From: martinharran@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 09:57:04 -0800, Vincent Maycock   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:11:02 +0000, Martin Harran   
   > wrote:   
      
   [...]   
      
   >>This is a good example of what I mean by jumping to uninformed   
   >>conclusions. Miracles *are* investigated by forensic methods,   
   >   
   >However, you said religious beliefs are examined via circumstantial   
   >evidence, not forensic methods.   
   >   
   >> at least   
   >>within the Catholic Church. Take Lourdes, probably the most well-known   
   >>place associated with miracles. Before being considered by the Church,   
   >>every purported miracle is examined thoroughly by the Lourde's Medical   
   >>Board which is comprised of both Catholic and non-Catholic doctors and   
   >>nurses; any doctor or nurse visiting Lourdes can apply to be part of   
   >>the Board whether they are a believer or non-believer. If the Board   
   >>thinks a particular case is worth taking further, the case is referred   
   >>to the International Lourdes Medical Committee, which is an   
   >>international panel of about twenty experts in various medical   
   >>disciplines and of different religious beliefs. They put the case   
   >>through rigorous study. The case is only referred back for   
   >>consideration by Church authorities if it meets certain criteria.   
   >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau   
   >   
   >Placebos, mostly, it seems.   
      
   I meant to pick up on this specific point because it's a good example   
   of how your logic goes a bit askew. It didn't seem to register with   
   you that the fact that most reported cases get dismissed is actually   
   an indication of how rigorous the procedure actually is.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)