Diogenes' Dog:
Time to put this to rest; we've been spending far too much time analyzing a specific study. My point is rather simple:
There is no compelling evidence that prayer or DH has any substantial effect and there is quite a bit of controversy regarding many of the studies that show any significant effect at all, particularly the larger studies that returned positive results (e.g. Byrd, Harris).
Prayer, DH and other such paranormal remedies are intimately tied with particular world-views and beliefs whose justification becomes the real pursuit of these studies. There is no other rational explanation for the continuing interest... if instead of prayer or DH we were talking about a new drug it would have been abandoned long ago in favor of more fruitful pursuits. No one would be wasting money for medical research on a drug that maybe sometimes might just work but in a completely unreliable and unpredictable manner.
And although we've discussed it, I'll strengthen my position to state that being unable to define a mechanism of action in such studies is fatal. Take a commentary on the Harris study as an example:
But even so, as it pertains to pure research I'm not against studying prayer or any other hypothesis. One should always remain open minded to new results but taking into account the results thus far from such studies their flaws and the related criticisms I have no misgivings regarding my initial statement.
~Raithere
Time to put this to rest; we've been spending far too much time analyzing a specific study. My point is rather simple:
There is no compelling evidence that prayer or DH has any substantial effect and there is quite a bit of controversy regarding many of the studies that show any significant effect at all, particularly the larger studies that returned positive results (e.g. Byrd, Harris).
Prayer, DH and other such paranormal remedies are intimately tied with particular world-views and beliefs whose justification becomes the real pursuit of these studies. There is no other rational explanation for the continuing interest... if instead of prayer or DH we were talking about a new drug it would have been abandoned long ago in favor of more fruitful pursuits. No one would be wasting money for medical research on a drug that maybe sometimes might just work but in a completely unreliable and unpredictable manner.
And although we've discussed it, I'll strengthen my position to state that being unable to define a mechanism of action in such studies is fatal. Take a commentary on the Harris study as an example:
Harris and coauthors1 arranged for prayers to be said for patients in the cardiac care unit who had even medical record numbers; they found borderline significant advantages for this group in one measure of patient scores. Unfortunately, they failed to realize that investigators of seemingly paranormal effects must consider a much wider range of possibilities than those that occur in ordinary scientific work.
It is true, as they say, that intercessory prayer has been common for millennia. But it is equally true that mystic powers have been attached to numbers from time immemorial,2 and the specific distinction of even and odd has been considered significant in cultures ranging from China to ancient Greece.3 Thus, the assignment of even numbers is just as likely an explanation of the data as the prayers.
http://archinte.ama-assn.org
But even so, as it pertains to pure research I'm not against studying prayer or any other hypothesis. One should always remain open minded to new results but taking into account the results thus far from such studies their flaws and the related criticisms I have no misgivings regarding my initial statement.
~Raithere