Miracle of Calanda - in 1640

[Leonardo]

Well of course, of course!

Here is the thing though, that (not necessarily that) is what it would take to even begin to reasonably entertain this from a biology or medical standpoint.

Copa,

I understand the argument you are making, and I wish to state for the record that I have discounted the possibility the story in the OP relates a 'miracle' of any description (except, perhaps, that it's a miracle anyone believes the story at face value.) But your argument of "entertaining this from a biological/medical standpoint" misses the point that a miracle, if one was to truly occur, would be unexplainable from a biological or medical standpoint.

So, once the claim of 'miracle' is made scientific investigation is basically thrown out the window and analysis of the claim is made via identification of inconsistencies in the events, availability of evidence, etc. The process of evaluating a 'miracle' claim is far more aligned with a criminal/legal investigation, rather than a scientific one.

Yes, we deem it biologically/medically impossible to reattach and 'revitalise' a gangrenous and decayed limb 55 days after being removed from the body. But the very definition of 'miracle' suggests something impossible (by our understanding) has occurred.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Leonardo

[Beckys_Mom]

Not at all. I believe miracles can occur. But just because I believe they can occur doesn't mean I'm going to believe every single story where miracles are claimed. I'll read the evidence and then make a judgement, and sometimes I feel that there very well might have been a miraculous event.

But being that this account I shared is written in the Bible, I do have faith that the authors were honest in their recount of Jesus' life and miracle working, and therefore believe the Bible as a truthful text. I don't shy away from that.

GT when you read a miracle written in your bible, you will automatically accept it regardless of the evidence - you just take their word for it - . YET you claim that in ref to other miracles written elsewere - you'll read the 'evidence' and then make a judgement,<-- why do you do this?

[eight bits]

Leo

So, once the claim of 'miracle' is made scientific investigation is basically thrown out the window and analysis of the claim is made via identification of inconsistencies in the events, availability of evidence, etc.

Among the things that distiguish miracles is that the person telling of a miracle seeks belief and behavioral change in addition to the listeners' acceptance of the report itself.

For example, in the present case, I am being told that a leg was restored after prayers to the Blessed Virgin for a purpose, in order that I should believe that the Blessed Virgin exists and that I should pray to her. (Hence my astonishment at Protestant PA's reaction to this).

So, what kinds of inferential advice ought we give to someone in a strategic inference problem (strategic meaning to evaluate a report made by someone seeking to influence behavior)?

Advising a player to set aside otherwise available relevant knowledge upon the other player's request is bad strategic advice. You would be advocating unilateral disarmament, as a general course of action, without any consideration about the opponent's intent.

The opponent in this case is a Spanish Roman Catholic Bishop who operates a shrine to the Blessed Virgin during the Counterreformation. "Shields up!" seems to me better advice than unilateral disarmament. Other views are possible, of course.

But the very definition of 'miracle' suggests something impossible (by our understanding) has occurred.

Fortunately, "our understanding" is not fixed. Science rapidly accommodated what had been believed to be the strictly impossible bending of light beams by gravity when the phenomenon was competently demonstrated, once.

The strategic treatment of miracles includes respect for the intelligence of all the other parties in interest. In the present case, that would include the Blessed Virgin, if the claim were true. Since her purpose was to persuade, then she would choose a demonstration that would convince. I would expect her to succeed, too, since her strategic adviser, her boy, knows everything.

It is mathematically inevitable that any policy except the acceptance of all miracle claims carries with it the risk of wrongly rejecting a valid miracle claim. There is no possibility of giving impersonally vaid advice about how much risk is too much, since any decrease of that risk implies increased risk of accepting false claims, with the behavioral costs that they entail.

Everyone must decide the trade-off for themselves, and then "pay their money and take their chances." Copa seems to me to have set his strategic inferential risk-tradeoff parameter at an admirably robust point. Others will prefer different set-points. There is no impersonal criticism possible, only "if it were me, then I would do it differently."

[Setton]

If you have, as I said, some sound biological reason such a thing is possible then by all means put it forth. If your only claim to the "truth" of this miracle is a 17th century publication--Then feel free to waste your time.

Once again, you show a remarkable capacity to only read the parts of peoples posts that you feel like. I'll say it for the third (I think - could be more) time:

I am not claiming this miracle is true, only that you can't know that for definite without at least giving the 'evidence' a cursory glance.

I'll try to keep my posts short so you don't have to waste too much of your valuable time reading them sine they are so obviously beneath you.

[eight bits]

I am not claiming this miracle is true, only that you can't know that for definite without at least giving the 'evidence' a cursory glance.

Excellent point. Copa managed to get the right answer, without resort to natural means.

In light of this miracle, I have established a shrine to Copa in my living room. Admission is ten dollars American, 50% off to those paying in a hard currency.

[Setton]

Excellent point. Copa managed to get the right answer, without resort to natural means.

In light of this miracle, I have established a shrine to Copa in my living room. Admission is ten dollars American, 50% off to those paying in a hard currency.

Along with about half a dozen other people. Could we be witnessing the start of a new polytheistic religion?

[Leonardo]

Advising a player to set aside otherwise available relevant knowledge upon the other player's request is bad strategic advice. You would be advocating unilateral disarmament, as a general course of action, without any consideration about the opponent's intent.

eb

The 'available relevant knowledge' you refer to is used by "the player" to determine whether what is claimed seems impossible.

That only has bearing on whether what is claimed as a miracle, fits the definition of a miracle. i.e. It is something which cannot naturally happen*.

With respect the story in the OP, what is claimed fits the definition of a miracle. Therefore declaring it not to be a miracle on the basis it is "scientifically impossible" is a false claim.

If the miracle claimed fits the definition of miracle, then means other than "scientific knowledge" should be used to ascertain whether the claim has merit.

I am not saying that this is 'mandatory', anyone can argue what they wish. However, claiming a miracle is not a miracle on the basis it is scientifically impossible is a contradiction. A miracle is a miracle because it is scientifically impossible**.

And I am very aware that what constitutes "scientifically impossible" changes with new discoveries. To argue miracles cannot happen because we don't know everything is affirming the consequent.

*Yes, I am aware this is a very simplistic definition.

** Again, this is only an argument about what constitutes a miracle, not that the OP describes a true miracle.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Leonardo

[+Paranoid Android]

GT when you read a miracle written in your bible, you will automatically accept it

I believe the Bible to be the word of God. So far, I have found no reason to doubt the authors of the Bible, and until such time as I am given reason to doubt, I am happy to accept on faith that they are telling the truth.

YET you claim that in ref to other miracles written elsewere - you'll read the 'evidence' and then make a judgement,<-- why do you do this?

Because I do not consider other writings to be the word of God. I cannot accept any old event as inspired by God.

That's just the way it is.

~ Guybrush Threepwood (Mighty Pirate)!

[fullywired]

Ok got it now... I think

No, I know that. My point is that you couldn't know that for definite without reading the article.

Ohh but I could because my common sense and reason tells me it is nonsense ,I had no need to read further

fullywired

[Setton]

Ohh but I could because my common sense and reason tells me it is nonsense ,I had no need to read further

fullywired

Ok then, what if somewhere in the article it had referred to a very recent piece of research (so recent the general public hasn't heard about it yet), which has shown that a particular genetic condtition could result in the regeneration of cells into extremely complex structures, such as limbs? (this is just a hypothetical example)

[Beckys_Mom]

Because I do not consider other writings to be the word of God. I cannot accept any old event as inspired by God.

That's just the way it is.

Well there's an honest answer....but tell me something.... what is it about the story that fills you with doubt?

[+Paranoid Android]

Well there's an honest answer....but tell me something.... what is it about the story that fills you with doubt?

Which story? Do you mean the miracle of Calanda???

[Beckys_Mom]

Which story? Do you mean the miracle of Calanda???

Yes the one from the OP

Edited March 4, 2011 by Beckys_Mom

[eight bits]

Leo

Thank you. I think I have come to a better understanding of your view.

I think you overlook some of the relevance of the event being scientifically impossible. If a human limb had ever been restored, by any means whatsoever, then scientists would have been interested, and historians of science as well. Copa, being an expert in biomedical science, would have heard of any such report.

That distinguishes this case from other rare events, like findng a frog with four heads. That's rare, but possible, and so any specific occurrence might not necessarily be scientifically or historically interesting. Such an event could have occurred in Seventeenth Century Spain, and Copa might not have heard about it, despite his expertise in biomedicine.

Setton

Answering for myself:

Ok then, what if somewhere in the article it had referred to a very recent piece of research (so recent the general public hasn't heard about it yet), which has shown that a particular genetic condtition could result in the regeneration of cells into extremely complex structures, such as limbs? (this is just a hypothetical example)

Big life-changing news, that I didn't hear about, nobody I know heard about, but somebody on Wikipedia did?

Now that you mention it, that happens a lot.

[Copasetic]

Copa,

I understand the argument you are making, and I wish to state for the record that I have discounted the possibility the story in the OP relates a 'miracle' of any description (except, perhaps, that it's a miracle anyone believes the story at face value.) But your argument of "entertaining this from a biological/medical standpoint" misses the point that a miracle, if one was to truly occur, would be unexplainable from a biological or medical standpoint.

So, once the claim of 'miracle' is made scientific investigation is basically thrown out the window and analysis of the claim is made via identification of inconsistencies in the events, availability of evidence, etc. The process of evaluating a 'miracle' claim is far more aligned with a criminal/legal investigation, rather than a scientific one.

Yes, we deem it biologically/medically impossible to reattach and 'revitalise' a gangrenous and decayed limb 55 days after being removed from the body. But the very definition of 'miracle' suggests something impossible (by our understanding) has occurred.

I'm on a roll Leo and going quickly, so apologies in advance for any grammar errors!

I understand what you are saying, but here is my take. Remember back when....I talked about that body of transmissible knowledge? Let's not ignore that, I say--use it!

What do the lawyer'in types call it? Historical precedent?

So let's use history, instead of taking everything with "RE:miracle" in the subject line at face value. A kind of algorithm so to say.

Miracles in the subject line then, fall in two broad groups; Those which were eventually explained via a natural mechanism and those which can lump into unverified (either the phenomena was unable to be verified, shown to not exist through other explanations--Like the history of the tale, etc).

So looking at this claim, the subject line again, we put it into either of these two groups.

Group 1; we know, biologically speaking legs don't regrow. Ergo, we rule it out of group 1. That leaves group 2. As Eb showed, with his sociohistorical hat on, there are more mundane historical explanations to this 'miracle'.

I suppose for completeness we should include a third group, the "real miracle" group--But as far as I am aware, historical precedent back to haunt us again, this group is empty.

This goes back to something I've said on these boards over and over. Science (as a body of knowledge), but I suppose I should be even more broad here, human knowledge (accumulated through the ages) let's us not waste time entertaining every whim put forth. Of course, anyone is free to entertain any whim they wish.

Two interesting things come to mind then. It would cool little experiment, if someone had time, to come up with a more detailed algorithm of assessing "RE:miracle"--Certainly on this forum, we would get to test it often enough--More historicity for the fire then.

Also, I'm curious if anyone knows how the Vatican handles the thousands of claims of 'miracles' put forth to them. They must have some selection process to weed out ones they believe are "unnecessary" for investigation. Anyone know how that selection process works?

[Leonardo]

Copa,

I understand the process you suggest, but I would argue that it would not be sufficient.

I am reminded of the thread in the Philosophy forum about the 'Chinese Room' thought experiment. eb posted some wonderful stuff in there regarding the Turing Test for artifical intelligence.

One of the points of the Test is to distinguish the subjects not simply by their command of grammar, but by their understanding of the meaning of words. Your suggested process of "elimination by precedent" is, imo, the equivalent of checking the grammar, without acknowledging the meaning.

[Setton]

I'm on a roll Leo and going quickly, so apologies in advance for any grammar errors!

I understand what you are saying, but here is my take. Remember back when....I talked about that body of transmissible knowledge? Let's not ignore that, I say--use it!

What do the lawyer'in types call it? Historical precedent?

So let's use history, instead of taking everything with "RE:miracle" in the subject line at face value. A kind of algorithm so to say.

Miracles in the subject line then, fall in two broad groups; Those which were eventually explained via a natural mechanism and those which can lump into unverified (either the phenomena was unable to be verified, shown to not exist through other explanations--Like the history of the tale, etc).

So looking at this claim, the subject line again, we put it into either of these two groups.

Group 1; we know, biologically speaking legs don't regrow. Ergo, we rule it out of group 1. That leaves group 2. As Eb showed, with his sociohistorical hat on, there are more mundane historical explanations to this 'miracle'.

I suppose for completeness we should include a third group, the "real miracle" group--But as far as I am aware, historical precedent back to haunt us again, this group is empty.

This goes back to something I've said on these boards over and over. Science (as a body of knowledge), but I suppose I should be even more broad here, human knowledge (accumulated through the ages) let's us not waste time entertaining every whim put forth. Of course, anyone is free to entertain any whim they wish.

Two interesting things come to mind then. It would cool little experiment, if someone had time, to come up with a more detailed algorithm of assessing "RE:miracle"--Certainly on this forum, we would get to test it often enough--More historicity for the fire then.

Also, I'm curious if anyone knows how the Vatican handles the thousands of claims of 'miracles' put forth to them. They must have some selection process to weed out ones they believe are "unnecessary" for investigation. Anyone know how that selection process works?

So, just to check cos I'm not sure I followed all of that, if current biology says it is impossible (I'm just going to roll with that for now), it falls into group 2, yes?

Then we rely on there being a historical precendent, right? If this is what you meant, surely it's fundamentally flawed since, the first time something happens, there will of course be no historical precedent. This occasion will then be counted as not being genuine so there will be no precedent the second time it happens and so on.

[fullywired]

Ok then, what if somewhere in the article it had referred to a very recent piece of research (so recent the general public hasn't heard about it yet), which has shown that a particular genetic condtition could result in the regeneration of cells into extremely complex structures, such as limbs? (this is just a hypothetical example)

I'll fall in with Eight Bits on that one

fullywired

[Setton]

I'll fall in with Eight Bits on that one

fullywired

Sorry, which bit exactly? Do you mean about the threshold you require something to pass before you'll consider it? If so, fair enough (I'll just disagree and grumble to myself since there's no way to change your mind )

Or do you mean because it's written by someone in order to persuade you to believe something they have a vested interest in?

[Copasetic]

Apologies, I didn't post everything I wanted too in that post--Kind of got side tracked.

No, I agree Leo--But, I'm not saying we can't look at the "meaning" though.

Let me try and address Setton real fast and see if it makes more sense then. You are correct Setton, there is a "first" time. Let's stick with this example. Suppose, this really did happen biologically. It was the first case of a human regrowing an appendage. You'd need to put forth the evidence, rather all those biological reasons I posted about earlier (Shh, Wnt, etc) to explain this.

In other words, jumping back to Leo now, we aren't above looking at evidence that those fall into group 1s. But when group evidence is lacking and we have such a strong historical precedent (As Eb points out, this would be taught to any student of embryology and anatomy in a 101 way; "The exception to extremity development"-Day 1 of the syllabus, etc) then we can rightly dismiss/not entertain/whatever you want to call it, the group 1 miracle.

More examples then. Newton, thought the miracle of God's hands was revealed in the solar system. Why? Because his mechanics, the celestial mechanics of the day, couldn't explain planetary motion without orbital decay into the sun.

So this, declares Sir Issac, is a miracle. Periodically, claims he, God's hands must intervene in the lives of celestial bodies to reset their orbits.

So why then, shouldn't we just dismiss this from a group 1 miracle? Because, the evidence, being evident, was that planetary bodies weren't periodically falling into the sun. They had stables orbits, despite no one seeing the hands of god. Science then, knowing this lack of a phenomena existed (planets falling into our star) investigated the issue further. And it turned out this was a worthwhile investigation--But, it wasn't till later that fellows like Lorentz, Laplace, Einstein etc, came along that we would have the mathematical tools to describe orbital mechanics. Check one off.

Going back to our leg then, we don't have our "planets not falling into the sun" evidence. We have a lack of evidence than any primate spontaneously or otherwise has regrown a limb. Period. Were that evidence presented, or were a plausible biological explanation for such an event presented then certainly, let's investigate further. Until then, investigating such claims from a "group 1" standpoint would probably lead you to a career of few publications locked away in some dainty university basement--A relic of a more gullible era.

Categorically, that leads us to type 2's. Why not type 3's? Again, where is the historicity of them? Hedging bets then, your statistically safe assumption--In deed we seem to be talking about thermodynamics kinds of safe statistical assumptions--we go with category 2. I'm not a historian, nor do I pretend to be, nor is that where my interests lay. I let others, more knowledge about history and regional cultures answer those questions. Understanding the regional culture and history of said culture then, Eb laid out a perfectly acceptable answer to the question. Why this is a type 2 miracle.

Supposing then, we can find a miracle (any ideas for one?) where the historians and the scientists are flabbergasted, where we have an established 'phenomena' and where we lack any explanatory power, then type 3 is looking better and better.

As a cautionary tale though, something that is an extant type 3, should take a lesson from science--In that the book remains open to future evidences, but I suppose that is here nor there for the moment and a story for another day.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Copasetic

[Setton]

Let me try and address Setton real fast and see if it makes more sense then. You are correct Setton, there is a "first" time. Let's stick with this example. Suppose, this really did happen biologically. It was the first case of a human regrowing an appendage. You'd need to put forth the evidence, rather all those biological reasons I posted about earlier (Shh, Wnt, etc) to explain this.

Ok, I think I've got it now. So, basically, we treat it as a group 1 first. If it doesn't fit there (no scientific evedence), we move it to group 2. If there is little or doubtful evidence, then a historical precendent can make up for that and it will still be seen as genuine. Alternatively, if there is no precedent and no compelling evidence, then it is false. Still not entirely clear how we reach group 3. Is this if there is compelling evidence that it happened (like a video showing the event verified by several witnesses) but not scientifically supported and there is no precedent? This seems a reasonable approach although, as eight bits said, it guarantees that some genuine miracles will be classified as false. Then again there is always going to be that problem with any systematic approach.

Is this what you meant?

Edited March 4, 2011 by Setton

[Star of the Sea]

Hi Copa there are some very strict criteria rules for a miracle to be pronounced by the Vatican. Doctors, psychiatrist's, theologians are involved over a long period of time and very rarely do they declare that a miracle has taken place. I've linked an article which is perhaps easier on the eye than the Vatican proclamations. Just like to mention for those who have read all the posts and think that this miracle was attributed to the Blessed Virgin Mary as this is untrue. The miracle of Calanda would of been attributed to Jesus through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin - in other words the Blessed Virgin does not perform miracles in the eyes of the Catholic Church!

http://www.time.com/...,982807,00.html

Edited March 4, 2011 by Star of the Sea

[Beckys_Mom]

Hi Copa there are some very strict criteria rules for a miracle to be pronounced by the Vatican. Doctors, psychiatrist, theologians are involved over a long period of time and very rarely do they declare that a miracle has taken place. I've linked an article which is perhaps easier on the eye than the Vatican proclamations. Just like to mention for those who have read all the posts and think that this miracle was attributed to the Blessed Virgin Mary as this is not true. The miracle of Calanda would of been attributed to Jesus through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin - in other words the Blessed Virgin does not perform miracles in the eyes of the Catholic Church!

http://www.time.com/...,982807,00.html

Hey there Star

Just to share a quick story with you in ref to the holy Mary

I must have been 7 yrs old at the time, my best friend back then also happened to be called Mary. Her and had just finished watching an old black and white movie about St Bernadette ( you may have seen it)... Well we took it all in, and we thought what if we copy St Bernadette, dress up like her and do what she did? So off we went, dressing up as St Bernadette, ( I used one of my moms towels to put over my head and Mary used an old pair of tights lol)..... We went over to the feilds... saw a place were we could start digging with our hands in the soil... We had hoped to see water pour out., and we even started to wash our faces with the soil ( just like we saw St Bernadette do in the movie)...There was this broken bottle, we sat praying to Our lady ( saying hail marys).. and for some odd reason.. we looked into the broken glass ..and freaked out thinking we saw the reflection of Our Lady...and we ran scremaing We actually believed it was her.... When it was most likely our own reflections ha ha ..... Ohh my the things we got up to and believed as kids !!...

[Star of the Sea]

Hey there Star

Just to share a quick story with you in ref to the holy Mary

I must have been 7 yrs old at the time, my best friend back then also happened to be called Mary. Her and had just finished watching an old black and white movie about St Bernadette ( you may have seen it)... Well we took it all in, and we thought what if we copy St Bernadette, dress up like her and do what she did? So off we went, dressing up as St Bernadette, ( I used one of my moms towels to put over my head and Mary used an old pair of tights lol)..... We went over to the fields... saw a place were we could start digging with our hands in the soil... We had hoped to see water pour out., and we even started to wash our faces with the soil ( just like we saw St Bernadette do in the movie)...There was this broken bottle, we sat praying to Our lady ( saying hail marys).. and for some odd reason.. we looked into the broken glass ..and freaked out thinking we saw the reflection of Our Lady...and we ran screaming We actually believed it was her.... When it was most likely our own reflections ha ha ..... Ooh my the things we got up to and believed as kids !!...

Lol BM been there done it and got the tee shirt!! My twin and I watched the film when we were kids and we prayed the rosary for weeks! I was rotten as we did little re-enactments of Lourdes just like you - trying to be all holy - I got the starring role, Our Blessed Lady (of course ) and my easy going twin ~ got to play St Bernadette lol! Thanks BM that made me laugh so much!!!!

Edited March 4, 2011 by Star of the Sea

[Beckys_Mom]

Lol BM been there done it and got the tee shirt!! My twin and I watched the film when we were kids and we prayed the rosary for weeks! I was rotten as we did little re-enactments of Lourdes just like you - being all holy - I got the starring role, Our Lady (of course ) and my easy going twin ~ got to play St Bernadette lol! Thanks BM that made me laugh so much!!!!

OMG you didn't?? you did what I did? ha ha ha ... with the towels over your head and everything?? ha ha ohh my... YES we said - Hey come and lets play - St Bernadette's, we BOTH ( my little friend mary and I ) were two St Bernadettes...digging away in the soil..until our hands got sore, then kneeling down, one hail mary after another...

The funniest part was when we ran screaming our heads off...HELP!!! as if we saw a ghost ...and in the movie St Bernadette didn't scream like us

When we made our confirmation ...you are told you must take the name of a saint - so I was quids in with the name Bernadette...my friend Mary started to cry and said - No I wanted to be her, you screamed more than I did when you saw our lady, so I should at least get to take the name not you .......... I said FINE THEN take the name see if I care lol ..I winded up taking Maria ....that wee cow got to take Bernadette ha ha

The following week in School I found most of the girls in our class flipping took the name Bernadette ..so I got to point and laugh ay my friend mary saying --> ha ha HA you took a common name lol

Edited March 4, 2011 by Beckys_Mom