fri Jan 11 1991 14:03 | 8 |
| Re: .44
Karen! You beat me to it. Surely Joel is
unconciously channelling the Cosmic Anchovy. ;-)
John D.
PS And best wishes for 1991 to the rest of you. :-)
|
| 1407.47 | | BTOVT::BEST_G | love is strong enough | Fri Jan 11 1991 15:32 | 4 |
|
A similar thought crossed my mind....:-)
guy
|
| 1407.48 | | ATSE::FLAHERTY | Peacing it together | Fri Jan 11 1991 16:30 | 8 |
| Hi John (.46),
Glad to see you're still here (at DEC, I mean).
Love to you,
Ro
|
| 1407.49 | Balanced skepticism. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Mon Jan 14 1991 17:21 | 89 |
| RE: .31 (Joel)
> So you feel that I am not skeptical enough of this skeptic.
> And I feel that you are not skeptical enough of Mr. Malloy.
My attitude two both people is pretty much the same, so I think that my
level of skepticism is just fine. The rather sketchy information
presented in this story is completely consistant with everybody
involved acting responsibly on the basis of their openly professed
beliefs. One can presume motives and additional actions not explicitly
stated in the story and thus the story is also consistent with any or
all of the people involved acting irresponsibly. There is insufficient
basis within this story for deciding who has or has not acted
responsibly.
Mr. Malloy has made a statement about Catholic theology -- that
according to that theology it is not terribly relevant (in this kind of
situation) whether or not the event is anomalous.
On the basis of this statement you criticize him, as I understand what
you've been saying, for the following:
1) For espousing Catholic theology when, as it happens, it is to his
advantage to do so. Apparently, you conclude from his espousal that he
would not act on that belief under other circumstances. His "correct"
behavior, it would seem, according to you, would be to abandon his
faith whenever it is to his disadvantage to do so.
2) For failing to endorse the Prof's conventional explanation. First
off, I don't see how, on the basis of this brief statement, one can
conclude that he does not endorse it. He only says that he does not
believe that the existence of even an unquestionably correct
conventional explanation makes much difference.
Secondly, you feel that his (supposed) failure to endorse the
explanation was "not for rational reasons". Elsewhere you criticize
my describing this belief on your part as that he "could not have
rational reasons for rejecting the explanation." Rather, you say,
your criticism was based on your belief that he "did not have a
rational reason for rejecting the explanation." Either this is a
distinction without a difference, or it says that even if there are
gross flaws in the explanation evident to those who have more complete
information about the phenomena than us, then Mr Malloy's failure to
endorse is *still* open to criticism because you believe that he didn't
base his actions on that reason.
3) For encouraging pilgrims, before a conventional explanation was
available, in the belief that the phenomenon is anomalous. Again there
seems no direct evidence for this. Elsewhere you state that the basis
for this belief is that if the Church officials had strongly
discouraged a belief in the anomalous nature of the phenomenon that few
pilgrims would show up. There are several problems with this argument
however:
1) Even if correct, the argument only implies that the Church
officials (including Mr Malloy) did not strongly discourage such a
belief. There is a very large difference between "encouraging" and
"not strongly discouraging".
2) It does not seem to me that strong discouragement would be
proper behavior for a Catholic. Given a belief that the incident
*might* be anomalous and probably represents a "message to the
faithful from God" whether or not its anomalous, it would be
improper for the officials to go beyond saying that the phenomenon
might not (or perhaps "probably is not") be anomalous. Would it
really have been responsible, given their system of beliefs, to
actively discourage the faithful from observing the phenomenon
(keeping in mind that they had no way of knowing whether it would
still be around after a protracted (and expensive) investigation)
and making up their own minds about its nature. Is the criticism
simply that the Church officials are Catholics and therefore *do*
quite openly accept certain things on faith?
3) The history of supposed miracles will show you that the argument
is flawed in any case. There are many examples where Church
officials *have* felt that in a specific case it was appropriate to
actively discourage belief in the devine origin of some supposed
phenomenon or other, and yet the faithful have still flocked in. I
was just reading a news story the other day, about regular vigils
being held in Flushing Meadows in New York (at the site of the
Vatican Pavilion at the 64 Worlds Fair). It seems that a housewife
started having visions of the Virgin at a nearby church, and
pilgrims began to flock to the church. The church officials
decided that she was simply a bit crazy, and found the pilgrims
disruptive to the church's regular function. They banned her, but
she was given permission to hold her vigils at the park site, to
which the visions followed her.
Topher
|
| 1407.50 | don't worry, mostly extract | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Mon Jan 14 1991 19:30 | 169 |
|
re: .49 (Topher)
And I'd thought we had abandoned this one as it seems to me
we are now throwing pretty thin soup bones into the gruel.
;^)
> My attitude two both people is pretty much the same, so I think that my
> level of skepticism is just fine. The rather sketchy information
> presented in this story is completely consistant with everybody
> involved acting responsibly on the basis of their openly professed
> beliefs. One can presume motives and additional actions not explicitly
> stated in the story and thus the story is also consistent with any or
> all of the people involved acting irresponsibly. There is insufficient
> basis within this story for deciding who has or has not acted
> responsibly.
Ok, I'll buy off on the last sentence here, which means we
can perhaps agree to disagree about whether or not Mr.
Malloy et. al. were acting responsibly.
> Mr. Malloy has made a statement about Catholic theology -- that
> according to that theology it is not terribly relevant (in this kind of
> situation) whether or not the event is anomalous.
Mr. Malloy has made a statement and it is a matter of
opinion whether or not he intended it as a statement of
Catholic theology. As quoted in the basenote he just
sounded disgruntled to me. But, as before, see above.
> On the basis of this statement you criticize him, as I understand what
> you've been saying, for the following:
> 1) For espousing Catholic theology when, as it happens, it is to his
> advantage to do so. Apparently, you conclude from his espousal that he
> would not act on that belief under other circumstances. His "correct"
> behavior, it would seem, according to you, would be to abandon his
> faith whenever it is to his disadvantage to do so.
Again, whether or not Mr. Malloy's statement represents
Catholic theology is an issue separate from whether or not
he had Catholic theology in mind when he said it. Remember,
a parish coordinator is a lay position, generally acting
as business managers. In this particular case it seems to
me that personal self-interest was at the very least a factor
in his determination to make the statement he made. I would
not suggest that agreeing with the optics prof necessarily
entails an abandonment of his faith.
> 2) For failing to endorse the Prof's conventional explanation. First
> off, I don't see how, on the basis of this brief statement, one can
> conclude that he does not endorse it. He only says that he does not
> believe that the existence of even an unquestionably correct
> conventional explanation makes much difference.
Yes, I've said all along that Mr. Molloy seems to agree
with the conventional explanation. Where you and I seem
to differ is on whether or not his acceptance constituted
a new position on his part. I still believe that the
Category I miracle was more likely believed, initially, than
the Category II miracle explanation. And I still do not
understand what is the point, outside of a theology one
accepts with a faith I do not have, in looking for
miracles in situations where natural explanations are
so clearly more likely.
> Secondly, you feel that his (supposed) failure to endorse the
> explanation was "not for rational reasons". Elsewhere you criticize
> my describing this belief on your part as that he "could not have
> rational reasons for rejecting the explanation." Rather, you say,
> your criticism was based on your belief that he "did not have a
> rational reason for rejecting the explanation." Either this is a
> distinction without a difference, or it says that even if there are
> gross flaws in the explanation evident to those who have more complete
> information about the phenomena than us, then Mr Malloy's failure to
> endorse is *still* open to criticism because you believe that he didn't
> base his actions on that reason.
`Does not have' and `can have no' are different statements
with true distinctions. I do not have a million dollars.
That does not mean I cannot have a million dollars. I do not
have a rational reason for believing my daughters to be the
most beautiful in the world. This does not mean that I can
not have rational reasons for so believing. Mr. Malloy,
parish coordinator, was quoted as giving reasons not tied
to reason or physical reality.
> 3) For encouraging pilgrims, before a conventional explanation was
> available, in the belief that the phenomenon is anomalous. Again there
> seems no direct evidence for this. Elsewhere you state that the basis
> for this belief is that if the Church officials had strongly
> discouraged a belief in the anomalous nature of the phenomenon that few
> pilgrims would show up. There are several problems with this argument
> however:
> 1) Even if correct, the argument only implies that the Church
> officials (including Mr Malloy) did not strongly discourage such a
> belief. There is a very large difference between "encouraging" and
> "not strongly discouraging".
> 2) It does not seem to me that strong discouragement would be
> proper behavior for a Catholic. Given a belief that the incident
> *might* be anomalous and probably represents a "message to the
> faithful from God" whether or not its anomalous, it would be
> improper for the officials to go beyond saying that the phenomenon
> might not (or perhaps "probably is not") be anomalous. Would it
> really have been responsible, given their system of beliefs, to
> actively discourage the faithful from observing the phenomenon
> (keeping in mind that they had no way of knowing whether it would
> still be around after a protracted (and expensive) investigation)
> and making up their own minds about its nature. Is the criticism
> simply that the Church officials are Catholics and therefore *do*
> quite openly accept certain things on faith?
Stong discouragement would not be proper behavior for a
Catholic? So the folks in the news item you relate in the
next paragraph are not behaving as proper Catholics? The
intense investigations given by Church officials to claims
of Lourdes miracles and potential saints are also not proper
behavior for a Catholic? I suspect the Church is very large
and enforcing one code of behavior with respect to miracles
or anything else is well nigh impossible. Which is why I
hold Mr. Malloy to a standard of reason, not to a standard of
theological orthodoxy.
> 3) The history of supposed miracles will show you that the argument
> is flawed in any case. There are many examples where Church
> officials *have* felt that in a specific case it was appropriate to
> actively discourage belief in the devine origin of some supposed
> phenomenon or other, and yet the faithful have still flocked in. I
> was just reading a news story the other day, about regular vigils
> being held in Flushing Meadows in New York (at the site of the
> Vatican Pavilion at the 64 Worlds Fair). It seems that a housewife
> started having visions of the Virgin at a nearby church, and
> pilgrims began to flock to the church. The church officials
> decided that she was simply a bit crazy, and found the pilgrims
> disruptive to the church's regular function. They banned her, but
> she was given permission to hold her vigils at the park site, to
> which the visions followed her.
At this point I return to my opening sentence in this string,
.2: "It is ever thus." Given the fact that these things
happen so often I would like to see more church officials
act as above. They won't always succeed (as above) but I like
to see them try. You may not believe it, but my sympathy
in these cases lies with the parishioners whose hopes may be
raised falsely, only to be dashed.
I'm not trying to compare Malloy to such as W.V. Grant,
Leroy Jenkins, Peter Popoff, etc., etc. The intent may
be different, may be in fact quite pious and good. But
the effect is the same: false hopes are raised. And given
the very nature of miracles, category I or II, I say that
extreme care must be taken so as to minimize the negative
effects of false miracles - people looking for cures and
such.
But I'll tell you what, Topher. I've ordered a book called
"Physics and Psychics" by Victor Stenger. According to the
advertising blurb, it is a presentation of the a priori
case against psi phenomena. Nothing new to you, no doubt.
But here is a case where I am skeptical of the skeptic.
Perhaps you can help to critique Dr. Stenger's approach?
Because this well, about a non-anamolous event, has
quite run dry?
Joel
|
| 1407.52 | Your in it now!! | COMET::ESTLICK | I AM, THEREFORE I THINK I AM | Tue Jan 15 1991 05:06 | 8 |
|
And I thought you only read notes Joel. ;-)
Mike
|
| 1407.53 | Is it a word? | NOPROB::JOLLIMORE | Fish are rising up like birds | Tue Jan 15 1991 10:22 | 8 |
| > -< inshallah >-
.51 Paul, ^
|
What does this word mean?
I saw a similar word yesterday from a song _Blues for Allah_
In 'sh'Allah.
Jay
|
| 1407.54 | Plenty of bones left to pick :-) | DWOVAX::STARK | Play hard, and excel | Tue Jan 15 1991 11:58 | 15 |
| re: .50,
Thin soup bones into the gruel. :-) You're a riot, Joel. :-)
> But I'll tell you what, Topher. I've ordered a book called
> "Physics and Psychics" by Victor Stenger. According to the
> advertising blurb, it is a presentation of the a priori
> case against psi phenomena. Nothing new to you, no doubt.
> But here is a case where I am skeptical of the skeptic.
Wow, so 1407 has just been a warmup, huh ? :-) Sounds like some
very interesting times ahead. I bet if world leaders used Notes
things would be just ... well ... it's an interesting thought,
anyway. ;-)
toddy
|
| 1407.55 | | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Tue Jan 15 1991 13:43 | 57 |
| re: .51 (Paul)
Speaking for myself, not particularly! ;^)
re: .52 (Mike)
I was read-only for about a year here. Now you see why! 8-)
re: .54 (Toddy)
If we can get a discussion going on Stenger's book you might
find me more in agreement than disagreement with members
of this conference. The thing is, I am not trained in physics.
I have read other works by physicists who claim, very simply,
that _all_ psi phenomena are, if not physically impossible,
bordering on physically impossible.
My bias here is that psi phenomena, in general, are _not_
physically impossible. But note my use of the word `bias.'
It is a bias on my part. You could say, I suppose, that
I have "faith" that such assertions are wrong. But, not
being trained in physics, I cannot very well answer their
arguments, other than to point out that there are physicists
who do _not_ believe in the impossibility of psi.
Where, then, does one go to hear the other side? Surely,
in a DEC conference like this, there are people who can
deal with such arguments on the physicists' own terms.
And perhaps we may discuss line-drawing.
For instance: I do believe that conservation of energy is
so well established that we may reject phenomena which,
if real, would violate this natural law. This is why the
patent office does not individually examine applications for
perpetual motion machines. The patent office know, without
even testing a particular device, that such a machine cannot
actually work as claimed.
But what other lines can be drawn? Where do the believing
physicists differ from the non-believing physicists? Are
the Stengers of this world stating as fact that which is
actually controversial? Do they misunderstand psi phenomena?
If I assume that scientists like Victor Stenger and Milton
Rothman (another a priori-argument physicist) are wrong -
well, _why_ are they wrong?
This, to me, is meaty stuff that goes right to the heart of
debate on psychic phenomena. It is something I could examine
without being cast in the role of the re-incarnated Anchovy
(I wouldn't even touch a pizza with anchovies, personally)
and might be fun and enlightening.
Hope the book arrives soon but, cheapskate that I am,
I didn't specify UPS so who knows when it will arrive? ;^)
Joel
|
| 1407.56 | Nit alert | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Tue Jan 15 1991 15:32 | 6 |
| It is not that "the patent office does not individually examine
applications for perpetual motion machines." The patent office
merely requires that all such applications be accompanied by a
working model.
Ann B.
|
| 1407.57 | Hi, Ann, wanna share some nit-ting? ;-) | MISERY::WARD_FR | Going HOME---as an Adventurer! | Tue Jan 15 1991 17:22 | 9 |
| re: Joel
"Don't worry, mostly extract" --- then do "me" a favor and
use ellipsis (sp?) more. (People can refer back to something
if they have to...why re-write what has been written? It saves
on disk space, too.)
Frederick
|
| 1407.58 | ;^) | RIPPLE::GRANT_JO | the air bites shrewdly | Wed Jan 16 1991 13:12 | 34 |
| re: .56 (Ann)
Good catch!
re: .57 (Frederick)
> ...Don't worry, mostly extract
"Mostly" extract? Too much of that vanilla syrup will
spoil the flavor. In the physical plane of reality,
that is.
> do me a favor and...
Loan you the keys to the car? Ok, but fill up before
you return it.
> It saves on disk space, too.
Yes, I agree, your note should have been an e-mail,
would have saved on disk space.
More seriously, I would say you can't please everyone.
A few replies back I did the ellipsis thing and got
an e-mail complaint about "selective" editing. (Not
from Topher let me hastily add)
Joel
|
| 1407.59 | No models | BCSE::WMSON | There's no business like ours! | Wed Jan 16 1991 16:04 | 7 |
| Re: .56
The patent office has not required working models since about the time of
Eli Whitney. Primarily, I believe, because of the vast amount of storage
space required.
Bill
|
| 1407.60 | except for... | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Wed Jan 16 1991 16:20 | 6 |
| RE: .59
... except quite explicitly for perpetual motion devices. They are not
required to store them.
Topher
|