Stephen wrote:
> Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom_no_underscores> wrote:
>> andrel wrote:
>>> On 5-7-2009 19:57, Darren New wrote:
>>>> Darren New wrote:
>>>> I.e., it's the same bit as prayer. Surely if 50% of the Catholics with
>>>> cancer who prayed for remission got better, and only 10% of the
>>>> non-Catholic population got better from the same kind of cancer, you'd
>>>> say "Hey, maybe the Catholics are on to something."  But when there's
>>>> no difference at all, you kind of have to discount the effacy of prayer.
>>>>
>>> Wasn't that one tested a couple of years ago? With surprising results?
>>> Anyone can find that reference?
>> It's the kind of study that always gets mentioned in churches, but never
>> referenced in papers.  I've heard countless stories of such things, but
>> never seen a reputable reference to it.
>>
> 
> But it is mentioned in papers. Is that not what faith healing and juju/Obeah is
> all about?
> Well maybe not *all*
> 
> Stephen
> 

Usually, it works more like this:

1. Someone does such a study.
2. Raw data, when "properly" analyzed shows "no" significant results, or 
involves such a small, and homogeneous group that it is basically 
meaningless (and usually contradicted by other studies).
3. All the data that contradicts the premise is thrown out, and its 
deemed a success, because what was "kept" implies it worked.

The joke being that a) this isn't how you do science, since you let the 
evidence lead, not mangle the evidence to fit the premise and b) well 
funded, well run, large scale, studies often show either "no" positive 
correlation, or worse, as in the one case, actually imply a negative one 
(the one where a patient knowing someone prayed for them indicated an 
"increase" in the odds of dying, instead of being cured, and maybe a 
slight increase in deaths from those prayed for, but who where not aware 
of someone doing so, though the statistics where a bit less certain on 
that one). But, of course, people will pick the studies that "imply" 
positive results, for the same reason that the "researchers" ignore 
negative results, to promote their presupposition that the results imply 
it actually worked. They are not interested in the evidence, just the 
conclusion (which needs to be what "they" want it to be).

In general though, *properly* constructed studies always show a lack of 
correlation between anything like prayer and actual benefits. Its 
generally only the ones done wrong, or on very small groups with a 
predisposition to react positively to the magic joojoo that seem to show 
a positive result, and then its like.. the equivalent of, "I can 
magically make a random coin toss come up heads 0.0001% more often than 
'chance'." Wow, if we all prayed we should see armies of people, uh.. a 
few, uh, maybe one or two people, walking out the door, miraculously 
cured, every.. year?! lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message