Sure it does. We’re given a certain observation, and given an extraordinary explanation (“miracle”). This explanation is only valid if other, more mundane explanations are eliminated.
The impossible can always be eliminated without consideration. Only explanations which obey the laws of physics need apply here.
It might be better, though more long winded, to say that what is being debunked is the alleged neccesity of the miraculous explanation.
However, that’s leaving aside the major problem involved with any miracle in the first place, which is, if it’s a miracle, what SORT of miracle is it? That is, if the explanation is something outside our current understanding, then it could be just about ANYTHING, and it’s problematic to start ascribing it to the powers of yoga, when for all we know this man is actually possesed by an alien being, though he’s not aware that this is the cause for his durability, and so mistakenly ascribes it to his yoga, just as magacians might mistakenly think that it’s a magic trick.
Lets get back to square one.
The only way to establish this as a miracle, or a supernatural event, is by eliminating all possible naturalistic explanations.
Wait, I see that we haven’t moved off square one, yet.
So it sounds like the thre main possiblities are as follows:
1.) deception by the fakir
2.) Collusion by the doctors
3.) Some self-trained ability or discipline which would allow him to slow his metabolism enough to get by with no food and very little water for ten days.
4.) Some combination of two or more of the above.
I’m going to guess it’s a combination of 1 and 3. The fakir probably has some ability to get by on very little but was able to use some sort of deception to take in at least some water.
The fact that he lost weight would seem to belie any claim that he has gone for “decades” without eating for reasons already outlined by Mojo (Not to mention it’s just a ridiculous claim in the first place).
Of course, collusion by the doctors is not out of the question either. I guess it’s pretty difficult to disect this case without access to more information. I’d like to see him get tested by JREF, though (and as for ethical concerns I would propose a test which simply observes him for the requisite length of time but makes no attempt to actually deny him anything. Hell, they could put a fully stocked fridge right in the room with him. If he eats or drinks he loses. Why would they want to prevent him from losing?)
Ah, but the challenge was to debunk this miraculous claim. In other words, the challenge was to prove that it was not a miracle. The burden of proof rests on those who insist it was necessarily non-miraculous.
Here’s a hint: “Failure to prove that it was a miracle” is not the same as “Proof that it was a non-miracle.” Clear yet?
Not true. As Diogenes himself later admitted, this only means that a miraculous explanation is not necessary. It does not mean that a miraculous explanation is necessarily invalid.
Besides, it’s a moot point. There isn’t nearly enough evidence to demonstrate that this was either a miracle, a hoax or an honest mistake. As David Simmons said, debunking such claims remotely is pretty darned impossible.
BTW, I’d like to repeat what I said earlier – namely, that I’m very skeptical of this event as well. I do agree that this was probably no miracle. I’m merely disagreeing with those who think that they have necessarily proven that no miracle occurred – especially given the paucity of evidence at hand.
That was Apos, not me, but he’s right.
I understood the OP to mean someone is presenting this as evidence of a miracle. Showing an alternate explanation of the observed facts is enough to invalidate the evidence, and thus debunk the claim.
That’s what it usually means to “debunk” a claim. It’s like the crop circles - of course it’s impossible to prove that none of the crop circles were made by aliens. But it’s enough to show that some were made by humans, and that humans can make “perfect” crop circles. Those who claim they are made by aliens are left with no valid evidence on their side.
OK laddies and lassies, here’s the records from my trusty and increasingly dogeared 1986 Guinness Book, p41:
“The longest period for which anyone has gone without solid food is 382 days by Angus Barbieri…who lived on tea, coffee, soda water and vitamins from June 1965 to July 1966 in Maryfield Hospital, Dundee, Angus, Scotland. His weight declined from 472 pounds to 178 pounds.”
So that’s over a year, under medical observation in a hospital, without solids. Wow. David Blaine eat your heart out (pun intended).
“The longest recorded case of survival without food AND water is 18 days by Andreas Mihavecz, 18, of Bregenz, Austria, who was put in a holding cell April 1, 1979, in a local government building in Hochst, Austria, but was totally forgotten by the police. On April 18, 1979, he was discovered close to death, having had neither food nor water. He had been a passenger in a car crash.”
So much less time without water but 18 days is still pretty incredible. I imagine a very healthy person under ideal circumstances could go longer.
So yeah, I can believe that this fellow made it 10 days, while being observed, with no food or water. However I’ll take a very large grain of salt (ha ha) with his claims of going decades without food and water.
His eating or drinking only proves that in this one case he didn’t pass, not that the couldn’t pass.
Well then in this one case he doesn’t get the million dollars. The burden of proof is on him not JREF.
No, it isn’t. Merely having an alternate explanation isn’t enough, especially given the paucity of evidence available.
One could claim that instead of having a miraculous healing, a cancer patient somehow tapped into rare human genetic powers that enabled him to overcome the cancer. This would be an alternate explanation, but one which is insufficient to controvert the miraculous account.
The mere possibility of an alternate explanation is clearly insufficient. One must consider the plausibility of the explanation, and its level of ad hoc-ness. For example, several posters have appealed to the remarkable resiliency of the human body. This is an alternate explanation, but it is insufficient without data on how resilient a human would be under the given circumstances. As an explanation, it is thus remarkably ad hoc without additional data.
The supposed miracle is not that he went ten days without food or water - that much has been proven to be well within the realm of possibility - but that he went DECADES without food or water.
So let’s alter the test: Have him go, oh, thirty days without food or water. One month. If he really has been going without for decades, he should be able to pass a month standing on his head. Give him a comfy chair and some TV, and then set the 2.6 million second countdown.
Enough to “debunk”? No. Enough for us to conclude that the assumption of miracle is unnecessary? Yes.
Through osmosis, of course.
Got his food that way also.
This is just another one of those puzzling things for the skeptics to work out.
Love
Exactly.
Anyone else feel that doctors, while they’re probably skilled in surgery and stethoscope use, are not your first choice for a pseudo-science smackdown?
“Yes nurse, I realize there’s a code blue next door, but I’m really supposed to be keeping an eye on this shrivelled dude here…” 
I wouldn’t even go that far – not without considering the quality of the alternate explanation, as evidenced by details and depth of analysis.
Stating “the human body is remarkably resilient” (or words to that effect), may be an alternate explanation, but a woefullly inadequate one due to the lack of specifics. In contrast, [n]Valgard**'s evidence makes this 10-day fast sound plausible, thus reducing the likelihood of requiring a miracle. While I wouldn’t say that this truly debunks the claim (again, due to the lack of specific details), it does at least demonstrate a measure of rigor in analyzing the situation.
JThunder wrote:
You seem to be under the assumption that debunkers have the burden of proof.
If a certain phenomenon, say, going decades without food and water, is regularly observed under scientific circumstances, it no longer is a miracle, it is a phenomenon. Then, scientists are under the burden of proof to show that it does not exist, and if it does, how.
That’s not what we have now. Supporters of the alleged event (the decades-long fast, that is,) are under the burden of proof.