Wired Magazine: Prayer Heals, Science & Religion Converge
E.L. Lambert
"Gregg Easterbrook's cover story sees a new reconciliation between the
old sparring partners of religion and science. Cosmologists and
biologists are realizing that they can't explain what caused the Big
Bang or why the laws of the universe seem impossibly fine-tuned to
support life. More and more, there's room for the miraculous in
science. … A piece profiles the Vatican's in-house
astrophysicist. Father George Coyne is a real scientist who answers
real scientific questions about the evolution of galaxies and
formation of stars. "Nothing we learn about the universe threatens our
faith," he says. "It only enriches it." … An article tells the
strange story of a scientist whose double-blind, peer-reviewed
research proved that prayer heals."
Dissident
The research on anonymous prayer sounded interesting when
it came out, but I've not seen any reports of attempts to
replicate these results. Have there been?
-B
Michael Painter
"Dissident" <qq...@7600.net> wrote in message
news:3DD57DCD...@7600.net...
> E.L. Lambert wrote:
<snip>
"It only enriches it." … An article tells the
> > strange story of a scientist whose double-blind, peer-reviewed
> > research proved that prayer heals."
>
> The research on anonymous prayer sounded interesting when
> it came out, but I've not seen any reports of attempts to
> replicate these results. Have there been?
Probably not. A few problems exist.
Assuming the groups were selected in a valid manor:
How would you show that the control group did not have more people praying
for them then the test group. Maybe everybody in the control group had large
extended religious families that said novenas night and day.
How would you show that quantity of prayer exceeds quality of prayer. Are
the prayers of people doing a study stronger than the prayer of a single
person who is deeply concerned about the outcome of some procedure?
When someone points out that the bible says *anything* you ask for in god's
name is given the usual response is that 1. You have to be sincere and 2.
You can't test god.
Seems the tests of prayer test god.
(Oops. manner, not manor you dummy.)
Chris Merli
are rather poorly designed and the rest seem fairly contradictory. The best
of them have generally reported no significant effect.
"E.L. Lambert" <lamb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:76b045c1.02111...@posting.google.com...
Lane Lewis
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:4khB9.8657$vM1.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Should we mention that the people who put on this type of experiment
might only release the results if they prove positive. They wouldn't scrap
the results if they were negative would they, these are honest people just
like creationist aren't they ?
Law of averages say a test like this will be 50 percent negative and 50
percent positive. So all they have to do is wait for a positive. So much for
the efficacy of prayer.
Lane
Bobby D. Bryant
> Summary of the December 2002 issue of Wired Magazine, from
> slate.com:
Yeah, I go to Wired for *all* of my science news.
Any wooden legs in the pile yet?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Steven J.
> Summary of the December 2002 issue of Wired Magazine, from slate.com:
>
> "Gregg Easterbrook's cover story sees a new reconciliation between the
> old sparring partners of religion and science. Cosmologists and
> biologists are realizing that they can't explain what caused the Big
> Bang or why the laws of the universe seem impossibly fine-tuned to
> support life.
>
their capacity of biologists, worrying about them at all. Even the
origin of life, to say nothing of the origina of the universe, is
outside the subject matter of biology proper. I would think that
cosmologists have realized for quite some time that they can't explain
what caused the Big Bang, but they're closer to being able to
formulate theories about that than they were in the past.
>
> More and more, there's room for the miraculous in science.
>
room for the miraculous outside of science -- whenever science runs up
against a wall beyond which it doesn't seem possible, even in
principle, to gather observations or test hypotheses, one can't very
well have naturalistic explanations. But the origin of life is not
outside the power of science to investigate, any more than is the
unobserved past cause of an airplane crash. The same goes, even more
strongly, for the evolution of biological complexity and diversity.
>
> … A piece profiles the Vatican's in-house
> astrophysicist. Father George Coyne is a real scientist who answers
> real scientific questions about the evolution of galaxies and
> formation of stars. "Nothing we learn about the universe threatens our
> faith," he says. "It only enriches it." …
>
and order of the universe as an expression of God's creation. It's
another to use miracles to fill in the gaps in current scientific
understanding. Father Coyne doesn't sound as though he's trying to do
the latter.
>
> An article tells the strange story of a scientist whose double-blind,
> peer-reviewed research proved that prayer heals."
>
Medicine_ a couple of years back. Patients who were the unwitting
beneficiaries of intercessory prayer had (by the measures used in the
experiment) 11% better recoveries than those not prayed for. That is,
they experienced less pain, not lower mortality or morbidity, and not,
I think, shorter hospital stays. Note that this was the first
successful attempt to replicate an earlier study that had shown
similar results. There had been other unsuccessful attempts to show
such a correlation. These are statistically significant results, but
one is likely to get statistically significant correlations between
all sorts of unrelated things if one runs enough studies looking for
such correlations.
>
-- Steven J.
Bobby D. Bryant
> lamb...@earthlink.net (E.L. Lambert) wrote in message
> news:<76b045c1.02111...@posting.google.com>...
>> Summary of the December 2002 issue of Wired Magazine, from
>> slate.com:
...
>> An article tells the strange story of a scientist whose
>> double-blind, peer-reviewed research proved that prayer heals."
>>
> I've heard of that article; it was in the _Annals of Internal
> Medicine_ a couple of years back. Patients who were the unwitting
> beneficiaries of intercessory prayer had (by the measures used in
> the experiment) 11% better recoveries than those not prayed for.
And IIRC, it didn't matter what deity was prayed to. (Let the
empirical theologists chew on *that* one for a while.)
> That is, they experienced less pain, not lower mortality or
> morbidity, and not, I think, shorter hospital stays. Note that
> this was the first successful attempt to replicate an earlier
> study that had shown similar results. There had been other
> unsuccessful attempts to show such a correlation. These are
> statistically significant results, but one is likely to get
> statistically significant correlations between all sorts of
> unrelated things if one runs enough studies looking for such
> correlations.
Especially if you are willing to ignore those other unsuccessful
attempts.
And if you use the traditional 95% confidence level you can expect
as much as one false positive out of every 20 comparisons you make.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Jon Fleming
(E.L. Lambert) wrote:
> An article tells the
>strange story of a scientist whose double-blind, peer-reviewed
>research proved that prayer heals."
I guess you didn't read the article.
It was a pretty good and well-constructed article by Po Bronson. I
don't know his views, but he's a good writer.
I won't try to describe it in detail, but a better one-sentence
summary might be "The strange story of a scientist whose double-blind,
peer-reviewed research seemed to prove that prayer heals until fatal
flaws were uncovered."
Jon Fleming
(Steven J.) wrote:
>> An article tells the strange story of a scientist whose double-blind,
>> peer-reviewed research proved that prayer heals."
>>
>I've heard of that article; it was in the _Annals of Internal
>Medicine_ a couple of years back.
I'm pretty sure that's not one of them.
I think Po Bronson's Wired article is well worth a read, but I'll cut
to the chase (and perhaps ruin the article for you):
The principal researcher was Elizabeth Targ MD, daughter of Russell
Targ of Puthoff & Targ and the SRI. This may or may not be relevant.
The first study was a double-blind pilot study in the mid-90's. I
don't know where it was published. There were 10 experimental
subjects and 10 control subjects, all with AIDS. Four of the control
group died during the study, none of the experimental group died.
This was hailed as statistically significant and it is ... provided
the groups were properly matched.
Al but four of the participants were in their mid-twenties to early
thirties. Three were in their late thirties and one was in his
sixties. Guess which four died. As Po Bronson put it in the Wired
article, "In other words, the study provided fairly convincing
evidence that if you had AIDS back in the mid-1990s, the older you
were the more likely you were to die."
The second study was a full-scale version of the first, and was
published in "A Randomized Double-Blind Study of the Effects of
Distant Healing in a Population with Advanced AIDS", Western Journal
of Medicine (December 1998) (abstract at
<http://makeashorterlink.com/?S20861872> or can be found at
<http://www.ewjm.com/search.dtl>). There were 20 controls and 20
subjects, carefully matched. The subject group had significantly
fewer doctor visits and significantly shorter hospital stays and fewer
instances of 23 AIDS-related illnesses (all above 95% confidence
level). Wow! But ...
The second study was intended to measure deaths, just like the first.
But its start coincided with the introduction of antiviral cocktails,
and the damn subjects just wouldn't _die_! (Well, one did, but that
wasn't much help). What to do, what to do ...
They unblinded the data and started looking at secondary measures.
Physical symptoms of HIV? No effect. Quality of life? No effect.
Mood state? The controls were happier (according to the Wired
article, the abstract says otherwise). CD4+ counts? Better in the
controls. Doctor visits and hospital stays? Yowza, we've got
statistical significance! Needless to say, this is junk science. But
it gets better ...
An independent doctor specializing in AIDS did an informal review, and
pointed out some problems (e.g. hospital stay length correlates with
state of health insurance). He suggested looking at the 23
AIDS-related illnesses (and suggested this should have been the
original point of the study). Great idea! Except ... they hadn't
collected that data.
So, they went back over the hospital records _after_ _the_
_unblinding_ and put together the data. Bronson devotes several
paragraphs to the implications of this. He also says "With this
information I reread the paper with an awe for how carefully they
chose their words. Only with the benefit of this hindsight do holes
emerge, ones that had been clouded by the scientific language and
statistical commentary".
Bronson interviewed the original primary reviewer of the paper, who
obviously didn't pick up on the problems in his original review:
"I'm even more troubled by the multiple endpoints than the unblinding
.... It's a little post hoc. Normally, we accept the standard that a
finding must have less than a 1-in-20 chance of randomly occurring.
When you're on your third or fourth attempt, it's much more likely
that a 1-in-20 event will occur, so the standard has to be higher."
Summarizing:
The pilot study was invalidated by bad statistical matching between
the control and experimental groups. The full-bore study
double-blinding was contaminated, and the reported results were
carefully selected to be the ones that supported the researchers's
thesis. Neither study is useful in assessing the effects of prayer.
Termite of Temptation
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:4khB9.8657$vM1.5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
<snip>
> > When someone points out that the bible says *anything* you ask for in
> god's
> > name is given the usual response is that 1. You have to be sincere and 2.
> > You can't test god.
> >
> > Seems the tests of prayer test god.
> >
> >
> > (Oops. manner, not manor you dummy.)
> >
>
> Should we mention that the people who put on this type of experiment
> might only release the results if they prove positive. They wouldn't scrap
> the results if they were negative would they, these are honest people just
> like creationist aren't they ?
>
> Law of averages say a test like this will be 50 percent negative and 50
> percent positive. So all they have to do is wait for a positive. So much for
> the efficacy of prayer.
Statistical methods in studies of this type are rarely that
simplistic. The most common paradigm is to use the t-test, which,
assuming certain conditions, tells you whether your result is
"significant" in the statistical sense; i.e. how surprising it is.
Studies of this manner aren't usually reported unless the t-test
indicates that one should not expect the result to occur if prayer had
no effect, even taking account of random variation.
Duncan
Mike Rhino
news:76b045c1.02111...@posting.google.com...
>
> biologists are realizing that they can't explain what caused
> the Big Bang or why the laws of the universe
> seem impossibly fine-tuned to support life.
The same was true 2100 years ago. Atheists couldn't explain where the
universe came from. Therefore Zeus and Hera are real!
Cyde Weys
"Termite of Temptation" <womanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb648d5e.02111...@posting.google.com...
If I recall from the article correctly, the whole faith-based healing
experiment was pure B.S. anyway. In the first one they had 10 AIDS patients
being prayed for and 10 not being prayed for. It was double-blind, btw.
Four people ended up dying and those were the FOUR OLDEST PATIENTS who
happened to be in the "not being prayed for" group. Nevermind that a sample
as low as 10 isn't statistically significant anyway, all the test showed us
was that older people die more easily from AIDS. Duhhh.
The second study was looking at the same thing. They did 40 in each group
this time. Their big problem was this: a revolutionary new medical
procedure called three drug treatment or whatever was discovered halfway
through the trial and a lot of the patients received treatment. There was
no "control" group. The patients were unblinded and ... nothing was found.
They reblinded the patients (if that's at all possible), and looked through
three different criteria they could find until they settled on "number of
AIDS-related diseases" which was different between those being prayed for
and those not being prayed for. Basically, the whole experiment was B.S.
Lane Lewis
"Termite of Temptation" <womanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fb648d5e.02111...@posting.google.com...
What are you talking about, these aren't scientific studies they are scams
run by religious people, why are you comparing this to a real scientific
study. I seen these studies come out every few years with positive results
always and usually tied in with a book. Could it be that these test are not
run by unbiased people. I was trying to put it politely as I could without
calling these people out and out cons which in fact they are. It doesn't
matter that there is a correct way to run these test the problem is that
they never ever will be and I was merely pointing out how they did it. I
don't understand your point unless it was to show how a correctly run
experiment would have taken place.
Lane
Michael Painter
Matthew 21:22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in
prayer."
Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe
that you have received it, and it will be yours.
John 16:24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and
you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
After proving that praying had an effect on illness major religions have
decided that the bible was not translated properly.
It should have read
Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe
that you have received it, and there will be a statistically significent
chance that the outcome will be better than what could be expected without
prayer. E.G. You may live a week longer.
You will still be in agony but you will live.
Rumors that the phrase "Why would you want to when heaven is supposed to be
such a neat place." was delibritely removed have been denied.
Jon Fleming
There was a control group. I've posted a fairly detailed summary of
the studies (as reported in Wired, not from the primary literature).
Lane Lewis
"Chris Merli" <clm...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:NHjB9.14563$WL3.3410@rwcrnsc54...
> Actually there have been several experiments on this topic. Most of them
> are rather poorly designed and the rest seem fairly contradictory. The
best
> of them have generally reported no significant effect.
>
No serious scientist would test for such a thing, these are all set up to
sell books to the believers, if any results were positive it was either luck
or faked.
Lane
Steve Schaffner
Nonsense. Why on earth shouldn't a serious scientist make such a
study? (Which isn't to say the existing sutdies have been done by
serious scientists -- I have no idea whether they were or not.)
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Karen
Why not test to see if there is some reality to an old wives tale. Many
modern medicines were discovered this way, I believe. They tested chicken
soup... why not prayer?
After all, not everyone who believes in prayer/magick believes in a deity.
The prayer phenomena, if true, could describe some other reality that simply
has not yet been identified.
To me, its only the close minded who refuse to investigate all
possibilities.
karen
Noelie S. Alito
news:d4TB9.182$JZ.141...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
Well, they did find a positive effect in those studies where the patients
*knew* they were being prayed for. I don't think that surprised anyone,
but it was useful IMHO to measure so as to compare against a pill-placebo
effect. (Of course, in the case of some anti-theists, I would expect it
to have a *negative* effect on recovery, due to the annoyance factor.)
Noelie
--
On the eve of battle, the general, kneeling, asked his god for
victory. "You have been a true and faithful servant," God said,
"but I have already promised victory to your enemy. Yet I shall
grant you this: Though you shall fail in battle on the morrow,
only your account of it will survive in history."
The general wept. "Thank you, my lord, for this great gift."
Michael Painter
"Karen" <kare...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:d4TB9.182$JZ.141...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
There are lots of things that science rarely investigates with formal
studies any more.
s=1/2* g * t^2 gets put to the test millions of times a year in classrooms
but I doubt much research money is spent on it. Things like this have moved
into classrooms and engineering.
There are also things allowed in theory that science has tested for, not
found and stopped looking.
Prayer would tend to fall under this reason. If praying is done because of
what the bible says then it is obvious that there is no relation between
what the bible says and what actually happens.
It would be foolish to argue that none of the people who prayed for their
loved ones to come home safely from wars were sincere or that those on the
battle field did not pray with great sincerity to live.
Yet millions died.
If the bible is correct then:
Matthew 21:22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in
prayer.
Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe
that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Luke 11:10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him
who knocks, the door will be opened.
John 16:24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and
you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
must be true.
None of them imply that praying will give a statistically better chance of
surviving or getting what you want.
None of them say that god works in mysterious ways.
None of them say that the answer might not be what we want.
The "studies" have been done for a long time and they show that praying is
pointless.
Karen
I agree that the bible's claims about prayer are inconsistent at best.
But, don't forget that prayer / magick seems to be a pretty universal
concept in all theist beliefs.
Not just ones based on the xian bible teach prayer or magick.
ANd not certain all who believe in the concept of prayer/magick even believe
in deity.
Perhaps the xian definition is flawed but that doesn't necessarily mean the
experience is as well.
> It would be foolish to argue that none of the people who prayed for their
> loved ones to come home safely from wars were sincere or that those on the
> battle field did not pray with great sincerity to live.
> Yet millions died.
>
> If the bible is correct then:
> Matthew 21:22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in
> prayer.
> Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe
> that you have received it, and it will be yours.
> Luke 11:10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to
him
> who knocks, the door will be opened.
> John 16:24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and
> you will receive, and your joy will be complete.
>
> must be true.
>
> None of them imply that praying will give a statistically better chance of
> surviving or getting what you want.
> None of them say that god works in mysterious ways.
> None of them say that the answer might not be what we want.
>
> The "studies" have been done for a long time and they show that praying is
> pointless.
Please provide documentation on this. So far, all I've ever seen this this
type of argument are claims that the studies have been done.... I've rarely
seen corroborating evidence of this claim.
I would think the topic is simply relatively understudied.... at least in
scientific fashion.
karen
Wade Hines
Could it be tested by a Scotsman if he were a TRVE SCOTSMAN?
Really, try not to be so hopelessly absurd in your claims.
It may well be that the vast majority of claims and
counterclaims respective to the healing power of prayer
are ill considered but claims that no serious scientist
would attempt such a study is codswallop.
Steve Schaffner
Lane Lewis
"Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92C9D97E0652...@199.184.165.241...
Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because you cannot
prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer would be
impossible wouldn't it. This kind of work is for skeptics not scientist,
check with the Amazing Randi. The only reason I said serious scientist is
because when it comes to religion some scientist throw all reason out the
window aka creation scientist and you may get one of those to test prayer
for you and of course the results will be positive but I don't consider them
to be serious scientist whether their Scottish or not :O)
Codswallop?
Lane
Lane Lewis
"Steve Schaffner" <s...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:ydld6p4...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu...
Prayer is metaphysical no way to prove or disprove. See reply to Wade.
Michael Painter
>
> > The "studies" have been done for a long time and they show that praying
is
> > pointless.
>
> Please provide documentation on this. So far, all I've ever seen this
this
> type of argument are claims that the studies have been done.... I've
rarely
> seen corroborating evidence of this claim.
> I would think the topic is simply relatively understudied.... at least in
> scientific fashion.
> karen
I put "studies" in quotes. If you know of any religion or magic that says
prayer is, on occasion, likely to provide slightly more that a statistical
advantage then there have not been many studies done, however most claim
that proper prayer gives you what you want.
There is no evidence that it does.
You would probably have to go back to the beginning of science to find any
real studies on the subject, as I said, after a while you stop looking for
the answer even if theory allows it.
There is no theory of prayer for science to study.
Investigation of miracle sites such a Lourdes shows that at best there are
some anecdotal information.
Even having a "positive attitude" and "fighting" cancer has little effect on
the progress of the disease.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=cancer+attitude
Lane Lewis
Old wives tales can be real such as certain medications (soup, mold) and
scientist will check those to see if they really work. Prayer is
metaphysical and cannot be proved or disproved.
And don't let your brains fall out.
Lane
Michael Painter
Don't know if that 's good or bad but a scientist would have to have some
way to do a test.
In a double blind study at it's simplest you have to have a group that gets
prayed for and one that does not get prayed for.
How do you do this?
Large numbers of religions pray for the sick and injured every day. Do you
ask them to exclude patent x-15r8 from their prayers?
Do you ask all the family members from both groups to stop praying for their
loved ones?
If they agree do they tell the patient he is part of a study?
If you don't eliminate all prayer how do you measure the quality vs quantity
of a prayer?
Patient X gets 12 more prayers than patient Y but patient Y's prayers came
from people who know and love him and are concerned about him as a person,
not part of a study.
If you ask a christian about asking for something in prayer and not getting
it you are either told that god works in mysterious ways or that you should
not test god by such prayers.
Both would seem to negate such tests.
No serious scientist would undertake such a test.
Karen
I'm not a student of philosophy... nor metaphysics.
Do you mind explaining your use the phrase metaphysics regarding prayer?
I'm guessing its only because the supposed effects of prayer are not at this
point considered to be based on something physical, but are typically
considered religious or "supernatural" in nature.
Is that correct?
karen
Karen
>
> "Karen" <kare...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:H3VB9.3010$8p4.100...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > > The "studies" have been done for a long time and they show that
praying
> is
> > > pointless.
> >
> > Please provide documentation on this. So far, all I've ever seen this
> this
> > type of argument are claims that the studies have been done.... I've
> rarely
> > seen corroborating evidence of this claim.
> > I would think the topic is simply relatively understudied.... at least
in
> > scientific fashion.
> > karen
>
> I put "studies" in quotes. If you know of any religion or magic that says
> prayer is, on occasion, likely to provide slightly more that a statistical
> advantage then there have not been many studies done, however most claim
> that proper prayer gives you what you want.
> There is no evidence that it does.
So one side says there is evidence based on their perception of empirical,
but unscientific, results.
Another side says there is no evidence.
Why should I be convinced either side is right without real studies.
I merely objected to the implication that there were scientific studies
disproving the effects of prayer, when none can be identified.
> You would probably have to go back to the beginning of science to find any
> real studies on the subject, as I said, after a while you stop looking for
> the answer even if theory allows it.
So, does that mean you really don't know of any studies which disprove the
effects of prayer?
> There is no theory of prayer for science to study.
Theory of prayer? Not sure exactly what you mean here. Can you please
rephrase?
karen
Michael Painter
You would have to do a literature search. Best would be a meta study.
Can you name any group that prays to anything that does not do so in the
expectation that the prayer will be granted?
>
>
> > You would probably have to go back to the beginning of science to find
any
> > real studies on the subject, as I said, after a while you stop looking
for
> > the answer even if theory allows it.
>
> So, does that mean you really don't know of any studies which disprove the
> effects of prayer?
There have been a few results published but real science is not done on the
internet so most of what you find are christian religious sites saying
prayer works.
>
>
> > There is no theory of prayer for science to study.
>
> Theory of prayer? Not sure exactly what you mean here. Can you please
> rephrase?
No. Science works with theory or with the formation of a theory. There is
none.
Even assuming there was anybody interested they would realize that it would
be impossible to do a serious study in a scientific manner. There is no way
to establish a control.
I've listed some of the reasons in another post and I'm sure with a little
thought I could come up with more.
Michael Painter
> >
> > Old wives tales can be real such as certain medications (soup, mold) and
> > scientist will check those to see if they really work. Prayer is
> > metaphysical and cannot be proved or disproved.
>
> I'm not a student of philosophy... nor metaphysics.
> Do you mind explaining your use the phrase metaphysics regarding prayer?
> I'm guessing its only because the supposed effects of prayer are not at
this
> point considered to be based on something physical, but are typically
> considered religious or "supernatural" in nature.
> Is that correct?
> karen
>
and that includes religion, prayer, mindreading, dowsing, astrology, fortune
telling, ghosts, spirits and most of the other things for which Randi
would like to give a million dollars for.
Bill Rogers
The statistical test is usually called significant if there is only a
5% chance that you would see results as skewed as the results you got
if there really was no difference between the prayed for and un prayed
for groups. In other words, waht is the chance that you would find
this "positive" effect in your study if the null hypothesis were true.
Unfortunately, the t-test does not tell you what you really want to
know, how likely it is that your hypothesis is true given the data you
observed. To figure that out, you need to know the "prior probability"
of the null hyothesis' being full, before you had any data. People may
disagree about the "prior probability" that prayer is efficacious. IN
any case, statistical significance should not be over-interpreted;
p<.05 does not guarantee that your effect is real.
Bill
Wade Hines
<< snip >>
> I put "studies" in quotes. If you know of any religion or magic that
> says prayer is, on occasion, likely to provide slightly more that a
> statistical advantage then there have not been many studies done,
> however most claim that proper prayer gives you what you want.
> There is no evidence that it does.
Which religions are these? Please cite the official claims. If you
mean a catholic claim, it should be in something like the catholic
encylcopedia as a loose reference or in a creed for a much tighter
one. Feel free to loop that through other major dominations.
Of course it seems to me that the "gods will be done" flavor
of most prayers would say something rather different than your
claim above but I am at least open to your giving proof of something
I'm damned sure is false.
Wade Hines
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92C9D97E0652...@199.184.165.241...
>> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> allegedly scribed
>>
>> > "Chris Merli" <clm...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> > news:NHjB9.14563$WL3.3410@rwcrnsc54...
>> >> Actually there have been several experiments on this topic. Most
>> >> of them are rather poorly designed and the rest seem fairly
>> >> contradictory. The best of them have generally reported no
>> >> significant effect.
>> >>
>> >
>> > No serious scientist would test for such a thing, these are all set
>> > up to sell books to the believers, if any results were positive it
>> > was either luck or faked.
>>
>> Could it be tested by a Scotsman if he were a TRVE SCOTSMAN?
>>
>> Really, try not to be so hopelessly absurd in your claims.
>>
>> It may well be that the vast majority of claims and
>> counterclaims respective to the healing power of prayer
>> are ill considered but claims that no serious scientist would attempt
>> such a study is codswallop.
>
> Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because you
> cannot prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer
> would be impossible wouldn't it.
How do you consider the act of praying any more metaphysical than the
act of eating or urinating?
> This kind of work is for skeptics not
> scientist, check with the Amazing Randi. The only reason I said serious
> scientist is because when it comes to religion some scientist throw all
> reason out the window aka creation scientist and you may get one of
> those to test prayer for you and of course the results will be positive
> but I don't consider them to be serious scientist whether their
> Scottish or not :O)
>
> Codswallop?
The word has a history on talk.origins from someone who is very
anti-religion but is decidedly more logical in his points of view.
As a card carrying "real scientist", I get rather annoyed by those
who put limits on the "real scientist" priesthood. If there's a
major problem to testing something like the "healing power of prayer"
is would be the motherload of mismatched expectations that would
be there. That wouldn't prevent science from being applicable.
Rather, one would just need to go further in being clear about
what was being controled and measured regardless of the fact that
many would necessarily misunderstand you.
Karsten Knönagel
Noelie S. Alito <noe...@deadspam.com> typed:
No, laughter is the best medicine.
k2
--
A man is usually bald four or five years before he knows it.
Karen
My reading described "meta" physical as something beyond physics...
typically something more conceptual in nature. Which included many things
along with theology based concepts. I just wanted to understand how you
were applying the term. Thanks.
Now I suppose my question is, how does one know for sure that the supposed
effects of prayer / magick are metaphysical in nature and not purely
physical? Until documented scientific studies are done to substantiate or
deny the effects it doesn't seem we can really say. Until then, it would
seems there is the possibility that we are like cavemen looking at a TV and
crooning "oooh, ma-gic!" Shamans thought hallucinogens and chanting in a
deep cave brought spiritual visions. This appeared metaphysical. But in
reality, we know the hallucinogens have a physical effect, as do the
acoustics in some caves where chanting of certain tones can also cause
hallucinogenic experiences. Until we could identify and measure the unique
characteristics that caused the physical effect these experiences were
either denied (by some) or given a metaphysical explanation.
It seems that lack of understanding and/or lack of support does not
necessarily relegate things to the non-physical.
I would love to see more scientific studies to explore the concepts and true
realities (or lack thereof) of prayer and magick. (And I don't mean just the
xian ones.)
karen
Karen
Except that I'm not the one making either claim.
I'm asking that those making the claims either for / against prayer back up
their position that science has supports/denies the effects of prayer.
> Can you name any group that prays to anything that does not do so in the
> expectation that the prayer will be granted?
Actually, I do know some xians who pray in a manner intended to merely
communicate with their deity.
Some other faiths do this as well, I believe.
But I'm not certain what this has to do with the issue of evaluating the
effectiveness of supplication prayers or magick.
> >
> > > You would probably have to go back to the beginning of science to find
> any
> > > real studies on the subject, as I said, after a while you stop looking
> for
> > > the answer even if theory allows it.
> >
> > So, does that mean you really don't know of any studies which disprove
the
> > effects of prayer?
> There have been a few results published
Can you please tell me where to find these studies? (When were they done,
by whom, and where published, etc.)
so I can look them up?
>but real science is not done on the
> internet so most of what you find are christian religious sites saying
> prayer works.
>
> >
> >
> > > There is no theory of prayer for science to study.
> >
> > Theory of prayer? Not sure exactly what you mean here. Can you please
> > rephrase?
>
> No. Science works with theory or with the formation of a theory. There is
> none.
I don't understand your statement. There are theories about prayer that
could be studied.
The basic theory of prayer.... is that people enter a meditative state
wherein they focus on specific physical desires and that physical,
measureable, or tangible effects result from this event.
Magick... also considered a form of prayer... presents the theory that all
things and all people are energy based, and that some people can learn to
use their energies to effect changes in the world. This defines magick as a
physical effect, which should be able to be studied.
There's only been one study I've read about that examined the people
entering a deep prayer or meditative state. But this study did not broach
the subject of results-oriented prayer... merely the effect of the
meditative state on the person praying.
> Even assuming there was anybody interested they would realize that it
would
> be impossible to do a serious study in a scientific manner. There is no
way
> to establish a control.
No way that someone has yet thought of perhaps. But that doesn't mean it
could not be done.
I'm not scientist, but my brother is. And science isn't always easy, is it?
karen
Steve Schaffner
> Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because you cannot
> prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer would be
> impossible wouldn't it.
Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
Steve Schaffner
> "Karen" <kare...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:H3VB9.3010$8p4.100...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > > The "studies" have been done for a long time and they show that praying
> is
> > > pointless.
> >
> > Please provide documentation on this. So far, all I've ever seen this
> this
> > type of argument are claims that the studies have been done.... I've
> rarely
> > seen corroborating evidence of this claim.
> > I would think the topic is simply relatively understudied.... at least in
> > scientific fashion.
> > karen
>
> I put "studies" in quotes. If you know of any religion or magic that says
> prayer is, on occasion, likely to provide slightly more that a statistical
> advantage then there have not been many studies done, however most claim
> that proper prayer gives you what you want.
> There is no evidence that it does.
Who cares what religions claim about prayer? That people pray is an
observed phenomenon. Testing whether that phenomenon is associated
with other observable phenomena is a straightforward scientific
question. It may not be a question that would interest many
scientists, but there's nothing problematic about it.
> You would probably have to go back to the beginning of science to find any
> real studies on the subject, as I said, after a while you stop looking for
> the answer even if theory allows it.
Your position seems to be that the studies are impossible to do and
have already been done.
> There is no theory of prayer for science to study.
Surely you're not under the impression that science only studies
things that are already described by a theory, are you?
Steve Schaffner
> Don't know if that 's good or bad but a scientist would have to have some
> way to do a test.
>
> In a double blind study at it's simplest you have to have a group that gets
> prayed for and one that does not get prayed for.
>
> How do you do this?
The same way you test lots of things.
> Large numbers of religions pray for the sick and injured every day. Do you
> ask them to exclude patent x-15r8 from their prayers?
No. That limits the hypotheses you can test, but it doesn't eliminate
all of them by any means. You can test whether prayer for individuals
does anything.
> Do you ask all the family members from both groups to stop praying for their
> loved ones?
No. Some patients in the control group will have people praying for
them, while everyone in the test group will. Why is this a
difficulty? You can test the effect of insulin on diabetics easily
enough even if some of the subjects produce their own.
> If you don't eliminate all prayer how do you measure the quality vs quantity
> of a prayer?
Sounds like an empirical question for followup studies -- provided you
get a reproducible correlation in the first round, of course.
> Patient X gets 12 more prayers than patient Y but patient Y's prayers came
> from people who know and love him and are concerned about him as a person,
> not part of a study.
What does that have to do with a double-blind statistical study?
> If you ask a christian about asking for something in prayer and not getting
> it you are either told that god works in mysterious ways or that you should
> not test god by such prayers.
> Both would seem to negate such tests.
You're confusing experiment and theory.
> No serious scientist would undertake such a test.
I'm a very serious scientist -- I hardly ever crack a smile -- and I
do not agree.
Karen
"Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:ydlbs4m...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
> > Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because you
cannot
> > prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer would be
> > impossible wouldn't it.
>
> Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
> cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
> with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
well said.
karen
Rodjk
> On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 19:31:36 +0000 (UTC), lamb...@earthlink.net
> (E.L. Lambert) wrote:
>
> > An article tells the
> >strange story of a scientist whose double-blind, peer-reviewed
> >research proved that prayer heals."
>
> I guess you didn't read the article.
>
> It was a pretty good and well-constructed article by Po Bronson. I
> don't know his views, but he's a good writer.
>
> I won't try to describe it in detail, but a better one-sentence
> summary might be "The strange story of a scientist whose double-blind,
> peer-reviewed research seemed to prove that prayer heals until fatal
> flaws were uncovered."
Eric is a troll. He does this from time to time.
Just ignore him, he never sticks around.
Rodjk #613
Michael Painter
I assume you are referring to my statement that "most claim that proper
prayer gives you what you want."
I don't have anything for other religions but the christian bible clearly
states that if you ask for it you will get it, period. Nothing about what is
good or bad or the will of a god, just ask and it is yours. The "god's will"
bit come in after the kid doesn't get the pony for christmas or junior's
cancer does not go into remission.
Matthew 7:8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him
who knocks, the door will be opened.
Matthew 21:22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in
prayer."
Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe
that you have received it, and it will be yours.
Luke 11:10 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him
who knocks, the door will be opened.
John 16:24 Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you
will receive, and your joy will be complete.
Not exactly a prayer but close enough.
Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this
mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not
doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall
come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.
Michael Painter
>
> > Meta means above metaphysics refers to things that are "above" the
> physical
> > and that includes religion, prayer, mindreading, dowsing, astrology,
> fortune
> > telling, ghosts, spirits and most of the other things for which Randi
> > would like to give a million dollars for.
>
> My reading described "meta" physical as something beyond physics...
> typically something more conceptual in nature. Which included many things
> along with theology based concepts. I just wanted to understand how you
> were applying the term. Thanks.
> Now I suppose my question is, how does one know for sure that the supposed
> effects of prayer / magick are metaphysical in nature and not purely
> physical? Until documented scientific studies are done to substantiate or
> deny the effects it doesn't seem we can really say.
valid scientific way that such a study could be done. If you can and if you
are willing to test it you will be one million dollars richer. I guarentee
it.
>Until then, it would
> seems there is the possibility that we are like cavemen looking at a TV
and
> crooning "oooh, ma-gic!" Shamans thought hallucinogens and chanting in a
> deep cave brought spiritual visions. This appeared metaphysical. But in
> reality, we know the hallucinogens have a physical effect, as do the
> acoustics in some caves where chanting of certain tones can also cause
> hallucinogenic experiences. Until we could identify and measure the
unique
> characteristics that caused the physical effect these experiences were
> either denied (by some) or given a metaphysical explanation.
> It seems that lack of understanding and/or lack of support does not
> necessarily relegate things to the non-physical.
> I would love to see more scientific studies to explore the concepts and
true
> realities (or lack thereof) of prayer and magick. (And I don't mean just
the
> xian ones.)
> karen
No, we know that physical effects cause hallucinogens. Tons of science has
gone into the study of such effects.
There only a curtural differenvce between the man who sees spirits, hears
gods, is abducted or is controlled by rays from the computers at the local
university.
It can be shown what happens and since no two people have the same
experience we can only assume that our mind is imposing order and seeing
patterns in what is effectively random brain activity.
Science stopped most of this when it became science. They found that the
rigid application of rules produced results.
More lives have been saved by people washing their hands before childbirth
than by all the prayers and incantations since the dawn of time.
If you *really* want to see such work then you need to hit a major library
and do some serious research.
Michael Painter
They have been done but by people wishing to prove they are effictive rather
than by people who want to see results.
They are impossible to do in a valid manner because there is no way to
determine who has been and who has not been prayed for.
All you could say about a control group is that you do not think that the
people praying specifically mentioned members of the control group in their
prayers done at the time of testing.
Vast numbers of people pray for the sick and injured every day. Quite
possibly people in the control group might have family and friends praying
for them.
How to you determine this.
How do you determine if all prayers are the same.
Does "please make the sick man well" have the same power as "Please let my
father live"?
Does the same phrase have the same effect as a person who prays for hours on
their knees for a specific person.
A god would have to be involved to direct these prayers for obvious reasons
and it is safe to assume that christians are in the majority when it comes
to these studies. The widows mite would imply that sincere prayers are more
important than ones done to test.
There is no theory of prayer for science to study.
>
> Surely you're not under the impression that science only studies
> things that are already described by a theory, are you?
No, but as mentioned, after they fail to see results they ususlly slow down
looking.
Lane Lewis
Here's what's wrong with the test, say they had two groups and everyone was
cured in the prayer group and every one died in non prayer group. Now that
still wouldn't prove that prayer was responsible as it could have been dumb
luck. In order to prove prayer was responsible you would have to find a
mechanism. And there is no mechanism in prayer as it claims to be
metaphysical. Scientist want to see atoms or subatomic particles go from the
prayers to the prayees to prove that the prayers were responsible. Without
any physical evidence the prayers were responsible you cannot scientifically
attribute the healing to them.
Lane
Lane Lewis
And how were you going to prove it was the prayer that influenced the
stats.
Lane
Lane Lewis
>
> "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:ydlbs4m...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > > Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because you
> cannot
> > > prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer would
be
> > > impossible wouldn't it.
> >
> > Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
> > cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
> > with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
>
> well said.
> karen
No it was incorrect.
Lane
Lane Lewis
But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
responsible with nothing physical to go on.
Lane
Dunno
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Lane Lewis wrote:
>
>
>
> "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:ydlbs4m...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > > Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because you
> cannot
> > > prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer would be
> > > impossible wouldn't it.
> >
> > Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
> > cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
> > with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
> >
[snip]
>
> And how were you going to prove it was the prayer that influenced the
> stats.
>
I would assume that it is not considered permissable to pray
for lab mice. Yes?
-
True adj. 1 (a) Stedfast, loyal. (b) Honest, just.
2 Qualifier for one's beliefs.
False adj. 1 Not genuine
2 (a) Intentionally untrue. (b) Intended to mislead.
3 Qualifier for others' beliefs.
David Jensen
That's why it would have to be a double blind study will all other
variations controlled for.
Noelie S. Alito
news:ydlu1if...@lederburg.wi.mit.edu...
> Wade Hines <wade....@rcn.com> writes:
>
> > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> allegedly scribed
> >
> > > news:NHjB9.14563$WL3.3410@rwcrnsc54...
> > >> Actually there have been several experiments on this topic. Most of
> > >> them are rather poorly designed and the rest seem fairly
> > >> contradictory. The best of them have generally reported no
> > >> significant effect.
> > >>
> > >
> > > No serious scientist would test for such a thing, these are all set up
> > > to sell books to the believers, if any results were positive it was
> > > either luck or faked.
> >
> >
> > Really, try not to be so hopelessly absurd in your claims.
> >
> > It may well be that the vast majority of claims and
> > counterclaims respective to the healing power of prayer
> > are ill considered but claims that no serious scientist
> > would attempt such a study is codswallop.
>
We should fund a study to find out!
Noelie
--
A couple of months in the laboratory can save you *hours* in the library.
Noelie S. Alito
news:GRcC9.316790$S8.64...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:ydlbs4m...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > > Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because you
> > > cannot prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer
> > > would be impossible wouldn't it.
> >
> > Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
> > cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
> > with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
> >
>
> And how were you going to prove it was the prayer that influenced the
> stats.
Well, the first step is to establish any correlation. If there is
a strong correlation, then we figure out what, if anything, in
cigarettes can cause cancer--um, I mean what, if anything, in
prayer could affect the natural world.
Noelie
--
Any technology sufficiently advanced
is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
(with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)
Lane Lewis
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:5lnitu4opdpp4sort...@4ax.com...
After you do the double blind study and make sure all other variations are
controlled for (assuming that was possible) how would you know that prayer
was responsible.
Are you sure you hardly ever crack a smile.
Lane
David Jensen
>
>"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
>news:5lnitu4opdpp4sort...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:29:01 +0000 (UTC), in talk.origins
>> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in
>> <M3dC9.316793$S8.64...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>:
...
>> >But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
>> >responsible with nothing physical to go on.
>> >
>> >Lane
>>
>> That's why it would have to be a double blind study will all other
>> variations controlled for.
>
>After you do the double blind study and make sure all other variations are
>controlled for (assuming that was possible) how would you know that prayer
>was responsible.
I don't anticipate that problem coming up.
>Are you sure you hardly ever crack a smile.
Some days.
Lane Lewis
"Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
news:arboh5$gv51q$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de...
> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:GRcC9.316790$S8.64...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ydlbs4m...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because
you
> > > > cannot prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for
prayer
> > > > would be impossible wouldn't it.
> > >
> > > Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
> > > cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
> > > with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
> > >
> <sigsnip>
> >
> > And how were you going to prove it was the prayer that influenced the
> > stats.
>
> Well, the first step is to establish any correlation. If there is
> a strong correlation, then we figure out what, if anything, in
> cigarettes can cause cancer--um, I mean what, if anything, in
> prayer could affect the natural world.
>
What would establish a correlation.
Lane
Wade Hines
Below you've answered me well. It's perhaps a comment on my
Catholic upbringing that I'm so ignorant of the Bible. As the
joke goes, voice1 "... Oh, I'm Catholic, I don't know much about the
Bible" --- voice2 "the what do you read in church" voice1 "the bulletin".
It was rather drummed into me that prayers are not answered in
ways people always understand right away. I'm not commenting on
any belief of my own but that was certainly the notion of
prayer that was actively taught. Again, your quotes below are
compelling arguments that standard Christian thought certainly
could be interpreted in the way you originally claimed.
Wade Hines
<<< snip >>>
> But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
> responsible with nothing physical to go on.
The FDA approves drugs based on statistical results, not based
on proven mechanisms. In fact, mechanisms tend to get you in
trouble because you neglect the effects and concentrate on
the lovely pharmacological story.
There are very few cases where science provides clear proof
of causality, even for lenient definitions of proof. Showing
a significant correlation enough to be serious science. Don't
neglect the role of science in posing further questions.
Wade Hines
> Your position seems to be that the studies are impossible to do and
> have already been done.
Reminds me of a few grant reviews.
Wade Hines
> Here's what's wrong with the test, say they had two groups and everyone
> was cured in the prayer group and every one died in non prayer group.
> Now that still wouldn't prove that prayer was responsible as it could
> have been dumb luck. In order to prove prayer was responsible you would
> have to find a mechanism. And there is no mechanism in prayer as it
> claims to be metaphysical. Scientist want to see atoms or subatomic
> particles go from the prayers to the prayees to prove that the prayers
> were responsible. Without any physical evidence the prayers were
> responsible you cannot scientifically attribute the healing to them.
Your notion of science is cartoonish at best, inadequate and generally
repudiated by vast amounts of science.
Chemists love to describe mechanisms but advanced chemists know that
mechanisms are never proven. We can and have explored a few reaction
pathways in sufficient details that it would be extremely perverse to
find that reality was substantially different than our models but focus
on the word "few".
Biochemistry includes lots of nice molecular mechanisms ascribed to
enzymatic catalysis. You can find some of these reactions in textbooks.
Occasionally people perform detailed experiments looking at things like
kinetic isotope effects and find that the textbook mechanisms missed the
boat. Does this mean that the kinetic studies done on the enzyme were
not science because the molecular mechanisms weren't correctly understood?
Occasionally talk.origins runs through discussions of macroscopic
thermodynamics and the distinction is broached between macroscopic
measures of entropy and molecular understandings. The young students
who have one or two courses in statistical mechanics under their
belt tend to think entropy is all about the molecular bits and
ignore that thermodyanamics was a solid science before JJ Thompson
was able to put something to Dalton's atomic theory.
Science does not require complete or understood physical models
even if it pursues them.
Lane Lewis
With a fair roll of the dice, I don't either.
> >Are you sure you hardly ever crack a smile.
>
> Some days.
>
I had you mixed up with someone else but I'm glad you do.
Lane
Lane Lewis
Assuming you acquired statistical evidence that the prayer group had a
superior healing rate, how then would you prove that prayer was responsible.
Lane
Karen
I'm still waiting for you to provide some type of support that science has
already looked into this issue.
As for your explanations why such studies could not be done.... there were
other posts from self-stated scientists who claimed such studies could be
done.
karen
Karen
"Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:M3dC9.316793$S8.64...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Science, as I understand it, rarely if ever "proves" things. All it can do
is identify enough to support or deny a theory.
And theories can always be undercut later by subsequent studies.... even
those we really believe in.
Which says to me, that there is nothing we know 100% for sure. Even in the
world of science.
karen
Michael Painter
>
> >
>
> I'm still waiting for you to provide some type of support that science has
> already looked into this issue.
> As for your explanations why such studies could not be done.... there were
> other posts from self-stated scientists who claimed such studies could be
> done.
> karen
Read what I've said. If you want to find serious studies about things
science stopped playing with a very long time ago *you* will have to go to a
major library and do some serious research.
Failing that visit http://www.randi.org/ . Buy and read some of the
literature there.
The single scientist who said such a study can be done is a minority,
probably of one.
You can't do studies on things that can't be defined and nobody has ever
defined prayer in any but a metaphysical context.
He said they could be done but hasn't answered how the problems I pose could
be handled.
There is no way to do this that would not involve breaking the blind.
Michael Painter
> > >
> > > > Large numbers of religions pray for the sick and injured every day.
Do
> > you
> > > > ask them to exclude patent x-15r8 from their prayers?
> > >
> > > No. That limits the hypotheses you can test, but it doesn't eliminate
> > > all of them by any means. You can test whether prayer for individuals
> > > does anything.
> > >
> > > > Do you ask all the family members from both groups to stop praying
for
> > their
> > > > loved ones?
> > >
> > > No. Some patients in the control group will have people praying for
> > > them, while everyone in the test group will. Why is this a
> > > difficulty? You can test the effect of insulin on diabetics easily
> > > enough even if some of the subjects produce their own.
have people praying. You have no way of knowing if all teh people in teh
control group have more people praying for them.
You can't assume some people will and some people won't for the reasons I've
given.
> > >
> > > > If you don't eliminate all prayer how do you measure the quality vs
> > quantity
> > > > of a prayer?
> > >
> > > Sounds like an empirical question for followup studies -- provided you
> > > get a reproducible correlation in the first round, of course.
> > >
> > > > Patient X gets 12 more prayers than patient Y but patient Y's
prayers
> > came
> > > > from people who know and love him and are concerned about him as a
> > person,
> > > > not part of a study.
> > >
> > > What does that have to do with a double-blind statistical study?
You are measuring the effects of prayer (without a definition) If you have
no idea of who gets the most prayer or what the praying is then you can't
study it.
> > >
> > > > If you ask a christian about asking for something in prayer and not
> > getting
> > > > it you are either told that god works in mysterious ways or that you
> > should
> > > > not test god by such prayers.
> > > > Both would seem to negate such tests.
> > >
> > > You're confusing experiment and theory.
There is no theory of prayer.
Wade Hines
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> Assuming you acquired statistical evidence that the prayer group had a
> superior healing rate, how then would you prove that prayer was
> responsible.
Ju keep using dat word ("prove") ... why? This subthread spun off
of a claim that serious scientists wouldn't study the issue. Again,
you seem stuck in a cartoonish nature of science. Much that science
studies never gets to clear causality. Again, I'm inclined to invoke
the pharmaceutical industry.
Karen
There is.... I've already posted it.
You seem to have missed that one.
karen
Karen
>
> "Karen" <kare...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:qJkC9.630$Um3.33...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > >
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you to provide some type of support that science
has
> > already looked into this issue.
> > As for your explanations why such studies could not be done.... there
were
> > other posts from self-stated scientists who claimed such studies could
be
> > done.
> > karen
>
> Read what I've said. If you want to find serious studies about things
> science stopped playing with a very long time ago *you* will have to go to
a
> major library and do some serious research.
Since you are the one making the claims that such studies exist... .the
burden is on you to provide support.
Otherwise, I must assume your claim is false.
karen
Steve Schaffner
> "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:ydl7kfa...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > You would probably have to go back to the beginning of science to find
> any
> > > real studies on the subject, as I said, after a while you stop looking
> for
> > > the answer even if theory allows it.
> >
> > Your position seems to be that the studies are impossible to do and
> > have already been done.
>
> They have been done but by people wishing to prove they are effictive rather
> than by people who want to see results.
You've suggested that real studies were done long ago, showing that
prayer is ineffective. That's inconsistent with your claim that
they're impossible to do. (That you have no idea, and no interest, in
how, when or by whom these studies were done makes your claim less
than impressive, but that's a different story.)
> They are impossible to do in a valid manner because there is no way to
> determine who has been and who has not been prayed for.
> All you could say about a control group is that you do not think that the
> people praying specifically mentioned members of the control group in their
> prayers done at the time of testing.
> Vast numbers of people pray for the sick and injured every day. Quite
> possibly people in the control group might have family and friends praying
> for them.
I responded to these points in an earlier post. Did you miss it?
What you list are practical difficulties in study design, not
fundamental obstacles to studying prayer. In order to do this kind
of study, you do *not* need to guarantee that no one is praying for
the control group. All you need to do is make sure that one group is
receiving more prayer than the other. That won't test all possible
effects of prayer, but it will test one possible effect. That's all
a study needs to do to be scientific.
> How to you determine this.
By using one's brain? If you're designing the study and are worried
about it, you choose a subject population that's unlikely to have
anyone praying for them, e.g. nonreligious retired people without
families, and living alone. The more restrictive you make it, the
better (and more expensive) your study.
> How do you determine if all prayers are the same.
> Does "please make the sick man well" have the same power as "Please let my
> father live"?
> Does the same phrase have the same effect as a person who prays for hours on
> their knees for a specific person.
These only become an issue if you see an effect. They're also pretty
silly objections -- they're all empirical questions that could be
studied.
> A god would have to be involved to direct these prayers for obvious reasons
Says who? Why presume a particular mechanism?
> There is no theory of prayer for science to study.
>
> >
> > Surely you're not under the impression that science only studies
> > things that are already described by a theory, are you?
>
> No, but as mentioned, after they fail to see results they ususlly slow down
> looking.
Which is a very different claim than yours: you claim the results
can't even be looked for.
Steve Schaffner
> "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:ydl4rae...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > No serious scientist would undertake such a test.
> >
> > I'm a very serious scientist -- I hardly ever crack a smile -- and I
> > do not agree.
> >
>
> But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
> responsible with nothing physical to go on.
Once the results come in, and are replicated, then you start looking
for a mechanism. Maybe you find one -- maybe Penrose is right,
and spooky quantum-mechanical effects are involved in consciousness.
If so, you've got a Nobel Prize in the bag. Maybe you don't, in which
case the result sits in the great big pile of other results that don't
currently have explanations, the pile labeled "Don't know".
Of course, this assumes a positive result. A negative result to
such studies is also interesting, at least to some people.
Steve Schaffner
Steve Schaffner
> Here's what's wrong with the test, say they had two groups and everyone was
> cured in the prayer group and every one died in non prayer group. Now that
> still wouldn't prove that prayer was responsible as it could have been dumb
> luck.
You seem quite confused about how science is done. If you have a
result that looks surprising, the first thing you do is calculate how
likely it would be to get that result by chance -- that's why
scientists developed the field of statistics. Then you attempt to
replicate the result. If you can replicate the result consistently,
*then* you can start to look for a mechanism.
> In order to prove prayer was responsible you would have to find a
> mechanism.
This is just wrong. Superconductivity was observed for decades before
anyone had a clue what its mechanism was. During those decades, no
one doubted that the correlation between low temperature and vanishing
resistence was a causal one. If you carried out 100 studies on
prayer, and in every one found that every single person prayed for by
six Mormons and a Wiccan (praying in Yiddish) recovered from any
illness whatsoever, it would be reasonable to conclude that there was
some relationship between the prayer and the recovery. If those
results were obtained, would you really still be sitting there saying,
"Nope, I don't see a mechanism. Could be dumb luck"?
> And there is no mechanism in prayer as it claims to be
> metaphysical.
Prayer is the phenomenon under study; it doesn't "claim" anything.
> Scientist want to see atoms or subatomic particles go from the
> prayers to the prayees to prove that the prayers were responsible. Without
> any physical evidence the prayers were responsible you cannot scientifically
> attribute the healing to them.
I suggest you stop telling scientists what they want to see.
Steve Schaffner
> "Karen" <kare...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> news:qJkC9.630$Um3.33...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > >
> >
> > I'm still waiting for you to provide some type of support that science has
> > already looked into this issue.
> > As for your explanations why such studies could not be done.... there were
> > other posts from self-stated scientists who claimed such studies could be
> > done.
> > karen
>
> Read what I've said. If you want to find serious studies about things
> science stopped playing with a very long time ago *you* will have to go to a
> major library and do some serious research.
>
> Failing that visit http://www.randi.org/ . Buy and read some of the
> literature there.
>
> The single scientist who said such a study can be done is a minority,
> probably of one.
Two scientists, Wade and myself. By my count, that's a majority of
two to zero, in the current vote.
Lane Lewis
What's with the imitation Negro dialect.
Are you trying to use racism to win this argument, or perhaps you have more
nits to pick, ad hominems to add, its obvious to me your evading the
question and you know full well what the answer is, no serious scientist
would study the issue because science has nothing to say about god, the same
line we tell creationist, but it doesn't just apply to ignorant fundies it
applies to everybody, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, everybody. Sometimes
it's easy to see the bias of others but not so easy to see it in ourselves.
So here to make the statement more scientifically correct I changed it.
Assuming you acquired statistical evidence that the prayer group had a
superior healing rate, how would you then show evidence that prayer was
responsible.
Lane
Lane Lewis
Evidence that the drugs exist is prerequisite for getting FDA approval,
getting the FDA to approve prayer because of statistical evidence would be
laughable.
And I promise never to neglect the role of science when I pose further
questions :O()
Lane
Lane Lewis
> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
> > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ydlbs4m...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because
you
> > cannot
> > > > prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer
would be
> > > > impossible wouldn't it.
> > >
> > > Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
> > > cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
> > > with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
> > > Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
> > > insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > And how were you going to prove it was the prayer that influenced the
> > stats.
>
> As opposed to what?
>
As opposed to anything that's in the physical world. How could you know that
it was prayer and not just some molecules in the air. Your making an
assumption that it was prayer with no physical evidence whatsoever to back
up that claim. Isn't this the same argument we make against creationist when
we say they have no evidence.
Lane
Lane Lewis
> > responsible with nothing physical to go on.
> >
>
> Science, as I understand it, rarely if ever "proves" things. All it can
do
> is identify enough to support or deny a theory.
> And theories can always be undercut later by subsequent studies.... even
> those we really believe in.
> Which says to me, that there is nothing we know 100% for sure. Even in
the
> world of science.
> karen
>
OK, how would go about finding any evidence in support of prayer being
responsible.
Lane
Lane Lewis
> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
> > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ydl4rae...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > > No serious scientist would undertake such a test.
> > >
> > > I'm a very serious scientist -- I hardly ever crack a smile -- and I
> > > do not agree.
> > >
> >
> > But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
> > responsible with nothing physical to go on.
>
> Once the results come in, and are replicated, then you start looking
> for a mechanism. Maybe you find one -- maybe Penrose is right,
> and spooky quantum-mechanical effects are involved in consciousness.
> If so, you've got a Nobel Prize in the bag. Maybe you don't, in which
> case the result sits in the great big pile of other results that don't
> currently have explanations, the pile labeled "Don't know".
>
Why not avoid that problem to begin with by only doing science on physical
objects not the metaphysical prayer. Doing research on the metaphysical is
doomed from the start.
> Of course, this assumes a positive result. A negative result to
> such studies is also interesting, at least to some people.
>
Certainly not to scientist.
Lane
David Jensen
Because the test would be set up so that it is the only variable.
Steve Schaffner
> "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:ydln0o5...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:ydl4rae...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > > > No serious scientist would undertake such a test.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a very serious scientist -- I hardly ever crack a smile -- and I
> > > > do not agree.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
> > > responsible with nothing physical to go on.
> >
> > Once the results come in, and are replicated, then you start looking
> > for a mechanism. Maybe you find one -- maybe Penrose is right,
> > and spooky quantum-mechanical effects are involved in consciousness.
> > If so, you've got a Nobel Prize in the bag. Maybe you don't, in which
> > case the result sits in the great big pile of other results that don't
> > currently have explanations, the pile labeled "Don't know".
> >
>
> Why not avoid that problem to begin with by only doing science on physical
> objects not the metaphysical prayer. Doing research on the metaphysical is
> doomed from the start.
The last time I checked, people praying were physical objects.
> > Of course, this assumes a positive result. A negative result to
> > such studies is also interesting, at least to some people.
> >
>
> Certainly not to scientist.
Since I am a scientist and am interested (not a lot, but interested),
your statement is trivially false.
Steve Schaffner
> "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:ydlptt1...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:ydlbs4m...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because
> you
> > > cannot
> > > > > prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for prayer
> would be
> > > > > impossible wouldn't it.
> > > >
> > > > Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
> > > > cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
> > > > with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
> > >
> > > And how were you going to prove it was the prayer that influenced the
> > > stats.
> >
> > As opposed to what?
> >
>
> As opposed to anything that's in the physical world.
Prayer happens in the physical world, doesn't it? I mean, we're
talking about human beings praying, right?
> How could you know that
> it was prayer and not just some molecules in the air.
Please go on. I want to know how some molecules in the air could
cause a correlation between prayer and medical outcome. (I'll also
point out that if you could find such a mechanism, it would be very
interesting, and would more than justify the original study.)
> Your making an
> assumption that it was prayer with no physical evidence whatsoever to back
> up that claim.
The correlation (which has yet to be demostrated, of course) *is*
the physical evidence. A reproducible correlation is normally
taken to mean that there is *some* kind of causal connection between
the correlated events. In this case, it could be that prayer affects
the medical outcome, it could be that the medical outcome
retroactively affects the prayer, or it could be that some third
process affects both. If the study is well designed and implemented,
uninteresting cases of the third category (e.g. non-random assignment
to case and control arms, failure of blinding) can be eliminated. In
that case, any of the three possibilities would be extraordinarily
interesting scientifically.
> Isn't this the same argument we make against creationist when
> we say they have no evidence.
No. In the case of creationists we say they have no evidence because
they have no evidence. It *is* the same argument that creationists
use when they say that we can't prove that mutations are random, or
that radioactive decay rates remain constant.
June
> "Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> > "Karen" <kare...@swbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:qJkC9.630$Um3.33...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm still waiting for you to provide some type of support that science has
> > > already looked into this issue.
> > > As for your explanations why such studies could not be done.... there were
> > > other posts from self-stated scientists who claimed such studies could be
> > > done.
> > > karen
> >
> > Read what I've said. If you want to find serious studies about things
> > science stopped playing with a very long time ago *you* will have to go to a
> > major library and do some serious research.
> >
> > Failing that visit http://www.randi.org/ . Buy and read some of the
> > literature there.
> >
> > The single scientist who said such a study can be done is a minority,
> > probably of one.
>
> Two scientists, Wade and myself. By my count, that's a majority of
> two to zero, in the current vote.
There also seem to be other scientists out there who also believe such
studies are feasible since there have been a number published in
journals in recent years (including 2002). FWIU, reading the abstracts,
there have been mixed results and some opinions that further studies
need to be done. I have also read that there are criticisms of the
methodologies of the studies showing positive effects. Here's a link to
PubMed search results for 'intercessory prayer'.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
I think there should be further studies to put the question to rest if
possible, one way or another, from a scientific pov. I have no illusions
that definitive negative findings would convince the religious, but at
least it would give concrete, objective data for evaluating treatment.
OTOH, positive findings would open up some very interesting research. (I
don't think that positive findings would indicate supernatural
intervention, just a previously unknown physical phenomenon.)
--
My 2¢ B-}
June
Wade Hines
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92CB50D7747F...@199.184.165.241...
>> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> allegedly scribed
>>
>> > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>> > Assuming you acquired statistical evidence that the prayer group had
>> > a superior healing rate, how then would you prove that prayer was
>> > responsible.
>>
>> Ju keep using dat word ("prove") ... why? This subthread spun off
>> of a claim that serious scientists wouldn't study the issue. Again,
>> you seem stuck in a cartoonish nature of science. Much that science
>> studies never gets to clear causality. Again, I'm inclined to invoke
>> the pharmaceutical industry.
>>
>>
>
> What's with the imitation Negro dialect.
Inconceivable!
"Never go up against a Sicilian, when DEATH is on the line!"
> Are you trying to use racism to win this argument, or perhaps you have
> more nits to pick, ad hominems to add, its obvious to me your evading
> the question and you know full well what the answer is, no serious
> scientist would study the issue because science has nothing to say
> about god, the same line we tell creationist, but it doesn't just apply
> to ignorant fundies it applies to everybody, Catholics, Jews,
> Protestants, everybody. Sometimes it's easy to see the bias of others
> but not so easy to see it in ourselves. So here to make the statement
> more scientifically correct I changed it.
> Assuming you acquired statistical evidence that the prayer group had a
> superior healing rate, how would you then show evidence that prayer was
> responsible.
I think you need to hear it from someone else because it's been
explained to you already.
Regardless, if you've attempted to control the experiment, the controlled
variable is that one group was prayed for and the other wasn't. As in all
experiments, the control of this variabile will be imperfect. Depending on
what imperfections you can identify in your first study, you would try a
new variant that did a better job of eliminating other suspect causes,
perhaps at the expense of other effects. Real science works that way. It's
very iterative and ideal control of variables can't always be acheived.
Still, you'd report your methods and results and others, perhaps more
clever, could attempt to reproduce the result. If some reliable correlation
was found, I'd be anxious to know if some sorts of prayers worked better
than others. While I'm not to big on the mysticism of the East, there sure
are some cool deities to experiment with should a generalized prayer
effect be found.
I don't see a big difference between some study of two groups, one that
had some type of specific prayer support and one that didn't, and
two groups, one that lived near high voltage lines and one that didn't.
I couldn't prove that proximity to high voltage lines has a causal effect
or if it is co-incidental to some other causitive effect in a cancer
cluster but I can design an experiment to measure some difference between
two control populations.
Noelie S. Alito
>
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92CB50D7747F...@199.184.165.241...
> > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> allegedly scribed
> >
> > > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > Assuming you acquired statistical evidence that the prayer group had a
> > > superior healing rate, how then would you prove that prayer was
> > > responsible.
> >
> > Ju keep using dat word ("prove") ... why? This subthread spun off
> > of a claim that serious scientists wouldn't study the issue. Again,
> > you seem stuck in a cartoonish nature of science. Much that science
> > studies never gets to clear causality. Again, I'm inclined to invoke
> > the pharmaceutical industry.
> >
> >
>
> What's with the imitation Negro dialect.
That's a line from the Spaniard (Inigo Montoya) in _The_Princess_Bride_.
> Are you trying to use racism to win this argument, or perhaps you have more
> nits to pick, ad hominems to add, its obvious to me your evading the
> question and you know full well what the answer is, no serious scientist
> would study the issue because science has nothing to say about god, the same
> line we tell creationist, but it doesn't just apply to ignorant fundies it
> applies to everybody, Catholics, Jews, Protestants, everybody. Sometimes
> it's easy to see the bias of others but not so easy to see it in ourselves.
[Am I the only one who's getting a kick out of Wade being accused
of racism and/or religious bigotry?]
> So here to make the statement more scientifically correct I changed it.
The end points: humans praying<=======>physical effect
Both are eligible for study.
> Assuming you acquired statistical evidence that the prayer group had a
> superior healing rate, how would you then show evidence that prayer was
> responsible.
First step: Establish correlation, if any.
If there is correlation, then the next step is to explain the correlation.
Otherwise, go have a beer.
Noelie
--
"Inconceivable!"
"Jou keep using dat word. I do not tink it means what jou tink it means."
Noelie S. Alito
>
> "Noelie S. Alito" <noe...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
> news:arboh5$gv51q$1...@ID-117948.news.dfncis.de...> > news:GRcC9.316790$S8.64...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >
> > > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:ydlbs4m...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Scientist work in the physical world not the metaphysical because
> you
> > > > > cannot prove or disprove the metaphysical therefore testing for
> prayer
> > > > > would be impossible wouldn't it.
> > > >
> > > > Whether God hears prayers is a nonphysical question that science
> > > > cannot address. Testing whether prayer is statistically associated
> > > > with a particular outcome in illness is eminently testable.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And how were you going to prove it was the prayer that influenced the
> > > stats.
> >
> > a strong correlation, then we figure out what, if anything, in
> > cigarettes can cause cancer--um, I mean what, if anything, in
> > prayer could affect the natural world.
> >
>
> What would establish a correlation.
Repeatable double-blinded intercessory prayer studies with
statistically significant correlations between prayer goals and
prayee responses. In studies such as this control for
contamination of the blinding would have to scrupulous,
of course (since such contamination is one of the strong
alternate hypotheses).
Noelie
--
"Rhyming with 'goalie' no matter what Matt says."
nnooee...@mmaaiill.uutteexxaass.eedduu
Wade Hines
>> <<< snip >>>
>> > But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
>> > responsible with nothing physical to go on.
>> The FDA approves drugs based on statistical results, not based
>> on proven mechanisms. In fact, mechanisms tend to get you in
>> trouble because you neglect the effects and concentrate on
>> the lovely pharmacological story.
>> There are very few cases where science provides clear proof
>> of causality, even for lenient definitions of proof. Showing
>> a significant correlation enough to be serious science. Don't
>> neglect the role of science in posing further questions.
> Evidence that the drugs exist is prerequisite for getting FDA approval,
> getting the FDA to approve prayer because of statistical evidence would
> be laughable.
I have evidence that people pray. I have evidence that drugs exist.
So far, it's a tie. Did you think you had a point there?
The Food and Drug Administration currently evaluations certain
combination thearapies. Sometimes a drug alone had inadequate effect
or too great a side effect. If one could document a combination
therapy that involved meditation, there isn't any reason that the
FDA would necessarily deny it and indeed would probably do what it
does which is to regulate the label of the drug. That label would
then list the effects of taking the drug and meditating and caution
about compliance issues etc. Technically, prayer could fit into
the same boat though this all presumes one could demonstrate a
statistically significant result.
> And I promise never to neglect the role of science when I pose further
> questions :O()
Care to stick with one set of goal posts?
Your questions have been answered repeatedly though so I assume
you're simply not serious.
Wade Hines
> First step: Establish correlation, if any.
> If there is correlation, then the next step is to explain the
> correlation. Otherwise, go have a beer.
If that was meant to be an accurate ordering, it doesn't
match the (hic) science I know.
Steve Schaffner
> First step: Establish correlation, if any.
> If there is correlation, then the next step is to explain the correlation.
> Otherwise, go have a beer.
You write as if those were incompatible options.
Karen
How do you know that's not what prayer is?
You seem to perservate on the xian definition of prayer, along with its
"mechanisms" (as posted elsewhere) of deity.
The mechanism of prayer, if real, could be something surprisingly physical.
>Your making an
> assumption that it was prayer with no physical evidence
Many things had no physical evidence until a great many studies had been
concluded.
Why should this be any different?
It sounds more like you just oppose the religiosity, and since this is
commonly (but not always) attached to prayer you appear automatically reject
it as well, rather than considering it on its own merit.
I would think a scientist would compartmentalize the cause/effect issue
separately.
karen
Karen
>
> "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> news:ydln0o5...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:ydl4rae...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > > > No serious scientist would undertake such a test.
> > > >
> > > > I'm a very serious scientist -- I hardly ever crack a smile -- and I
> > > > do not agree.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
> > > responsible with nothing physical to go on.
> >
> > Once the results come in, and are replicated, then you start looking
> > for a mechanism. Maybe you find one -- maybe Penrose is right,
> > and spooky quantum-mechanical effects are involved in consciousness.
> > If so, you've got a Nobel Prize in the bag. Maybe you don't, in which
> > case the result sits in the great big pile of other results that don't
> > currently have explanations, the pile labeled "Don't know".
> >
>
> Why not avoid that problem to begin with by only doing science on physical
> objects not the metaphysical prayer. Doing research on the metaphysical is
> doomed from the start.
You continue to make an assumption that prayer/magick is metaphysical. Why?
Some practioners believe it is an entirely physical phenomena, as I have
previously posted.
karen
Karen
"June" <jun...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1flwae0.kfag8y11dbrdcN%jun...@adelphia.net...
I agree.
I have no illusions
> that definitive negative findings would convince the religious, but at
> least it would give concrete, objective data for evaluating treatment.
> OTOH, positive findings would open up some very interesting research. (I
> don't think that positive findings would indicate supernatural
> intervention, just a previously unknown physical phenomenon.)
Agree again.
You know, the few recent studies on prayer I have read about seem to take
this very generic approach to prayer.
Years back, I met some earth religionists (not xians) who believed in
magick. We had a lengthy discussion about prayer and magick and they claimed
1/ that no deity was involved and 2/ that the mechanisms were purely
physical (tho they couldn't really explain this well) and 3/ that the
mechanism could not affect all things.
Well, then it was a free for all and everyone jumped in.
But I found that an intriquing thot. I was still semi-theistic then and
struggling with a neurological diagnosis my son had just received. I wanted
prayer to change it. Fix it. Which of course it didn't.
What some of the non-xians theorized was that prayer / magick cannot break
the rules of nature. Only enhance it or work through it. So, for example,
if you have a broken bone then magick might help it heal faster. Magick
might encourage the elements so that rain will come to a parched area sooner
rather than later. However, if you are born with no arm... magick/prayer
will not create an arm out of nothing. And if you are born with a brain
that is not designed quite the same as everyone elses, well, then magick
cannot change that.
I found that to be an interesting theory. It certainly helped alleviate
some of the pressure about why prayer does / does not work.
Additionally, they theorized, some people are more skilled at the task of
prayer. However the heck it works. Just as some people run faster, or hear
better, or are more musically talented... these folks felt there were some
people with more talent in the area of magick/prayer. Which would also be a
misleading variable in any scientific study.... especially if all your
participants were the NON-talented ones and you had no way to know this!
::grin::
Bottom line is... I think there is more to consider in studying the concept
of prayer, but the comments I usually hear all seem to approach the topic
from a limited, xian constraint.
I will continue to read studies on this subject with interest. Postive or
negative tho the results may be.
karen
June
> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:GivC9.335836$S8.65...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns92CB50D7747F...@199.184.165.241...
> > > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> allegedly scribed
> > >
> > > > "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > >
[snip]
>
> [Am I the only one who's getting a kick out of Wade being accused
> of racism and/or religious bigotry?]
>
[snip]
I've had a couple of giggles about it.
Lane Lewis
Impossible to control contamination, it would of course help if you had some
idea of what to control against but I'll conceed at this point as I'm going
to test the "Venus of Willendorf" a very very old fertility symbol. I figure
by driving it all around town for several nights we should see a statisticle
rise in the birthrate. No doubt a double blind scientific study as the
participants will have no idea what I'm doing until a month or two later Tee
Hee. After that I'll look into sacrificing chickens and check the well being
of the comunity afterwords.
Wish me luck.
I also remember the statistical wars with the cigarette companies.
Check out the movie " The Insider" which was nominated for several awards
Lane
>
>
>
>
Lane Lewis
"David Jensen" <da...@dajensen-family.com> wrote in message
news:nb2ltugsjvlgou5u8...@4ax.com...
what are you going to set up as the variable.
Lane
Lane Lewis
> "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
>
> > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ydln0o5...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > "Lane Lewis" <l...@tampabay.rr.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > "Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.wi.mit.edu> wrote in message
> > > > news:ydl4rae...@darwin.wi.mit.edu...
> > > > > > No serious scientist would undertake such a test.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm a very serious scientist -- I hardly ever crack a smile -- and
I
> > > > > do not agree.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But once the results come in how do you prove it was prayer that was
> > > > responsible with nothing physical to go on.
> > >
> > > Once the results come in, and are replicated, then you start looking
> > > for a mechanism. Maybe you find one -- maybe Penrose is right,
> > > and spooky quantum-mechanical effects are involved in consciousness.
> > > If so, you've got a Nobel Prize in the bag. Maybe you don't, in which
> > > case the result sits in the great big pile of other results that don't
> > > currently have explanations, the pile labeled "Don't know".
> > >
> >
> > Why not avoid that problem to begin with by only doing science on
physical
> > objects not the metaphysical prayer. Doing research on the metaphysical
is
> > doomed from the start.
>
> The last time I checked, people praying were physical objects.
People are physical, prayer is not.
>
>
> > > Of course, this assumes a positive result. A negative result to
> > > such studies is also interesting, at least to some people.
> > >
> >
> > Certainly not to scientist.
>
> Since I am a scientist and am interested (not a lot, but interested),
> your statement is trivially false.
I'll certainly conceed that point.
So now i conceed your point and I'm off to do some fertility studies with
the fertility symbol Venus of Willendorf she is just pregnant with
possibilities. I will report my findings in 9 months
Lane
Lane Lewis
1. a. A reverent petition made to God, a god, or another object of worship.
b. The act of making a reverent petition to God, a god, or another object of
worship.
2. An act of communion with God, a god, or another object of worship, such
as in devotion, confession, praise, or thanksgiving: One evening a week, the
family would join together in prayer.
3. A specially worded form used to address God, a god, or another object of
worship.
4. prayers A religious observance in which praying predominates: morning
prayers.
mag·ic
mag·ic (maj?ik) noun
1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or
forces by invoking the supernatural.
2. a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce
supernatural effects or control events in nature. b. The charms, spells, and
rituals so used.
3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
4. A mysterious quality of enchantment: “For me the names of those men
breathed the magic of the past” (Max Beerbohm).
Lane
Karen
>
> mag搏c (maj?ik) noun
>
> 1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects,
or
> forces by invoking the supernatural.
> 2. a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to
produce
> supernatural effects or control events in nature. b. The charms, spells,
and
> rituals so used.
> 3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
> 4. A mysterious quality of enchantment: "For me the names of those men
> breathed the magic of the past" (Max Beerbohm).
>
Thanks for providing support for my point.
Did you notice the part in the magic definition #2b which said magick is an
attempt to "control events in nature"?
This is what I've been telling you. Not everyone claims there is a
supernatural being behind prayers/magick (from a functional point of view,
these are pretty much the same.)
Additionally, it doesn't matter whether some people "think" the supposed
results of their prayers/magick are gifts from a deity. Some people also
think deity created the earth .... because one doesn't believe in deity
should they also reject that the earth had a beginning... or exists? No.
Try to keep the religiosity and the concept of prayer (people pray... things
happen) separate. That simple hypothesis ... people pray/things happen....
is interesting, if true.
From a scientific point of view, I would think it is the reality of the
results that matters at the outset... not the mechanism. The cause or
mechanism could be tested and studied once the reality has been validated
(if it is.)
karen