LDS Church Files Brief In Trans Supreme Court Case

[smac97]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The ASPS is, as noted above, apparently the first professional medical organization to publicly speak against these procedures.  I anticipate that more will follow. 

Well.  That did not take long.  The AMA is (partially) modifying its position to accord with the one announced by the ASPS.

First Major Medical Org Comes Out Against Trans Surgeries for Minors (last paragraph):

Quote

The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) released new guidance on Tuesday cautioning physicians against performing gender-transition surgeries on minors, marking a significant breakthrough for critics of the procedures who have long called on major medical associations to be transparent about the harms associated with medicalizing gender dysphoric children.
...

Other medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American Medical Association (AMA)  have remained in support of gender-related care for adolescents.

The APA said in December after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) moved to restrict medical centers from performing gender-related surgeries on children, that it was “committed to ensuring that all children — including gender-diverse youth and children covered by Medicaid — receive care that is backed by science, delivered with compassion, and offered without political interference.”

The AMA said in a statement to National Review that because “the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement . . . the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”

Our @Analytics has previously pointed to professional medical associations and their ratification of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions for minors as being "evidence-based care":

Quote

Let me get this straight. In an effort to avoid forming opinions based on “ideological/sociolpolitical influences/pressures on medical care”, you turned to an article written by a political philosopher and was published by a political advocacy organization. Do I have this right?

In any case, let’s discuss that quote. According to your source, what you said is supported by a paper published in 2011 and has been cited 120 times since then. It would seem that this paper has been discussed quite a bit by the professionals in this field. What do you think about those 120 papers, and about all the research that’s been done in the 15 years since it was published?

It’s an overwhelming amount of research to read, of course. Which makes me want to turn to organizations of doctors who have a vested interest in the wellbeing of their patients. In general, I’d say these groups are committed to providing evidence-based care, their members are important stake holders in providing actual care, and they are qualified to offer these opinions.

For example:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry: Gender-affirming care is informed by long-standing standards of care and by evidence-based clinical studies supporting improved mental health and health outcomes for youth. For transgender and gender-diverse youth, family and social supports have improved mental health outcomes and functioning, and for some, medical treatment may be necessary.

American Association of Family Physicians: The AAFP supports gender-affirming care as an evidence-informed intervention that can promote health equity for gender-diverse individuals, although wider sociopolitical efforts are necessary to further mitigate these barriers and advance equity. The AAFP asserts the full spectrum of gender-affirming care should be legal and should remain a treatment decision between a physician and their patient.

American College of Obstretricians and Gynecologists:  An estimated 150,000 youth and 1.4 million adults living in the United States identify as transgender. This Committee Opinion offers guidance on providing inclusive and affirming care as well as clinical information on hormone therapy and preventive care; it also cites existing resources for those seeking information on the care of transgender adolescents.

American College of Physicians: In this position paper, the American College of Physicians (ACP) reaffirms and updates much of its long-standing policy on LGBTQ+ health to strongly support access to evidence-based, clinically indicated gender-affirming care and oppose political efforts to interfere in the patient–physician relationship.

American Counseling Association: Gender-affirming interventions are not new or novel and have a well-established use for both cisgender and transgender youth. Gender-affirming medical procedures and mental health care are essential and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Medical Association, the United States Association for Transgender Health, and the World Professional Association of Transgender Health. SAIGE’s own Competencies for Counseling Transgender Clients, which have been endorsed by the American Counseling Association, call for counselors to embrace the full spectrum of gender identity and expression, affirm transgender mental and medical care, and serve as advocates for transgender individuals. Provision of affirming medical care is evidence-based best practice when working with transgender individuals.

American Medical Association: Our American Medical Association recognizes that medical and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria and gender incongruence, as determined by shared decision making between the patient and physician, are medically necessary as outlined by generally-accepted standards of medical and surgical practice.

American Psychiatric Association recognizes that appropriately evaluated transgender and gender diverse individuals can benefit greatly from medical and surgical gender-affirming treatments.

American Psychological Association: THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the APA urges support for policies facilitating access to comprehensive, gender-affirming healthcare for children, adolescents, and adults, recognizing the positive impact on mental health outcomes.

Pediatric Endocrine Society: Medical intervention for transgender youth and adults (including puberty suppression, hormone therapy and medically indicated surgery) is effective, relatively safe (when appropriately monitored), and has been established as the standard of care.

I suppose it is theoretically possible that the political philosopher who writes editorials for political advocacy groups is the person who is really free from political bias and understands the totality of the evidence, and that the plurality of physicians at all of these medical associations are the ones who are pretending the evidence is something other than what they know it is because of ideological/sociopolitical pressure, but I tend to doubt it.

Since my lack of time to thoroughly study this issue forces me to be agnostic, I think it is safe to stick with what mainstream health practitioners say on these issues. But I really like what the AMA said: a course of care is a "shared decision making between the patient and physician.” The culture warriors in state legislatures aren’t and shouldn’t be part of that decision making process.

The last two paragraphs of Roger's 2024 comments here are, in my view, noteworthy.  He scoffed a the idea of "ideological/sociopolitical pressure" having influenced the assessments of professional medical organizations.

Now, in 2026, the AMA "agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood."

The AMA does not address endocrine interventions, so we'll see how that goes.

In 2024 I responded to Analytics, including a fairly vigorous critique of the AMA's position:

Quote

I have recently come across an excellent amicus curiae brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 on behalf of Dr. Paul McHugh.  From the summary:
...

Quote

"The American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association (APA) thoroughly confuse sex and gender identity or transpose them, as if gender identity is innate and fixed at birth, while sex is malleable and the body configurable to one’s sense of gender identity. They attempt to obfuscate their ideological pronouncements as science. However, '[t]he hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or "a woman trapped in a man’s body" — is not supported by scientific evidence.'"

Question: You previously said that, you "want to turn to organizations of doctors who have a vested interest in the wellbeing of their patients."  Well, so do I.  But I assume we would also want to know if these organizations are ideologically or otherwise compromised.  Do you see any possibility that this is happening?

Quote

"The AMA and APA briefs demonstrate that when medical associations are committed to an ideology, it erodes the objectivity of their scientific claims."

Question: Does Dr. McHugh's assessment here, that the APA and APA "are committed to an ideology," affect your assessment of their objectivity and competence when evaluating these issues?
...

Quote

• "The AMA’s and APA’s prioritization of ideology over science is not good for anyone. 'Sex change' is biologically impossible, and those associations are 'doing no favors' to either the public or those who identify as transgender 'by treating their confusions as a right in need of defending rather than as a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.'"

Question: Are the positions taken by the AMA and APA susceptible to criticisms of those organizations having "{prioritized} ideology over science"?

Quote

"Conversely, when children are encouraged to progress through social transition to puberty blockers, they tend to persist with their dysphoria. Yet no longitudinal, controlled studies support gender-affirming treatments for gender dysphoria."

Question: Do you have evidence to contradict Dr. McHugh's statement here?  That "no longitudinal, controlled studies support gender-affirming treatments for gender dysphoria"?

Quote

"{T}he existing studies on treatment of and outcomes for transgender persons are poor support for gender affirmation or the progression to medication or surgery,24 yet the large medical associations like the AMA and APA ardently endorse these practices. Unfortunately, ideology rather than science is driving the support. And since dissent is systematically eliminated and those who disagree are loudly condemned, the kind of research necessary to inform the public debate is not occurring."

Question: Does Dr. McHugh's assessment here - that "ideology rather than science is driving the {AMA's and APA's} support" for these treatments - carry any weight with you?  If not, why not?

Quote

"'Mainstream clinicians and scientists who consider gender discordance to be a mental disorder have been deliberately excluded in the makeup of the steering committees of academic and medical professional societies which are promulgating guidelines that were previously unheard of.'  For instance, when the Endocrine Society created its guidelines, 'the panel selected included only those who supported the emerging practices and attempts by many of the endocrinologists present to raise concerns were muted.'"

Question: The Endocrine Society was one of the other medical organizations you cite as endorsing "gender-affirming interventions."  If that organization really did, in creating its guidelines, "included only those who supported the emerging practices," and if that organization "{muted} attempts by many of the endocrinologists present to raise concerns," does that affect your assessment of this organization's endorsement of these interventions?  If not, why not?

The compromised (even corrupted) position taken by the AMA was, for me, persuasively laid out in Dr. McHugh's brief.

And it looks like the AMA is now radically changing its tune, though apparently not until it was compelled to do so.  It looks like malpractice lawsuits that imperil the financial aspect of practicing medicine are overriding ideological/political influences that have previously molded the AMA's position.  Funny how that works.  A jury figured out what the AMA could not: that pediatric sex trait modifications are, broadly, not proper medical care for minors suffering from gender dysphoria.

Analytics responded in 2024 in part:

Quote

I believe that on the whole, the AMA summarizes the medical research honestly and accurately as well. 

And here:

Quote

Quote

There are a ton of nuances to understanding the totality of what the medical research indicates on this or that topic, to understanding how the studies relate to medical protocols, and to understanding what those protocols actually suggest for any given clinical situation. ... But if you think the AMA’s protocols aren’t supported by evidence, submit a paper to JAMA.

I believe medical decisions ought to be made by doctors and patients. I believe in general, doctors and patients should be cautious about prescribing and taking drugs, and they should be extremely cautious about recommending or agreeing to surgery. And that’s really all I have to say.

Regarding medical organizations being subjected to sociopolitical pressures, this WSJ commentary deserves some attention: Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’

...

Here is an article by the BMJ that may be one of those referenced here: Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement

And here:

Quote

Quote

Since my lack of time to thoroughly study this issue forces me to be agnostic, I think it is safe to stick with what mainstream health practitioners say on these issues. 

You said this immediately after quoting a bunch of these organizations:

Quote

For example:

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry:  <SNIP>

American Association of Family Physicians:  <SNIP>

American College of Obstretricians and Gynecologists:   <SNIP>

American College of Physicians:  <SNIP>

American Counseling Association:  <SNIP>

American Medical Association:  <SNIP>

American Psychiatric Association  <SNIP>

American Psychological Association:  <SNIP>

Pediatric Endocrine Society: <SNIP>

To me, this looks like you really really want to declare that there is a clear consensus on pediatric sex trait modification treatments. 

I think there is ample evidence demonstrating that no such consensus exists.  I have provided extensive resources demonstrating this lack of consensus, as well as pretty strong evidence that these professional organizations are, to some extent, compromised in their assessment.

Again, I think my 2024 assessment has been grimly vindicated.

I expect to see many more malpractice judgments arising from procedures which these medical professional organizations previously blessed and endorsed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4 by smac97

[JVW]

Thanks for the update Smac. Do you know the reason why ASPS chose the age of 19 instead of 18 or 21 or 25? Is there a legal reason that treats a 19 year old differently than an 18 year old?

One critique from your last post is that you seemed to use it kind of as a way to vent. Whether you are right or not doesn't matter to me as much as I appreciate your well sourced arguments. Even if you are right, rubbing it in people's faces is just going to lead to a bunch of arguing which, I think, is the reason you backed away from the board in the first place because you didn't like it. If Analytics chooses to respond I expect the next three pages will be arguing that I'll have to sift through to find any more news updates you post, and the end result of those 3 pages will be both of you being mad and nobodies opinion changing.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, JVW said:

Thanks for the update Smac. Do you know the reason why ASPS chose the age of 19 instead of 18 or 21 or 25? Is there a legal reason that treats a 19 year old differently than an 18 year old?

I don't know.  It's a "they're no longer legally minors" age.  The 19-25 age range encompasses the back end of an individual's transition into individual autonomy.  Even as an adult, some rights and privileges are not immediately bestowed at 18, and are instead rolled out in the ensuing years.  Alcohol and tobacco and marijuana purchase/use.  Handguns and concealed carry permits.  CDLs.  Car rentals.

Perhaps the ASPS still facing some ongoing ideological/political pressure to keep the age limitation as limited as possible.  That's just conjecture on my part.

6 hours ago, JVW said:

One critique from your last post is that you seemed to use it kind of as a way to vent.

Well, no and yes.  My personal reputation matters to me.  I'll own that.  I didn't see this board as much of a threat against it, but I felt it appropriate to "finish the circle" in this thread and about this topic, given that my position on pediatric sex trait modifications - often slammed on this board as bigoted/hateful - is presently being vindicated.  I am gratified about that, as it is a serious topic and I had hoped my prior assessment was correct.  I also wanted to continue defending my good name, such as is possible in online fora such as this.  So the "venting," to the extent that characterization works here (not well, IMO), it centers on me defending my name and reputation.  I think that's generally a worthwhile endeavor, particularly when the denigrations are patently inaccurate and unfair.

6 hours ago, JVW said:

Whether you are right or not doesn't matter to me as much as I appreciate your well sourced arguments.

Well, it matters to me whether I am right or wrong.  If I am wrong, I hope to find that out, either through my personal efforts or via scrutiny and critique of my positions/ideas by those who disagree with them.  My utilization of this board for that purpose has, apart from this thread/topic, run its course.

6 hours ago, JVW said:

Even if you are right, rubbing it in people's faces is just going to lead to a bunch of arguing which, I think, is the reason you backed away from the board in the first place because you didn't like it.

I was not intending to rub people's faces in it, but to rebut specific arguments made previously and now upended.  @Analytics went to great pains to present a "the expert consensus hath spoken" argument.  I had previously argued that there was ample grounds in the past to disagree with this supposed "consensus," and am now noting that the "consensus" itself seems to be unraveling.

This is far from the only time Analytics has declared things to be X, and definitively so, only for X to be pretty wobbly.  

In 2019 Analytics flagrantly and publicly mischaracterized statements made by Terryl Givens, and he this in a way that, unsurprisingly, cast the Church in the worst possible light.  See here and here.  

In 2021 Analytics substantially exaggerated and mischaracterized a purportedly "scientific" claim that a "science-based argument" exists which "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."  Except, well, the person making that argument was considerably more constrained in what he was arguing.  See here and here and here.  

In 2023, Analytics really wanted the SEC order against the Church (consisting of the unproven, untested, unadjudicated, and unadmitted-to-by-the-Church findings of the SEC investigation) to be construed as "the facts" of the matter (see, e.g., here, and my response here).  He even went so far as to declare that the SEC "was in fact the prosecutor, judge, and jury" and that it "sincerely wanted the Church's side of the story."  

In 2024 Analytics publicly branded me a "bigot" for disagreeing with some tenets of trans ideology.  See here.

None of these claims by Analytics was substantively true or accurate, not then and not now.  Falsehoods and mischaracterizations needs to be treated as such.

Analytics has said all of these things publicly.  On a message board viewable by the entire world.  And he said these things with a specific intent of rebutting or subverting the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and, perhaps, religionists in general).  His comments, having been published to the world, are likewise susceptible to public critique.  That is what I have done.

Stylistically, you may have a point.  Substantively, though, I think it is important to rebut the inaccurate / misleading / falsified arguments @Analytics and people like him have made regarding pediatric sex trait modification (and other topics relating to the Church and its doctrines).  This is an important topic, and deserved more attention and critique than the "When the AMA has spoken, the thinking has been done" crowd would have had us think.

My comments in this thread are not really directed at Analytics (though I have tagged him so that he is notified of my posts mentioning him).  I don't really have any expectation of him changing his views.  Rather, my comments in this thread are directed at other people on this board who may have been persuaded by Analytics' "consensus" declarations.  I just don't think he's a very good or trustworthy guide on topics pertaining to or touching on the Church and its doctrines.  The above examples are just the ones that immediately came to mind.  

6 hours ago, JVW said:

If Analytics chooses to respond I expect the next three pages will be arguing that I'll have to sift through to find any more news updates you post, and the end result of those 3 pages will be both of you being mad and nobodies opinion changing.

We'll see, I suppose.  I have, over the years, received quite a few private messages thanking me for being willing to post on this board and defend the Restored Gospel.  Alas, this board isn't really what is used to be.

In the end, this is just one thread, and the only one in which I am participating.  I have a 20-year catalog of 19,000+ posts that rather extensively document my views on the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Church that houses it, and the topics that are discussed in relation to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 4 by smac97

[JVW]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  It's a "they're no longer legally minors" age.  The 19-25 age range encompasses the back end of an individual's transition into individual autonomy.  Even as an adult, some rights and privileges are not immediately bestowed at 18, and are instead rolled out in the ensuing years.  Alcohol and tobacco and marijuana purchase/use.  Handguns and concealed carry permits.  CDLs.  Car rentals.

Perhaps the ASPS still facing some ongoing ideological/political pressure to keep the age limitation as limited as possible.  That's just conjecture on my part.

Well, no and yes.  My personal reputation matters to me.  I'll own that.  I didn't see this board as much of a threat against it, but I felt it appropriate to "finish the circle" in this thread and about this topic, given that my position on pediatric sex trait modifications - often slammed on this board as bigoted/hateful - is presently being vindicated.  I am gratified about that, as it is a serious topic and I had hoped my prior assessment was correct.  I also wanted to continue defending my good name, such as is possible in online fora such as this.  So the "venting," to the extent that characterization works here (not well, IMO), it centers on me defending my name and reputation.  I think that's generally a worthwhile endeavor, particularly when the denigrations are patently inaccurate and unfair.

Well, it matters to me whether I am right or wrong.  If I am wrong, I hope to find that out, either through my personal efforts or via scrutiny and critique of my positions/ideas by those who disagree with them.  My utilization of this board for that purpose has, apart from this thread/topic, run its course.

I was not intending to rub people's faces in it, but to rebut specific arguments made previously and now upended.  @Analytics went to great pains to present a "the expert consensus hath spoken" argument.  I had previously argued that there was ample grounds in the past to disagree with this supposed "consensus," and am not noting that the "consensus" itself seems to be unraveling.

This is far from the only time Analytics has declared things to be X, and definitively so, only for X to be pretty wobbly.  

In 2019 Analytics flagrantly and publicly mischaracterized statements made by Terryl Givens, and he this in a way that, unsurprisingly, cast the Church in the worst possible light.  See here and here.

In 2021 Analytics substantially exaggerated and mischaracterized a purportedly "scientific" claim that a "science-based argument" exists which "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."  Except, well, the person making that argument was considerably more constrained in what he was arguing.  See here and here and here.  

In 2023, Analytics really wanted the SEC order against the Church (consisting of the unproven, untested, unadjudicated, and unadmitted-to-by-the-Church findings of the SEC investigation) to be construed as "the facts" of the matter (see, e.g., here, and my response here).  He even went so far as to declare that the SEC "was in fact the prosecutor, judge, and jury" and that it "sincerely wanted the Church's side of the story."  He then said that me questioning Analytics' imputation of "sincerity" onto the SEC was "cynical."

In 2024 Analytics branded me a "bigot" for disagreeing with some tenets of trans ideology.  See here.

Analytics has said all of these things publicly.  On a message board viewable by the entire world.  And he said these things with a specific intent of rebutting or subverting the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and, perhaps, religionists in general).  His comments, having been published to the world, are likewise susceptible to public critique.  That is what I have done.

Stylistically, you may have a point.  Substantively, though, I think it is important to rebut the arguments @Analytics and people like him have made regarding pediatric sex trait modification (and other topics relating to the Church and its doctrines).  This is an important topic, and deserved more attention critique than the "When the AMA has spoken, the thinking has been done" crowd would have had us think.

My comments in this thread are not really directed at Analytics (though I have tagged him so that he is notified of my posts mentioning him).  I don't really have any expectation of him changing his views.  Rather, my comments in this thread are directed at other people on this board who may have been persuaded by Analytics' "consensus" declarations.  I just don't think he's a very good or trustworthy guide on topics pertaining to or touching on the Church and its doctrines.  The above examples are just the ones that immediately came to mind.  

We'll see, I suppose.  I have, over the years, received quite a few private messages thanking me for being willing to post on this board and defend the Restored Gospel.  Alas, this board isn't really what is used to be.

In the end, this is just one thread, and the only one in which I am participating.  I have a 20-year catalog of 19,000+ posts that rather extensively document my views on the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Church that houses it, and the topics that are discussed in relation to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate your perspective and understand better why you framed your recent posts the way you did. Thanks for responding.

ETA - I can't believe how your brain works. How can you remember and link to all of those ancient forum threads? Amazing!

Edited February 4 by JVW

[smac97]

1 hour ago, JVW said:

I appreciate your perspective and understand better why you framed your recent posts the way you did. Thanks for responding.

I am a civil litigation attorney.  I am perhaps overly-accustomed to speaking plainly in an adversarial setting, and therefore potentially somewhat desensitized to how my comments can come across in an informal setting such as this one.  

Edited February 5 by smac97

[smac97]

American Medical Assoc. Retreats on Trans Surgery for Kids After Years of Embracing Mutilation - 5 Days After $2 Million Judgment Against 2 Docs

Quote

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest organization representing physicians, recommended that gender-transition surgeries for children be generally delayed until they reach adulthood.

The new guidance reversed the AMA’s prior endorsement of “transgender” surgeries for kids.

The group said it backpedaled because “the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement,” National Review reported Tuesday.

Huh.

Quote

Essentially, the AMA said there wasn’t enough research to show that the risks of life-altering surgeries — such as mastectomies for minors — outweigh their supposed benefits.

The AMA still supports treating children for gender issues by using puberty blockers and hormone drugs, but underscored that surgical interventions should be delayed until the patients become adults.

I wonder if this "split the difference" approach (no on surgical intervention, yes on puberty blockers) will stand the test of time.  If the AMA previously postulated that "the evidence" supported surgical intervention, and is now backtracking, will it do the same - eventually - with endocrine treatments?

Quote

The updated AMA recommendation came a week after a jury awarded $2 million in damages to a woman who got a double mastectomy at age 16, when she identified for a time as “transgender.”
...
With the jury’s decision and the ASPS announcement, the AMA’s change of course was the third major blow to the “transgender” medical establishment in less than a week.

The fact that the largest, most influential group representing doctors has reversed its unrestricted endorsement of gender-related treatments for children suggests that fear of costly lawsuits may restore some common sense into this rogue practice.

Huh.  Once lawsuits become successful, the AMA changes what @Analytics characterized as its "evidence-based" position on surgical intervention for minors.

Quote

Just five years ago, the AMA urged governors to block state laws that would ban gender-transition surgeries for children.

 

In its absurd April 2021 letter, the AMA claimed cases of gender dysphoria “are normal variations of human identity and expression,” so kids should be allowed to get sex-change surgeries and undergo hormone treatments at any age.

“For gender diverse individuals, standards of care and accepted medically necessary services that affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria may include mental health counseling, non-medical social transition, gender-affirming hormone therapy, and/or gender-affirming surgeries. Clinical guidelines established by professional medical organizations for the care of minors promote these supportive interventions based on the current evidence and that enable young people to explore and live the gender that they choose,” the letter stated. [Emphasis added.]

Huh.  

If the AMA had changed its stance based on evidence, principles, etc., I would appreciate and respect that.  But I don't think that is what happened.  I think the AMA was ideologically compromised in its prior position, and it is now reversing course because of the lawsuit.

American Medical Association now opposes gender surgery for minors

Quote

The American Medical Association (AMA) has changed its position on trans surgeries for minors.

Shortly after a plastic surgeons group issued guidance urging members to wait to perform trans surgeries until the patient turns 19, the AMA announced it opposed such surgeries on minors.

“The evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement,” the AMA told National Review.

Huh.  Was the evidence also "insufficient" five years ago, when the AMA specifically ratified and endorsed "gender-affirming surgeries"?

Quote

The AMA, however, still supports puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors who identify as the opposite sex.

Again, I'll be curious if the AMA eventually changes course on this as well.

Another Major Medical Group Reverses Course On Trans Surgeries For Minors

Quote

The American Medical Association (AMA) — which wields major influence as the nation’s largest medical association — has reversed course on its position concerning transgender surgical procedures for minors.

In a statement to National Review, the AMA said “the evidence for gender-affirming surgical intervention in minors is insufficient for us to make a definitive statement,” adding that it “agrees” with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) “that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”

The AMA added that it supports “evidence-based treatment,” including other types of so-called gender-affirming care for minors.
...
The pivot from the AMA is particularly stark, since the association has gone all-in on transgender procedures for minors even in the face of mounting evidence that such action is harmful and often irreversible.
...

Mere months ago, the AMA reaffirmed its commitment to transgender procedures for minors in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which effectively allowed states to ban such surgeries. 

“The American Medical Association is disappointed in today’s decision that opens the door to further intrusion into patient care and harmful government interference into the practice of medicine,” AMA President Dr. Bobby Mukkamala said in a statement after the ruling came down.

Mukkamala added, “The AMA opposes efforts by the government to insert itself into the patient-physician relationship and interfere in clinical decision-making with no regard for the clinical standards of care.”
...
Additionally, in 2023, the AMA passed a resolution that committed to “opposing any criminal and legal penalties against patients seeking gender-affirming care, family members or guardians who support them in seeking medical care, and health care facilities and clinicians who provide gender-affirming care.”

Ideologically compromised.  I think that is what happened in the AMA.  It probably still is compromised, but just cravenly bowing to reality.

First major medical org comes out against trans surgeries for minors

Quote

ASPS is the first major medical association to clearly disavow gender-transition surgeries for minors. The organization represents more than 11,000 physicians and was founded in 1931.

Other medical associations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American Medical Association (AMA) for example have remained firmly in support of gender-related surgical interventions for adolescents. The APA said in December after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) moved to restrict medical centers from performing gender-related surgeries on children, that it was “committed to ensuring that all children — including gender-diverse youth and children covered by Medicaid — receive care that is backed by science, delivered with compassion, and offered without political interference.”

Interesting stuff.

Shocking Details Emerge In Landmark $2 Million ‘Trans’ Malpractice Judgment

Tough reading, this.

Quote

New details have emerged in the case of a young female detransitioner who last week won a $2 million judgment against the doctors who performed a double mastectomy on her when she was just 16 years old.

Notably, the plaintiff, Fox Varian, had her healthy breasts removed about one year after she first started questioning her gender. The teen’s mother was also pressured into signing off on the surgery, as one medical professional effectively said Varian would kill herself without the surgery.

 

Varian was given the name Isabella at birth, but changed it numerous times during the fallout from her parents’ split, which included the estrangement of her father, independent journalist Benjamin Ryan said on X. Ryan was in the courtroom for the entire trial, and reported for the Free Press.

The young girl suffered from depression, anxiety, and social phobia and was diagnosed with autism and bounced around various schools, Ryan said. She also suffered from eating disorders and body-image issues.

However, at just 15 years old, she started to question her gender “during sessions with her psychologist,” who has been identified as psychologist Kenneth Einhorn. Just 11 months after Varian started to socially “transition,” the 16-year-old was on an operating table, where Dr. Simon Chin removed her healthy breasts.

In another shocking, yet unsurprising detail, Varian’s mother, Claire Deacon, was pressured by medical professionals, namely Einhorn, into signing off on her daughter’s surgical transition. Einhorn insisted Varian was going to kill herself without the surgery. Deacon was effectively presented with the option of having a dead daughter or a “son” who has undergone trans procedures.

This last bolded part has been a very common element justifying medical interventions.  AFAICS, in no other circumstance do doctors justify medical intervention on an "otherwise the patient will kill herself" basis.

Quote

The jury found that medical professionals failed to consider other possible explanations for Varian’s mental health issues — like depression, ADHD, autism, or body dysmorphia — and rushed to approve an irreversible surgery.

Varian, who recently turned 22, was awarded roughly $1.6 million for past and future suffering, and an additional $400,000 for future medical costs.

Frankly, that's a small judgment given what she went through and will endure for the rest of her life.  I would not be surprised to see future judgments of a substantially larger amount.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 6 by smac97

[longview]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ideologically compromised.  I think that is what happened in the AMA.  It probably still is compromised, but just cravenly bowing to reality.

From Shane Harris in Amacs News Report:

Quote

So, what changed for the AMA and ASPS? The unstated answer is the verdict in New York. If there’s one thing that institutional organizations like the AMA are scared of more than being targeted by the woke mob, it’s lawsuits that will cost their members big money. Now that doctors have to worry about being sued for chopping body parts off healthy children and prescribing them drugs that will disfigure them for life, the “evidence” that we were all told supported child gender transitions has suddenly gone missing.

But while the AMA and ASPS are scrambling to protect their pocketbooks, what they don’t realize is that they’ve exposed that “gender-affirming care” was built on a pack of lies all along. No new “evidence” has emerged in the past week that would justify such an astonishing 180 – going from insisting that child gender surgeries are medically necessary to recommending that doctors wait until a patient is 19 before putting them under the knife.

In other words, the medical establishment is admitting that promoting transgender surgeries for minors was about politics all along and had nothing to do with “the science.” The “evidence” was always bogus, and these groups that are supposed to uphold “do no harm” as their highest principle discarded it as soon as it seemed culturally advantageous to do so.

The collapse of the transgender industrial complex is undoubtedly a major, historic victory – for detransitioners, for parents, for future generations of kids, and for basic common sense. It is perhaps most of all a victory for those who struggled through years of cancellation, deplatforming, and personal sacrifice to stand up for the truth and expose the lies of transgender ideology. Just a few years ago, saying what the AMA is now acknowledging was enough to get your account banned on Twitter and a meeting with your HR office at work. Now the tables have turned.

But we also cannot forget the tragic, irreparable harm that was done to untold numbers of children and families. Those who enabled and encouraged this harm shouldn’t be allowed to memory-hole their complicity or escape accountability. The battle is won, but the war is far from over.

"The collapse of the transgender industrial complex is undoubtedly a major, historic victory – for detransitioners, for parents, for future generations of kids, and for basic common sense."

"But we also cannot forget the tragic, irreparable harm that was done to untold numbers of children and families. Those who enabled and encouraged this harm shouldn’t be allowed to memory-hole their complicity or escape accountability. The battle is won, but the war is far from over."

Edited February 5 by longview

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, longview said:

Now that doctors have to worry about being sued for chopping body parts off healthy children and prescribing them drugs that will disfigure them for life, the “evidence” that we were all told supported child gender transitions has suddenly gone missing.

Yeah, that’s not a bias sourced for mind reading motivations. 

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Yeah, that’s not a bias sourced for mind reading motivations. 

I think it is a reasonable inference.

[Analytics]

On 2/4/2026 at 4:48 PM, smac97 said:

...None of these claims by Analytics was substantively true or accurate, not then and not now.  Falsehoods and mischaracterizations needs to be treated as such....

Hi Smac,

First, thanks for flagging me in this conversation and giving me a chance to respond.

I wrote a brief response to your list of claims I've made that are allegedly not "substantively true or accurate." I then ran my response through ChatGPT 5.2 Pro. ChatGPT 5.2 Pro is a higher-end, research-grade reasoning model compared to other AI models, optimized for long-form analysis, source-checking, and careful reconstruction of complex arguments rather than quick conversational output. In this exchange, I asked it to do research-grade work: reviewing and cross-checking my representation of past posts and cited sources, verifying whether my summaries were faithful to what I actually argued, and restating those arguments accurately while testing them against the relevant scientific and conceptual background. The model took about 20 minutes to run. 

I stand behind the following summary of what I actually said, and I believe that what I said was in fact substantively true and accurate.

Pediatric transition care / professional guidance
My basic point was not that I’m a clinician or that I’ve personally adjudicated the medical literature. My point was that the public rhetoric routinely attacks a cartoon version of pediatric care, while mainstream professional guidance and real-world practice are far more cautious and constrained than political commentary implies. I generally defer to mainstream medical institutions as better-faith, better-informed summaries than culture-war punditry, and I emphasized physician-driven decision-making. If you want to argue that mainstream institutions are themselves unreliable or captured, that’s a separate claim—but it isn’t a demonstration that what I said was “not accurate.”

“Trans ideology”
My position has been ordinary liberal pluralism: leave people alone, allow basic social accommodation, and treat medical decisions as matters for patients, parents/guardians, and competent clinicians rather than legislators, pundits, or online tribunals. Disagreeing with your framing or with culture-war rhetoric is not, by itself, “trans ideology,” and characterizing mainstream pluralism as partisan capture is an assertion you repeatedly make rather than something you establish.

Science-based arguments and religion (Sean Carroll / physics)
[see my next post--this one is worth fleshing out]

SEC / Ensign Peak
My claim was epistemic, not courtroom-procedural. I treated the SEC’s enforcement order as highly credible evidence: the product of an investigation by a professional regulator, issued in an enforcement context, with institutional costs for getting it wrong. I spoke loosely at points about “facts” in the common-sense sense (what we have strong reason to believe happened), not in the narrow sense of “facts proven in an adversarial trial.” It is fair to note that SEC orders are not judicial adjudications and that respondents may settle without admitting wrongdoing. It is not fair to leap from that procedural truth to “therefore the findings should be treated as wobbly or as if we have no strong reason to believe them.” If you think the SEC’s factual narrative is materially unreliable here, that requires an argument for unreliability—not merely pointing out that the order is not a trial verdict.

Terryl Givens
In one post I summarized a podcast argument and then drew an inference about what certain concessions might imply. You objected that my inference was not warranted and noted that Givens denied the “fraud” characterization. I accepted that point and later explicitly acknowledged the overreach/apologized for attributing that conclusion to him. Treating that one episode—especially after the later clarification—as evidence of a broader pattern of dishonesty is not a fair reading of what occurred.

“Bigot” characterization
I did not claim that disagreement alone makes you a bigot. I argued that specific behaviors—repeatedly collapsing nuanced positions into caricature, refusing to acknowledge opposing arguments even when stated carefully, and treating extreme hypotheticals as representative—function in practice as a bigoted posture toward an outgroup (i.e., a refusal of basic interpretive charity and equal moral standing). You can disagree with that moral/behavioral assessment. But it is not accurate to reframe it as “Analytics called me a bigot simply for disagreeing,” because that is not what I said or what I argued at the time.

Stepping back: in none of these cases do your links establish that my claims were “substantively not true or accurate.” What they show is persistent disagreement—often about framing, emphasis, and rhetoric—which you then redescribe as falsity. Disagreement is not refutation, and pointing out that a regulatory order is not a court verdict (or that a forum post used punchy shorthand) does not retroactively convert the underlying claims into “falsehoods and mischaracterizations.”

[Analytics]

On 2/4/2026 at 4:48 PM, smac97 said:

In 2021 Analytics substantially exaggerated and mischaracterized a purportedly "scientific" claim that a "science-based argument" exists which "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."  Except, well, the person making that argument was considerably more constrained in what he was arguing.  See here and here and here.  

I wrote a response to this, and asked ChatGPT 5.2 Pro to do the following: 1- research what I've said on this topics in past conversations here, 2- research what Sean Carroll has said about what physics has "proven", 3- evaluate whether I represent Carroll's arguments correctly and whether Carroll's arguments are in fact supported by the underlying science, and 4- evaluate whether I represented these things and whether I overstated the science. 

The verdict is that I did not substantially exaggerate or mischaracterize the positive, science-based evidence that some fundamental truth claims are implausible  and that this constitutes strong evidence that the Church's fundamental truth claims are false (the following is AI rewriting my response and validating everything it says):

Carroll, “Core Theory,” and LDS Truth Claims About Spirits and Revelation
I want to restate, succinctly and clearly, what I meant when I appealed to “science-based arguments” against literal claims about spirits and revelation.

Two clarifications up front.

First, when I use the word prove, I’m writing in what Steven Pinker calls classic style: ordinary language that relies on reasonable reader charity rather than endless hedging. In that register, prove means “meets an extremely high evidential burden—something like beyond a reasonable doubt—given what we currently know.” It does not mean metaphysical certainty or logical impossibility.

Second, I am not claiming that physics “disproves God” in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense. I’m addressing a narrower target: specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain—revelation arriving in the mind and heart, the Holy Ghost “dwelling” in a person, spiritual promptings conveying information, and so on.

Applying Carroll to LDS claims
This application is straightforward because LDS scripture does not merely speak in metaphor. It explicitly describes causal contact: spirit as a kind of matter, revelation as informational content delivered to minds, and a spirit personage that can interact with human beings. Taken literally, these claims imply an additional information channel that alters brain states in a directed way—thoughts, impressions, warnings, knowledge.

That is exactly the sort of claim Sean Carroll is addressing when he talks about psychic powers: non-standard causal influences on the everyday physical world. The LDS version is more theologically specific, but the relevant feature is the same—causal interaction with ordinary matter.

Is Carroll’s argument supported by science?
Carroll’s claim is narrower than many critics suggest. Within the everyday-life regime—the energies and scales governing chemistry, biology, and brains—effective quantum field theory (the Standard Model plus weak-field gravity) appears complete in the specific sense that any additional particles or forces that still exist must be too weak, too heavy, or too rare to matter for everyday phenomena.

This isn’t rhetorical hand-waving. It’s grounded in effective field theory reasoning, particle-physics constraints, and decades of experimental results that tightly limit new interactions that couple to ordinary matter. Carroll is explicit that this is not metaphysical certainty; it’s an evidential claim within a defined domain.

Disagreeing with him requires more than saying “science doesn’t know everything.” It requires specifying a mechanism that both produces the claimed effects and respects existing constraints.

Absence of evidence vs. positive evidence
This is not merely “we haven’t detected spirits yet.” The argument is stronger. If something can reliably inject specific information into a brain, it must couple to the physical systems that implement cognition. Couplings strong enough to do that are not epiphenomenal; they are part of the causal economy of the everyday world—and such couplings typically leave detectable fingerprints elsewhere.

So the most defensible high-confidence conclusion is this: we have very strong reasons to reject spirits-as-causal-agents-in-everyday-physics, absent a concrete, constraint-respecting mechanism. That’s beyond-reasonable-doubt territory, not metaphysical omniscience.

If one retreats to “spirits exist but never interact with matter,” physics is silent—but so is the religious claim, which has abandoned the causal content LDS scripture assigns to revelation.

Would informed readers agree?
Many scientifically literate readers would. Once the target claim is clearly specified—a real causal interface that changes brain states—the issue moves out of vague metaphysics and into a domain where physics can legitimately say: there is effectively no room for that.

At that point, disputing the conclusion requires paying a steep price: rejecting physicalism, positing an undetectable yet information-rich interaction, or reinterpreting LDS claims non-literally. None of those moves refute the argument; they concede its force.

That is why, in classic style, saying that physics provides very strong evidence against literal spirit-to-brain messaging is not exaggeration. It is simply stating what the evidential situation implies.

[Nofear]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

I wrote a response to this, and asked ChatGPT 5.2 Pro to do the following: 1- research what I've said on this topics in past conversations here, 2- research what Sean Carroll has said about what physics has "proven", 3- evaluate whether I represent Carroll's arguments correctly and whether Carroll's arguments are in fact supported by the underlying science, and 4- evaluate whether I represented these things and whether I overstated the science. 

The verdict is that I did not substantially exaggerate or mischaracterize the positive, science-based evidence that some fundamental truth claims are implausible  and that this constitutes strong evidence that the Church's fundamental truth claims are false (the following is AI rewriting my response and validating everything it says):

Carroll, “Core Theory,” and LDS Truth Claims About Spirits and Revelation
I want to restate, succinctly and clearly, what I meant when I appealed to “science-based arguments” against literal claims about spirits and revelation.

Two clarifications up front.

First, when I use the word prove, I’m writing in what Steven Pinker calls classic style: ordinary language that relies on reasonable reader charity rather than endless hedging. In that register, prove means “meets an extremely high evidential burden—something like beyond a reasonable doubt—given what we currently know.” It does not mean metaphysical certainty or logical impossibility.

Second, I am not claiming that physics “disproves God” in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense. I’m addressing a narrower target: specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain—revelation arriving in the mind and heart, the Holy Ghost “dwelling” in a person, spiritual promptings conveying information, and so on.

Applying Carroll to LDS claims
This application is straightforward because LDS scripture does not merely speak in metaphor. It explicitly describes causal contact: spirit as a kind of matter, revelation as informational content delivered to minds, and a spirit personage that can interact with human beings. Taken literally, these claims imply an additional information channel that alters brain states in a directed way—thoughts, impressions, warnings, knowledge.

That is exactly the sort of claim Sean Carroll is addressing when he talks about psychic powers: non-standard causal influences on the everyday physical world. The LDS version is more theologically specific, but the relevant feature is the same—causal interaction with ordinary matter.

Is Carroll’s argument supported by science?
Carroll’s claim is narrower than many critics suggest. Within the everyday-life regime—the energies and scales governing chemistry, biology, and brains—effective quantum field theory (the Standard Model plus weak-field gravity) appears complete in the specific sense that any additional particles or forces that still exist must be too weak, too heavy, or too rare to matter for everyday phenomena.

This isn’t rhetorical hand-waving. It’s grounded in effective field theory reasoning, particle-physics constraints, and decades of experimental results that tightly limit new interactions that couple to ordinary matter. Carroll is explicit that this is not metaphysical certainty; it’s an evidential claim within a defined domain.

Disagreeing with him requires more than saying “science doesn’t know everything.” It requires specifying a mechanism that both produces the claimed effects and respects existing constraints.

Absence of evidence vs. positive evidence
This is not merely “we haven’t detected spirits yet.” The argument is stronger. If something can reliably inject specific information into a brain, it must couple to the physical systems that implement cognition. Couplings strong enough to do that are not epiphenomenal; they are part of the causal economy of the everyday world—and such couplings typically leave detectable fingerprints elsewhere.

So the most defensible high-confidence conclusion is this: we have very strong reasons to reject spirits-as-causal-agents-in-everyday-physics, absent a concrete, constraint-respecting mechanism. That’s beyond-reasonable-doubt territory, not metaphysical omniscience.

If one retreats to “spirits exist but never interact with matter,” physics is silent—but so is the religious claim, which has abandoned the causal content LDS scripture assigns to revelation.

Would informed readers agree?
Many scientifically literate readers would. Once the target claim is clearly specified—a real causal interface that changes brain states—the issue moves out of vague metaphysics and into a domain where physics can legitimately say: there is effectively no room for that.

At that point, disputing the conclusion requires paying a steep price: rejecting physicalism, positing an undetectable yet information-rich interaction, or reinterpreting LDS claims non-literally. None of those moves refute the argument; they concede its force.

That is why, in classic style, saying that physics provides very strong evidence against literal spirit-to-brain messaging is not exaggeration. It is simply stating what the evidential situation implies.

This discussion would be off topic for the thread so I shan't get into much beyond this comment. But, LDS theology very much does open itself up to criticism because of the theology's physicalism. In most interpretations we don't just have physical matter, we have actual, literal, honest-to-goodness in the universe spirit matter (and I'd also argue intelligent matter). That means there are, in theory, practical and actual observables that should be available to inspection. Whereas,  Hellenized Christianity sidesteps the issues with dualism, the utter audacity of Mormonism is that it does not. 

I acknowledge the claims, the constraints, and pressure points. I have a personal framework for LDS theology that I believe addresses these issues. For me the Gospel isn't just true, it is real in every sense that the physical world around me is real.

[smac97]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/02/waiting-for-the-cascade.php

Discusses similarities between so-called "gender-affirming care" and lobotomies.  The comparison is troublingly apt.

Lobotomy: Surgical intervention to address psychiatric issues.

"Gender-affirming care": Surgical intervention to address psychiatric issues.

Also discussed is the apparent "preference cascade" happening re: "gender-affirming care" for minors.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

From The Atlantic (!): 

The Tide Goes Out on Youth Gender Medicine
American doctors are no longer united on the wisdom of medicalizing gender dysphoria in minors.

Quote

As the shaky evidence base for youth gender medicine has become better known, activists have retreated to an argument from authority. Never mind the Cass Report, whose findings resulted in the closure of Britain’s leading youth gender clinic. Never mind the study by a leading American practitioner showing that the treatments she championed did not improve minors’ mental health. Never mind reports that some adolescents were being put on a medical pathway after only a single clinic visit. For advocates, the important thing to remember was that “gender-affirming care” for minors—puberty blockers and hormones, plus surgery in rare cases—was endorsed by all of the major American medical associations.

That second link goes to an October 2022 Reuters article with the following parts:

Quote

Part 1: A Dearth of Science ("Increasing numbers of adolescents are seeking to medically transition amid many unknowns about the risks and efficacy of treatment.")

Part 2: The Social Element ("Most adolescents receiving gender care were assigned female at birth, sparking debate about whether social media plays a part.")

Part 3: Lost in Limbo ("England's overhaul of gender care for trans minors has added to years-long delays in treatment, raising new barriers to care.")

Part 4: The Matter of Regret ("Understanding detransition and regret, long taboo subjects in gender care, could help improve treatment of trans youths, researchers say.") 

I also just came across this excellent article: 

The Turning Tide on Medicalized Gender Interventions for Kids

Quote

In 2023, in the wake of a mental health crisis among America’s youth and an exponential rise in gender clinics pushing medical interventions to alter children’s bodies in response to gender dysphoria,[1] Idaho enacted the Vulnerable Child Protection Act.[2] As its name suggests, the law aims to protect children who feel uncomfortable with their sex from drugs and procedures that disrupt the body’s natural development  causing lifelong harm.

Since the law was passed, there have been significant changes in the world’s understanding of the science and medicine surrounding so-called “gender-affirming care.” As will be discussed below, countries that pioneered medicalized gender interventions have reversed course and the interest groups that vouched for its safety have been discredited.[3] It is now clear that the widely touted “Standards of Care” were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest.[4]

"{W}idely touted 'Standards of Care' were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest."

Yep.

Quote

There have also been changes on the legal and policy front in the United States. The 2024 election ushered in a reversal of federal policy on gender issues.[5] And on June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Tennessee law protecting children from medicalized gender interventions.[6] Together, these changes reflect a turning of the tide on gender interventions for kids in the United States.

This article gives a brief description of Idaho’s law and the medical context. Next, it explains the politicization that drove the alleged medical consensus around treating children with gender dysphoria and the recent course reversal. Then it addresses the country’s changing political and popular culture. Finally, it explains the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld laws, like Idaho’s, as constitutional.

The entire article is worth a read.  The section entitled "The Discredited Standards of Care" is particularly good.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

And the hit parade continues, this time Down Under: Cairns Clinic Scandal: Urgent Call to Halt Child Transition

Quote

Family First Party National Director and lead NSW Legislative Council candidate Lyle Shelton today called on all state and federal governments to bring the so-called "gender affirmation" experiment on children to an immediate end, following the damning 213-page review into the Cairns paediatric gender health service.

Commissioned by Queensland Health Director-General David Rosengren in January 2025 and released last week, the report found the clinical environment was "not reliably safe for paediatric clients", with mixed adult-child settings, unsecured medications and incomplete risk assessments for high-risk adolescents.

Hmm.  I had not heard about this story.

Quote

"Children as young as 12 were commenced on puberty blockers, with others placed on testosterone, without adequate documentation of assessments or monitoring," the investigators found.

A December 2024 audit of 17 patient files revealed "major deficiencies", including incomplete clinical notes, missing baseline tests, absence of consent documentation and lack of paediatric or mental health input. In many cases, Gillick competency assessments were "either not done or not recorded". Some young people with developmental delays were prescribed medication despite lacking the capacity to understand the treatment.

Staff told investigators they were asked to prescribe puberty blockers "almost as a technician rather than as part of a multidisciplinary assessment" and feared reprisal for raising patient safety concerns. Parents who objected to treatment were "basically alienated".

Good grief.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 2/5/2026 at 5:23 PM, Analytics said:

I am not claiming that physics “disproves God” in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense. I’m addressing a narrower target: specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain—revelation arriving in the mind and heart, the Holy Ghost “dwelling” in a person, spiritual promptings conveying information, and so on.

@Analytics (speaking of Sean Carroll's scientific conclusions) : "I am not claiming that physics 'disproves God' in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense."

Also Analytics (also speaking of Sean Carroll's scientific conclusions) : 

• "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen."
• "It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) 'supernatural' forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case."
• "I pointed out that we know from Effective Quantum Field Theory that the miracles in and around the Book of Mormon did not happen."
• "Earlier in this thread, smac97 asked me when, precisely, science proved that spirits don’t exist. The answer to that question is that this knowledge started to emerge in 1989 when the Large Electron-Positron Collider was first fired up."
• "I've presented evidence from mainstream physics that shows basic truth claims of Mormonism, such as the existence of spirits and revelation, are flatly disproven."
• "{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science because they make concrete claims about the real world. As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."
• "According to the massive experimental evidence supporting it, quantum field theory is true, within its domain of applicability. And if quantum field theory is true, we know there is not a mysterious thing made out of "more fine and pure matter" that connects with the brain in a way that has enough energy to have any effect on how the brain functions."

Science (especially physics) cannot definitively prove or disprove God, spirits, or non-falsifiable "supernatural" or miraculous claims. Carroll is a philosophical naturalist expressing a strong opinion that, though grounded in current physics, is not a neutral scientific pronouncement. Science operates, or should operate, under methodological/empirical naturalism, and hence it has epistemic limits. The apparent absence of detectable spirit-forces is not conclusive evidence of absence. Religious experience, historical claims, and philosophy of science provide space for theism.

"Science" by design cannot test non-empirical or non-falsifiable claims. A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside its jurisdiction. Carroll seems to concede this, but Analytics does not ("{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science...").  Moreover, as I have noted a few times, neither Carroll nor Analytics claim to have a coherent definition of "God" and "spirits."

The Book of Mormon does make some historical claims that are susceptible to some empirical testing/evaluation (geography, archaeology).  However, miraculous elements (angelic visits, translation via seer stones, etc.) are, by definition, not repeatable lab experiments, nor are they otherwise empirically testable/falsifiable. Physics does not "disprove" a one-time divine act any more than it disproves the Resurrection or any other singular miracle.

Carroll is a lucid, careful advocate for naturalism, but he does not deliver the absolute "science has disproved spirits/God" verdict that Analytics attributes to him. My comments pertain to the limits of science, the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and the need for epistemic humility.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[Analytics]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Science (especially physics) cannot definitively prove or disprove God, spirits, or non-falsifiable "supernatural" or miraculous claims.

Are you sure? There are stories in the Bible of God manifesting Himself to skeptics. E.g. Elijah, doubting Thomas. Are you really telling me that if God the Father in His body of Flesh and Bones appeared to a team of scientists and offered to let them examine Him as thoroughly as they want, they would end up saying, “sorry. We just don’t have the tools to prove or disprove whether You exist or not.”?

While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of, say, the alleged invisible, incorporeal, undetectable, unfalsifiable, ad hoc dragon that Carl Sagan says lives in his garage, as soon as there are claims that this dragon interfaces with the particles and forces of everyday reality, it enters the realm of science.  

That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, "specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain."

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

The apparent absence of detectable spirit-forces is not conclusive evidence of absence.

The argument is much stronger than the mere “absence of detectable spirt forces.” The argument is that if “spirits” (whatever they are) exist and interface with our brains, then our extraordinarily well-confirmed low-energy quantum field theory is fundamentally wrong and would need substantial revision. While scientific humility requires admitting that any theory could in principle be revised, low-energy quantum field theory is arguably the most exhaustively tested and empirically vindicated framework in all of physics, confirmed to astonishing precision across an enormous range of phenomena. In the same colloquial sense that we say gravity is “proven,” modern physics has “proven” (i.e. "gives us extremely strong reason to believe”) there are no undiscovered forces capable of mediating reliable spirit–brain interaction in the everyday world, regardless of what hypothesized “spirits” actually are.

In the words of Dr. Carroll, “I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind. The reason we can say that with confidence relies heavily on the specific form that the laws of physics take. Modern physics not only tells us that certain things are true; it comes with a built-in way of delineating the limits of that knowledge—where our theories cease to be reliable.” (p. 155)

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Science" by design cannot test non-empirical or non-falsifiable claims.

The claim that spirits interact with a physical brain is an empirical claim.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside its jurisdiction. Carroll seems to concede this, but Analytics does not ("{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science..."). 

The claim that there is somehow a “ghost in the machine” is a claim of a spirit producing reliable, information-bearing effects in the particles and fields of the human brain. This is a claim about physical processes. Any such process would fall under the constraints of our extraordinarily well-confirmed low-energy physics, which tightly limits the existence of additional forces capable of mediating such effects.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Moreover, as I have noted a few times, neither Carroll nor Analytics claim to have a coherent definition of "God" and "spirits."

My argument does not depend on a specific metaphysical definition of “spirit.” It applies to any hypothesized entity that interacts with ordinary matter (e.g. brains) with enough force to affect them in the realm of our ordinary experiences (i.e. strong enough to stimulate a change in the brain strong enough to fire a neuron). Carroll’s analysis is general: any additional particle or force that is relevant to the everyday world is tightly constrained by our extraordinarily well-confirmed low-energy physics. 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Carroll is a lucid, careful advocate for naturalism, but he does not deliver the absolute "science has disproved spirits/God" verdict that Analytics attributes to him. My comments pertain to the limits of science, the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and the need for epistemic humility.

The point isn’t to merely advocate for naturalism. The point is to explain how strong the theory of Quantum Mechanics actually is, and what it implies about the possibility of unknown forces, particles, or even virtual particles that could interact with the human brain. 

Neither Sean Carroll nor I are arguing that "science has disproved spirits/God.” As you quoted me at the top of your post, "I am not claiming that physics “disproves God” in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense. I’m addressing a narrower target: specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain—revelation arriving in the mind and heart, the Holy Ghost “dwelling” in a person, spiritual promptings conveying information, and so on."

Edited February 17 by Analytics

[Analytics]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Carroll is a lucid, careful advocate for naturalism, but he does not deliver the absolute "science has disproved spirits/God" verdict that Analytics attributes to him. My comments pertain to the limits of science, the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and the need for epistemic humility.

You are misunderstanding him. Sean Carroll argues that “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known."

Quote

 

Quantum field theory is an immensely powerful framework. If Godzilla and the Hulk had a baby, and that baby was a framework describing a certain kind of physical theory, that baby would be quantum field theory.

“Powerful” doesn’t mean “capable of smashing cities to rubble.” (Although quantum field theory is that, since it’s the only way we have of describing one kind of particle transforming into another one, which is a crucial part of nuclear reactions and therefore nuclear weapons.) When we’re talking about scientific theories, powerful actually means restrictive—a powerful theory is one in which there are many things that simply cannot happen. The power we’re talking about here is the ability to start with very few assumptions and draw conclusions that are reliable and wide-ranging in their scope. Quantum field theory doesn’t knock down buildings lying in its path; it knocks down our speculations about what kinds of things can happen in physical reality.

The claim we’re making is pretty audacious:

• Claim: The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known.

An assertion like that invites a great deal of skepticism. It’s bombastic, self-congratulatory, and it doesn’t seem that hard to think of plausible ways in which our understanding could be dramatically incomplete. It sounds an awful lot like all the many times throughout history when some great thinker or another boasted that the quest for perfect knowledge was nearly complete. Every one of which turned out to be hilariously premature.

But we’re not claiming that all the laws of physics are known, only a restricted set that suffices to describe what happens at the level underlying everyday life. Even that sounds pretty presumptuous. Surely there must be all sorts of ways to add new particles or forces to the Core Theory that could be important to everyday-level physics, or for that matter new kinds of phenomena that fall outside the scope of quantum field theory entirely. Right?

Not so. The situation now really is different from the way it has ever been at previous moments in the history of science. Not only do we have a successful theory, but we also know how far that theory can be extended before it ceases to be reliable. That’s just how powerful quantum field theory is.

 

Carroll, Sean M. . The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 178-179). (Function). Kindle Edition. 

[Analytics]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Carroll is a lucid, careful advocate for naturalism, but he does not deliver the absolute "science has disproved spirits/God" verdict that Analytics attributes to him. My comments pertain to the limits of science, the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and the need for epistemic humility.

One final point.

Carroll argued that we “know" some things, and what we know is enough to "rule out" some other things. The “other things” it rules out don’t include “God” or “spirits” in an undefined sense. But it does rule out a spirit interfacing with the human body.

Refuting this claim with a call for epistemic humility reminded me of when I was in high school. A friend told me another student had “proven” Einstein wrong and shown that faster-than-light travel was possible. Curious, I asked for the proof. He said, “Simple. If a spaceship accelerates, it goes faster every second. Keep accelerating long enough and eventually it exceeds the speed of light. It’s obvious.”

I was underwhelmed. At the time I didn’t understand Einstein’s argument for relativity, but I was confident that he was aware of Newtonian acceleration and had built his theory precisely to address such intuitions.

So here’s the question: who needed the lesson in epistemic humility—the physicist whose theory had survived extraordinary scrutiny, or the student who dismissed it without engaging the structure of the argument?

Humility cuts both ways.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Science (especially physics) cannot definitively prove or disprove God, spirits, or non-falsifiable "supernatural" or miraculous claims.

Are you sure?

Reasonably, but not totally, yes.  And you've agreed with me, except when you haven't.

Spencer: Science {} cannot definitively prove or disprove God, spirits, or non-falsifiable "supernatural" or miraculous claims.

Roger: 

• "While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}..."
• "The 'other things' it {science} rules out don’t include 'God' or 'spirits' in an undefined sense."

I've been pretty consistent about this.  You have not.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

There are stories in the Bible of God manifesting Himself to skeptics. E.g. Elijah, doubting Thomas. Are you really telling me that if God the Father in His body of Flesh and Bones appeared to a team of scientists and offered to let them examine Him as thoroughly as they want, they would end up saying, “sorry. We just don’t have the tools to prove or disprove whether You exist or not.”?

To borrow a quote from True Grit: "I do not entertain hypotheticals.  The world as it is is vexing enough."

Neither you nor Carroll can even define the thing the existence of which you propose can be definitively and empirically tested and proven/disproven.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of, say, the alleged invisible, incorporeal, undetectable, unfalsifiable, ad hoc dragon that Carl Sagan says lives in his garage, as soon as there are claims that this dragon interfaces with the particles and forces of everyday reality, it enters the realm of science.

Well, no.  A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside the jurisdiction of "science." Carroll seems to concede this, but you do not ("{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science...").  But at other times, you do concede this ("While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}...").

In any event, feel free to explain how "science" could empirically disprove the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ approximately 2,000 years ago.  I would really like to see the methodology by which such an endeavor would proceed.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, "specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain."

So do all sorts of broadly Christian truth claims.  Like the resurrection.

Jesus Christ is said to have risen from the dead, had His disciples touch him, and he ate fish and honeycomb.  And a while later He ascended into heaven.  All this would have happened 2,000 years ago or so.  How would "science" propose to empirically test and disprove these claims?  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the words of Dr. Carroll, “I’m not claiming that we know everything, or anywhere close to it. I’m claiming that we know some things, and that those things are enough to rule out some other things—including bending spoons with the power of your mind. The reason we can say that with confidence relies heavily on the specific form that the laws of physics take. Modern physics not only tells us that certain things are true; it comes with a built-in way of delineating the limits of that knowledge—where our theories cease to be reliable.” (p. 155)

The claim that spirits interact with a physical brain is an empirical claim.

So you say.  So lay out the "scientific" methodology for disproving it.

I look forward to you defining things like "spirits" and "interact with" in ways that are necessarily binding on the Latter-day Saints, are empirically testable, etc.

From the May 2024 thread:

Quote

Carroll: "Science isn't in the business of proving things."

Roger: "{S}cience has proven that 'spirits' don’t exist."

This seems like a pretty consistent thing with you.  Serene and supreme - and unearned - confidence in your perspective on and interpretation of this or that topic.  I am not saying this to insult you, but to explain why I do not find you to be a reliable or trustworthy guide. 

Seems aptly repeated here.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Neither Sean Carroll nor I are arguing that "science has disproved spirits/God.”

Carroll: "Science isn't in the business of proving things."

Roger: "While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}..."

---

Also Roger: "Earlier in this thread, smac97 asked me when, precisely, science proved that spirits don’t exist. The answer to that question is that this knowledge started to emerge in 1989 when the Large Electron-Positron Collider was first fired up."

Also Roger: "I've presented evidence from mainstream physics that shows basic truth claims of Mormonism, such as the existence of spirits and revelation, are flatly disproven."

Also Roger: "{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science because they make concrete claims about the real world. As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."

Also Roger: "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen."

Which of you, Roger or Sean, is accurately stating what "science" is in the "business" of doing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

One final point.

Carroll argued that we “know" some things, and what we know is enough to "rule out" some other things.

Right.  Even though neither he nor you can even define those "other things."

Also, do you see any inconsistency Carroll's proposition that "Science isn't in the business of proving things" and also his proposition, as you frame it, that "we know is enough to 'rule out' some other things"?  What is the difference between "ruling out" something and "disproving" it?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The “other things” it rules out don’t include “God” or “spirits” in an undefined sense. But it does rule out a spirit interfacing with the human body.

"{I}n an undefined sense."  This seems evasive.  No need to retract substantial overstatements or substantiate them by defining their essential terms.  You just seem to be waving off the substantial inconsistency in your position by employing the phrase "in an undefined sense," the meaning of which itself is obscure.

Roger: "The 'other things' it rules out don’t include 'God' or 'spirits' in an undefined sense."

Also Roger: "Earlier in this thread, smac97 asked me when, precisely, science proved that spirits don’t exist. The answer to that question is that this knowledge started to emerge in 1989 when the Large Electron-Positron Collider was first fired up."

Also Roger: "I've presented evidence from mainstream physics that shows basic truth claims of Mormonism, such as the existence of spirits and revelation, are flatly disproven."

Also Roger: "{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science because they make concrete claims about the real world. As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."

Also Roger: 

Quote

Quote

{S}cience, in its present form, can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, or the existence of spirits.

Do you know how silly that sounds?

I trust that you are not intentionally talking out of both sides of your mouth.  But it seems difficult to conclude, in the alternative, that you just do not perceive how profoundly inconsistent your statements are with each other.  You are far too intelligent for me to readily reach that conclusion.  So I'm not sure how to proceed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You are misunderstanding him. Sean Carroll argues that “the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known."

Yes, yes.  Also Carroll:

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is Carroll "qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" as to the subject matter at hand?  Namely, the existence of God, spirits, etc.?

Is Carroll's "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" something that will help "the trier of fact" (me, or anyone else interesting in the existence of God, spirits, etc.) "understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue?"

Are the "principles or methods that are underlying" in Carroll's book "reliable" in terms of helping someone like me ascertain the existence of God, spirits, etc.?

Are the "principles or methods that are underlying" in Carroll's book "based upon sufficient facts or data" regarding "the existence of God, spirits, etc."?

Has Carroll "reliably applied" the "principles or methods that are underlying" his book "to the facts?"

To answer these questions, the answer is no regarding "the existence of God, spirits, etc." The reason for that is that "God, spirits, etc." are undefined.

And yet you have characterized Carroll's theory as  "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that it is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and that it "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist."

So Carroll has "proven" that these "undefined" things (God and spirits) "don't exist?"  That's what "science" can do?  Disprove the existence of something that isn't even defined?

Quote

However, I would say Carroll is a qualified expert with regards to Effective Quantum Field Theory and the experimental data supporting it, including what it implies about the likelihood of there being unknown energy or particles that can affect our day-to-day reality, including signals to or from the atoms that make up our brains. 

"What it implies about the likelihood?"  

What happened to "the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science," that is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla," and "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist"?

Do you see just a wee bit of difference between

(A) a theory that "provisionally" (as Carroll elsewhere put it) "implies" a "likelihood" of the non-existence of spirits

versus

(B) a theory that, as you assert, is "as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla" and "proves" the non-existence of spirits?

I'm getting whiplash reading your posts.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

.

Edited February 17 by smac97

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Reasonably, but not totally, yes.  And you've agreed with me, except when you haven't.

Spencer: Science {} cannot definitively prove or disprove God, spirits, or non-falsifiable "supernatural" or miraculous claims.

Roger: 

• "While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}..."
• "The 'other things' it {science} rules out don’t include 'God' or 'spirits' in an undefined sense."

I've been pretty consistent about this.  You have not.

I've consistently said that everything that interacts with observable reality is, in principle, within the purview of science. The key is the interaction. I’ve been very consistent on this. 

The big driver of the confusion here is specifically whether spirit-body dualism is inherently non-falsifiable as you seem to believe, or whether it actually is falsifiable and within the purview of science, as Carroll believes. Nearly 400 years ago, Descartes addressed these issues by speculating that the pineal gland in the brain was the specific organ of the physical body that was able to interface with non-physical spirits. We now know that this is debunked--the penal gland produces melatonin and isn’t a special receptor of non-physical signals from a spirit.

As the centuries have ticked by the theory of mind-body dualism continues to be falsifiable, because we can examine from multiple angles the plausibility of something outside of the brain impacting how we think, feel, and make decisions.
 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Carroll seems to concede this, but you do not ("{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science...").  But at other times, you do concede this ("While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}...").

Again, it all has to do with interactions. Are we talking about fire-breathing dragons that are invisible, incorporeal, float in the air, don’t produce heat, don’t leave footprints, and don’t interact in any way with anything in the real world? Or are we talking about about spirits that inhabit our bodies and interact with them and that receive communication from other spiritual entities? Are we talking about power to walk on water, or are we talking about the powers that are indistinguishable from placebo responses? 

Chapter 26 of Big Picture is entitled "Body and Soul”, and in this chapter he goes into detail about why the existence of spirits is within the purview of science. He says, "The Core Theory of contemporary physics describes the atoms and forces that constitute our brains and bodies in exquisite detail, in terms of a rigid and unforgiving set of formal equations that leaves no wiggle room for intervention by nonmaterial influences. The way we talk about immaterial souls, meanwhile, has not risen to that level of sophistication. To imagine that the soul pushes around the electrons and protons and neutrons in our bodies in a way that we haven’t yet detected is certainly conceivable, but it implies that modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed."  (p. 212). 

One is free to believe we have a spirit pulling the strings, but this belief "implies that modern physics is profoundly wrong in a way that has so far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed.” 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Carroll: "Science isn't in the business of proving things."

Roger: "While it’s true that science can’t prove the existence or non-existence of {God}..."

A couple of points. First, the word “prove” means different things depending on the context. Philosophically, we can argue that nothing can be proven, and all science can do is create hypotheses than are either consistent or inconsistent with the evidence. From this ultimate philosophical perspective, nothing is nor can be proven. 

Colloquially, we might say we know things, or say that something is proven, as an informal way of saying that a proposition has so much corroborating evidence that we are extremely confident it is true. While there might really be a one-in-a-million chance that Mary Swanson could end up living happily ever after with Lloyd Christmas, it’s okay to say that we “know” that won’t happen. It’s just a matter of what words you choose and whether the listener is making a good-faith effort to understand what the other person is saying.  

Edited February 18 by Analytics

[smac97]

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

I've consistently said that everything that interacts with observable reality is, in principle, within the purview of science. The key is the interaction. I’ve been very consistent on this. 

Well no, you have not.

You speak of purported differentiations which supposedly isolate Latter-day Saint truth claims from the truth claims of other religious truth claims ("That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, 'specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain.'").  You make sweeping pronouncements about "science" disproving/falsifying Latter-day Saint truth claims, as if they are unique because they "interact with observable reality."  But then when I point out that Christ resurrecting from the dead "interacts with observable reality," a belief shared by billions of people in the world alongside the Latter-day Saints, you gloss over and ignore that.

So, with this "Purview of Science" precept in place, please explain how "science" could empirically disprove the historical reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ approximately 2,000 years ago.  This event necessarily "interact{ed} with observable reality," right?  I would really like to see the methodology by which such an endeavor would proceed.  How would "science" propose to empirically test and disprove this religious truth claim?

Or how about "science" disproving Luke 24?

Quote

13 ¶ And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Well?

• "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen."
• "It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) 'supernatural' forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case."
• "I pointed out that we know from Effective Quantum Field Theory that the miracles in and around the Book of Mormon did not happen."

Luke 24 speaks of miraculous (what you call "supernatural") events.  A resurrected Jesus Christ walking with two of His disciples.  These disciples were affected ("holden") by some miraculous means, such that they did not recognize Him.  They spoke with him, and he with them.  He then "vanished out of their sight."  The disciples then said that while speaking with Him, their "heart{s} burn{ed} within {them}." 

As you claim, "everything that interacts with observable reality is, in principle, within the purview of science."  So this fits the bill.  So soes Effective Quantum Field Theory disprove these claims? 

If yes, then all your song and dance about you invoking Carroll only has application to Latter-day Saint truth claims ("That is why I said I was criticizing narrow, 'specific LDS truth claims that require a causal interface between a spirit and the physical brain.'") doesn't really hold up, does it?

If no, then all your song and dance about "science" being able to "prove" or "disprove" religious truth claims doesn't really hold up, does it?

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

The big driver of the confusion here is specifically whether spirit-body dualism is inherently non-falsifiable as you seem to believe, or whether it actually is falsifiable and within the purview of science, as Carroll believes.

Dandy.  So lay out the "scientific" methodology for disproving these things.  In my view, "science" by design cannot test non-empirical or non-falsifiable claims. A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside its jurisdiction. Science operates, or should operate, under methodological/empirical naturalism, and hence it has epistemic limits.

You are asserting otherwise ("and within the purview of science").  

Let's start with the testing of the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus.  By what testing / processes / methodologies does "science" propose to utilize to prove/disprove this event? 

You have previously said:

 

• "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen."
• "It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) 'supernatural' forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case."
• "I pointed out that we know from Effective Quantum Field Theory that the miracles in and around the Book of Mormon did not happen."

Do you likewise assert that the miraculous ("supernatural") elements of The Bible "are impossible and hence did not happen"?

What "positive evidence" do you have which disproves the reality of Christ's resurrection, or of the Road to Emmaus event?

How does Effective Quantum Field Theory allow us to "know" that these events "did not happen"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19 by smac97