If it occurs on alternate Thursdays then it is consistent. Again this just shows a problem with the model, not a problem with the reality.
…when it hasn’t got anything better to do.
It’s impossible to prove something is permanently inconsistent with science - if you manage to prove your “inconsistency” is real, then in a short while the scientists will rewrite the books to account for the “inconsistency”. Even if that means writing “this thing is completely random in these circumstances”. (Science doesn’t mind special cases in the slightest - it’s full if them. “Oxidization” is specific to the case of oxygen, etc…)
Science is in the business of describing reality - if your ‘inconsistency’ is real, they’re incorporate it no matter what. (Though you may still win your nobel prize if it’s a neat enough exception.)
I simply cannot agree with the assertion that scientific theories will be adjusted to account for any inconsistencies. In my experience, it happens much more frequently that the authorities, when confronted with an observation that violates scientific laws, simply admit that they have no explanation but refuse to change the laws.
For example, Alexandrina da Costa was a Portugese woman who went for twelve years without eating or drinking anything except for a communion wafer and wine once a week. Numerous doctors from all over Europe came to observe her case, and two of them wrote up a report, saying: “The laws of physics and chemistry and biology declare that a human cannot survive for so long without nourishment; those laws cannot account for the survival of this woman.”
Another example is Rita Klaus, an American woman who had suffered from multiple sclerosis for many years, to the point where all her muscles had shrunken and her limbs were severely warped. She couldn’t walk, was almost blind, and had trouble breathing. On June 18, 1986, she had a vision of the Virgin Mary, who promised her healing. Within 24 hours Klaus was in perfect health. One of her physicians said, “The degeneration of the muscles in Rita’s legs had been so extreme that months of therapy would have been required before she could walk across the room. Instead she was running and jumping within days.”
Yet in both cases, most of the doctors involved refused to change any medical opinions based on the case itself. Their attitude was basically ‘we can’t explain it so let’s ignore it.’
Why would you change the laws if you do not have a better solution?
Scientists are in the business of explaining things. What more would you have them do?
What people report is a part of reality. An author who creates a fictional world not only creates the physical structures of that world, such as continents, oceans, mountains, forests, animals, planets, buildings and such. He or she also creates the people (and possibly other self-aware creatures) and the thoughts that those people think. Hence, for the purposes of this thread, the ontological/epistemic dichotomy does not matter. The only question is whether real life is consistent according to the standards that people wish to apply to fiction.
Now, in a work of fiction, we’d consider it an inconsistency if the characters believed something despite seeing direct evidence of it being untrue, or if they believed two contradictory things simultaneously, or if they rapidly switched belief systems. But in reality people do those things all the time, so reality is inconsistent by literary standards.
Completely random doesn’t mean that something can’t be described statistically. There are plenty of fundamentally random things (like decay) which are not inconsistent.
You can of course slap names on things, but oxidation is just the application of standard laws for given ingredients, and nothing special or out of the ordinary. So I wouldn’t call that a special case.
Now, you can draw a line described by an exponential of order n through n points. But it is a more elegant to fit a curve of order 2 or 3 through them. A good theory is like this lower order curve, in that it should elegantly describe everything. Outliers in data mining can come from two causes - errors in observation or actual outliers, things really not like the rest. I’d contend that all outliers in science are of the first type, since those of the second type become mainstream when you start observing things of that sort, for example the behavior of objects moving at relativistic velocities.
Exactly. Just like when one time on the Dick van Dyke show that lady had a dog that hadn’t eaten anything in like forever until he bit the head off the potato shaped like a duck. What are the odds on that? It’s like astrological, yaknow?
There are two possibilities. On one side, we can throw out all we know about physiological processes, nutrition, and even the conservation of energy. On the other we might wonder if the woman was cheating.
Which should we choose? It’s a real puzzler.
Then the most logical explanation is that both cases are bullshit. Or the doctors and scientists simply don’t know enough about how the human body works to explain or recreate these particular scenarios. But I suspect the former.
I wouldn’t consider these inconsistencies in literature. (Or reality.)
Sounds like standard religious myth making to me. When looked at closely, it always turns out that the doctors DID have an explanation; the people involved were fakes; or the whole incident was made up or grossly distorted.
Scientists DO investigate such claims; since religion is nothing but garbage, they inevitably turn out to be garbage. “Religious claims are always wrong” is a useful assumption to live your life by.
In other words, the claims of a group of people known for dishonesty, irrationality and ignorance - the religious - is not evidence for reality being inconsistent. They are just examples of them being wrong, as they always are.
You’ve yet to demonstrate this, and it is at odds with how science actually works.
Not in the slightest. Not only is it, as Voyager points out, an example of perfectly consistent underlying laws, but it’s a somewhat misleading name given that there are stronger oxidizers than oxygen. Chlorine trifluoride is one of them:
Yes, it will burn asbestos. Yes, we know perfectly well why. No, it isn’t a special case, merely an uncommon substance.
That’s been happening to me lately, too – in fact, your story inspired me to open a thread about those things.
So here the truth about the scientific worldview comes to light. Earlier you said, “When an inconsistency with a theory is found, a consistent reality demands we have a new theory that both explains the old and the new data, without special cases.” But now you’re making it clear that with at least some inconsistencies, you’re just going to lay down arbitrary declarations that it was “cheating” or fraud or whatever else you need to say in order to make it not count.
Your cheating explanation is obviously illogical. You seem to assume that those who have heard of the da Costa case never considered the possibility. Once we’re exposed to your amazing new theory that da Costa was cheating, we’re apparently supposed to slap ourselves on the head and say, “Gee, why didn’t I ever think of that?”
In reality, of course, the possibility that da Costa was cheating is the first that comes to anybody’s mind. People have rejected that theory because the facts are against it.
Firstly, da Costa spent that entire time period in the hospital. She was paralyzed from the neck down. Hence the possibility that she was sneaking out to eat a burger at the local McDonalds’ would be just as supernatural as the fact that she went 12 years without food or drink.
Early on during that 12 years, she was transferred to a hospital in Oporto, Portugal. Dr. Araujo, who was in charge of her case at Oporto, was a skeptic who disliked superstitious Catholic nonsense and was determined to debunk the claims da Costa was making. To that end, he arranged a team of ten doctors who would monitor da Costa round the clock, day and night, until they caught her sneaking food and drink. This went on for thirty days, and they did not catch her cheating. One might think that this would settle the issue, but two other skeptical doctors from outside the hospital, Dr. Alvaro and Dr. R. C. Lima, insisted that the team of ten must have been tricked, so they did their own observance and also confirmed that da Costa was not cheating. Altogether, she was under continuous observation for 39 consecutive days and it was verified that she ate or drank nothing but the communion wine and wafer. In addition, the doctors monitored pulse, breathing rate, and so forth throughout this period, and verified that all signs remained normal, which ought to be impossible for someone who rejected food and drink for so long. From their conclusion:
Another skeptic, professor Joao Marques, who was professor of medical science at Portugal’s top university, examined all of the evidence in detail and concluded:
Believe me when I say that this is jut scratching the surface of the evidence that is available on the case of Alexandrina da Costa. Literally thousands of people visited the hospitals where she was housed in order to observe the case, and many were determined to prove that she was fake, but none actually did so. One biographer claims that hers was the best-documented case in the history of medicine. While that may not be literally true any more, there is certainly more evidence that anyone could possibly want here. It’s an established fact that Da Costa went twelve years without food or drink save the eucharist.
Lastly, if she was cheating, it begs the question: Why? By all accounts she was in intense pain throughout her life. She also disliked being the center of attention and wished that the parade of gawkers coming to visit and investigate her would end. Why would we cheat if she disliked the results of that cheating? And even if that’s the case, why would she keep doing it for twelve years? Why would anyone do that? The sources I’ve quoted and may others testify that she was in sound mental health.
Here’s a page that presents some of the evidence; the parts that I quoted are in the section labeled Medical Evidence. I’m told that the best English-language biography is Alexandrina: The Agony and the Glory, by Francis Johnston, but I haven’t read it.
I see no mention, in your cite or any others, of IVs. I also didn’t see any analysis from a non-biased source. One, from a book, only mentioned her psychological condition, and isn’t relevant.
I’ve seen lots of cases where there is equally good evidence for aliens and ghosts - only to find that the evidence wasn’t that good. Any references to medical journals?
In the broader case, science accepts all sorts of impossible things when there is evidence. In the early 19th century the concept that stones fell from space was laughed at - until they fell in front of witnesses and could be picked up. And of course we threw out all of Newtonian physics when Mercury was where Einstein predicted it would be.
Perhaps there’s something that I 'm not getting here. Both sources that I quoted are medical reports written by doctors who were given the task of investigating whether da Costa’s fast was genuine, and both confirmed that it was. Both say clearly that she took no nourishment besides communion for a period of forty days.
Second, you complain that they aren’t from a non-biased source. So are you accusing the doctors of bias or are you accusing the webpage of misrepresenting the doctors? If it’s the doctors, da Costa and her biographers both agree that the doctors were initially hostile to her claims and to her personally. They eventually became convinced that the fast was genuine, which speaks strongly in favor of that conclusion.
If you’re accusing the webpage of bias, you can easily search and find numerous other sources with copies of the letters. This one here has a photocopy of the original letter from Dr. Marques. They are not made up; fourteen doctors (at least) did indeed testify to the truth of da Costa’s fast.
As for aliens and ghosts, I’m not sure what relevance that has to Alexandrina da Costa.
As for whether there are medical journal articles about her, I’ve no clue. If not, there certainly should be.
The bottom line is that you, msmtih, and Der Trihs want us to believe that whenever there’s a through investigation of a miraculous occurrence, it always gets debunked. In the case of Alexandrina da Costa, there was a thorough investigation and it confirmed that the case was miraculous. (That is to say, it contradicted science.) Do you have any evidence that da Costa was a fraud? Not flippant accusations, but actual evidence? Can you offer me a reason to believe that she was cheating rather than fasting, or can you only complain that there wasn’t enough observation of the facts? (If fourteen doctors, including some of the best in the nation, aren’t enough than what would be?)
IF we humans are at the apex of self-consciousness in the known universe, is it more likely that ‘reality’ brought about ‘beliefs’, or vice-versa? If we aren’t here to perceive it, does it even matter? I’ve often wondered what would happen if everybody on the planet focused on the same thing at the same time?
Actually, the expectation is that you’re gonna say that she couldn’t possibly have been cheating, because then you’d know that. In other words, the old, narcissistic jump from ‘I can’t explain it’ to ‘it can’t be explained’, which allows you to postulate god as an excuse – because if it was god’s doing, it is unknowable, and your failure to find an explanation does not merely mean that you’re not quite as clever as you might think. That way, you never have to face your ignorance, because it’s just god working in his mysterious ways, not actually a failure of yours. Believing in magic is always easier than just admitting that you have no clue how it’s done.
Your link (and all the others I found) are of the Blessed da Costa variety. I saw the letter, but was there a full report? What kind of doctor lets a paralyzed patient starve herself (since there was no way of knowing she would not suffer ill effects when she started?) The claim is that these doctors were skeptical at the start, but was this skeptical in the devil’s advocate sense or in the atheist sense. Plus I assure you that most doctors don’t know much about the scientific method. The purpose of a journal article is to force the details of the case to be examined by experts who can ask questions and force missing information (like whether an IV was used) to be filled in.
I still think fraud is more likely than a miracle - but I’m not claiming I can prove it. Some people are very clever, like the 19th century mediums.
The relevance of ghosts and UFOs is that most people don’t appreciate the very significant revolution in science that real evidence for either of these things would spark off. In Ghostbusters ghosts swoop around NYC, and by the sequel everyone has forgotten. In real life there would be flood of grant proposals to study ghosts, and Slimer would be more in demand than Obama. That someone who knows anything about physiology could study her, be convinced that she was living on a few calories a day for years, and write a short letter is actually less believable to me than the miracle.
The trail is cold now so no long knows for sure, but if this happened again there would be all sorts of tests we could do to see where the nutrition was coming from. I’m not that kind of a doctor, so I can’t even define the right tests, but I bet we could find someone who could.