more on liquification

William, likely as a result of having looked for unassailable miracles last year for a paper, took the time to search out reasons not to trust the liquefication of blood that I mentioned recently.[1] I quote him (William) here.

Better Blood Through Chemistry: A Laboratory Replication of a Miracle

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v6n3a2.php
The Blood of St. Januarius
http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101014.htm

just some sights that offer criticism to the miracle

~Will

The second is simply an abstract (and a short one) of an article that does not appear online. As its major point is (briefly) touched in the first, I will ignore it here.

The first starts out clearly with the assumption that this must be a hoax. While I dislike that assumption, I will not object too strenuously. The one idea it favors that I do object to is that this could possibly represent deliberate deception on the part of the Church. Still, the author does take the time to address this from other angles, and must be given credit for that.

The main thrust of the article, more addressable, contains ancient rather than modern malice. It supposes that the contents of the vial were faked in antiquity and that the Church is now at fault only for its refusal to allow adequate inspection of the contents of the vial. I cannot say how plausible the proposed chemical mix is. I will assume it is plausible, and this would go a long way to explain distrust of this miracle.

Of some note, the author finds it "strange" this has aroused very little scientific inquiry. He then proceeds to find it significant that none of the inquiry it has aroused was subsequently published in a peer reviewed journal. I beg to differ with both the surprise and the supposed significance.

As to the former, any scientist proposing to research this would be risking professional suicide. The strong skeptic would thus be disinclined to investigate it for several reasons.

  1. He would instinctively not want to put his own skepticism to the test. This theory is naturally sketchy.
  2. He would instinctively be scornful of the very idea, and thus of the necessity of inquiry. This is confirmed if you look at some of the reactions that Lourdes has raised.
  3. He would risk ridicule from his peers, possibly the loss of grants and possibly face ostracism. This is backed up by the treatment of many who support the right of Intelligent design to exist, though they do not agree with the theory itself. This is the strongest disincentive
The strong believer would also be disinclined to investigate, partly from a lack of need, he has faith, and partly in fear of the last point raised above. As he believes, the risk of ostracism is much stronger, again reference Intelligent Design. Lastly he would instinctively fear disproof, but it would be unfair to credit this in the believer when I call it sketchy in the skeptic. It must be granted that it is a sketchy/unlikely source of motivation in both.

As to the latter, the ideas raised above when it comes to the researcher must be multiplied when it comes to the journal. What is true of the researcher is not only true of the editor, but the editor must also consider the risk of being boycotted. Thus the likelihood of research being published in a peer reviewed journal varies proportionately to the reality that a credible scientist risks much to perform the research in the first place.

Lastly, I would like to note two further points. While the author's proposed explanation, while accounting for many possibilities, fails to account for the failure to liquefy on several occasions. Secondly, there is a stated assumption that this must lead to detection of some fraud: "At present however, given that the phenomenon has been replicated, it would be rather too naive to consider it irreproducible or unexplainable."[2] The existence of a questionable (IE as insufficiently tested as the author claims the miracle itself is) explanation hardly renders the possibility of it being miraculous "naive" unless there is a metaphysical bias rendering any such judgment "naive" active. Such a bias would perhaps explain why the author raises the speculation of present fraud vs ancient fraud, questioning the sincere belief of the Church officials involved.

[1] Luke Schierer. "liquefaction" Random Unfinished Thoughts 2005-09-20. https://www.schierer.org/luke/log/20050920-1530/liquifaction
[2] DI L.Classically, F.Ramaccini,S.Della Sal. "The Blood of St. Januaries" CI CAP (online) 1994-2-30. http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101014.htm#The%20relic%20and%20the%20Ceremony