And I did find studies that have found a positive correllation between prayer and healing. There is enough now that even the NIH has commissioned a study. Predictably, skeptics have attacked the validity of the tests, even though they include double-blind, controlled testing.
But I did find one salient study that eliminates the human element in terms of the suspicious God Spot in the human brain argument. This research was performed on the effect of intercessory prayer on animals (non-human primates).
The study is here, an NIH site.
I will reproduce here the results, you can go to the site for details.
The effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in nonhuman primates.
RESULTS: Following IP/L-tryptophan treatment, prayer-group animals had a reduction in wound size compared to non-prayer animals (P=.028). Prayer-group animals had a greater increase in red blood cells (P=.006), hemoglobin (P=.01), and hematocrit (P=.018); a greater reduction in both mean corpuscular hemoglobin (P=.023) and corpuscular volume (P=.008); and a reduction in wound grooming (P=.01) and total grooming behaviors (P=.04) than non-prayer-group animals. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are consistent with prior human trials of IP effectiveness, but suggest IP-induced health improvements may be independent of confounds associated with human participants. Findings may provide direction for study of the mechanisms of IP-induced health improvements in both human and animal models.
PMID: 17131981 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20 comments:
I'm skeptical, of course, but I have to admit that the study sounds very interesting. I hope they continue researching this phenomenon...
OK. Just keep in mind that rejection of mainline science is a step toward dogmatism... ("We must trust the experts!" -Al Gore)
I'm sure they will keep studying this. How many positive results are required before you accept it?
Actually I am skeptical also. It would be uncharacteristic of the documented Judeo-Christian deity to submit to testing by humans, especially skeptical humans. In fact, there are warnings against just that.
Stan-
I have been reading your stuff for a couple weeks now and would like to make my first comment--
This is an awesome site. Keep up the good work!
Unfortunately, without access to the entire article, it's hard to say much about it. Maybe they're onto something, maybe not- but the sample size of 22 animals doesn't inspire much confidence in the statistical validity of the study, especially if we don't know how they picked the variables. It's easy to get a positive result with a small sample size by merely selecting those variables that turn up positive.
In the lack of the entire study, or of any critical commentary on the study, I remain agnostic, especially since much larger studies (the largest so far being Benson's, with over 1800 cardiac patients, reported on here) show no effect for intercessory prayer. Or maybe prayer only works for bush babies.
In any case, what is your alternative to Gore's advice, that We must trust the experts? Shall we rather trust the wingnuts? I would say, we should listen to all sides, but if we must trust someone, we should rather trust the experts.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Sonic,
Thanks! And feel free to comment at any time...
Zilch said,
"In any case, what is your alternative to Gore's advice, that We must trust the experts? Shall we rather trust the wingnuts? I would say, we should listen to all sides, but if we must trust someone, we should rather trust the experts."
Your use of the common Leftist pejorative "wingnuts" for dissentors or skeptics seems to place you outside the category of objective skeptic and into the dogmatic category. Al Gore insisted on unquestioning acceptance of his (personal heavy investment) notion of a "settled science" - a blatant falsehood.
Your suggestion of listening to all sides is interesting, considering your disdain for contrary positions. I feel that "trusting" the experts is an exercise in subjection to elitism. Plus I feel that all individuals should inform themselves fully on subjects of importance to them, or hold themselves too ignorant to decide and keep respectfully silent - I do not advocate subjection to elitism, ever. And I am somewhat suspicious of those who do, like Al Gore.
What, then, is your definition of "expert", Stan?
>I feel that "trusting" the experts is an exercise in subjection to elitism.
Then don't fly. Don't go to the dentist. Don't get knee surgery. Don't ever call a plumber. Don't ride a bus. Etc.
Martin and I have been through these things before, right Martin?
Zilch, I seem to regress into thinking things are clear when they really aren't. For purposes of our discussion here, there are two types of experts.
First there are those like Feynmann, who insist that if you cannot clearly explain what you know to a layman, including all the things that are not yet known and why they are important, then you really don't understand it yourself, and that pretending to do so is intellectually dishonest.
Second there are those who conceal what they know or pretend to know with obfuscation and/or secrecy, do not reveal, or deny the indeterminancies, and allow their concealed "knowledge" to acquire an importance beyond its actual value by inflating the impact that the supposed knowledge has.
Martin, every profession has quacks. Trusting a busdriver qua busdriver (I've been waiting a long time to use "qua"...heh heh) is just wrong; it is easy to glance over a driver for drunkenness, yes? Same goes for other areas of expertise. Doctors and plumbers are chosen at random only in desperation. Otherwise, they are chosen on recommendation by those who have experienced their skill. Getting concrete poured by strangers? Risky.
From my perspective the concept of automatically trusting experts smacks of gullibility; can I invest your money for you? I am an expert, you know! Email me for a PO Box to send your cash to...
Don't browse the internet feeling secure, don't invest your money in stocks, ignore weather forecasts, repair your car yourself, believe in conspiracy theories...
Whoops, that last one was a bit too far.
Seriously, "I feel that 'trusting' the experts is an exercise in subjection to elitism" is complete hogwash. You DO trust the experts, all the time - you just want intellectual justification to ignore CERTAIN experts carte blanch while claiming you're doing so reasonably.
You simply want to ignore people who belong to groups opposed ideologically to yours. There's nothing wrong with doing this, by the way; however, you should stop pretending that it makes sense to do so. It doesn't.
Whateverman, I think you were writing at the time I was posting. Kindly read my comment, just above yours.
You are wrong in your assessment. And the issue is whether to trust experts, period. Regardless of any other qualification other than a claim to be expert, therefore you must be trusted.
The piling on of "experts" who must be trusted is silliness; you do not invest your money with just any "expert" do you? (If you do, I repeat my offer above... as an expert, of course).
Bernie Madoff was an expert. A lot of folks trusted him!
Steve
Anonymous said...
...Bernie Madoff...
Hey, are you trying to run off my customers?
"First there are those like Feynmann...."
I agree! Which is why it's so baffling to me that you seem incapable of understanding anything on global warming I link to. I linked to a very straightforward article explaining the CO2 problem without reference to models or temperature data. Your response? "The temperature would make a hockeystick!" or something. You didn't once address a single premise of the argument and indeed didn't indicate that you had even read it or understood it. It was explained very well in the same way Feynmann said.
I then linked to an article on why paleo-climatology has nothing to do with global warming. Your response? "They say paleoclimate isn't about AGW; of course it is!" or something. Again giving me the impression you had absolutely no interest in actually reading it or considering what it said. It was explained very well in the same way Feynmann said.
And multiple times I've linked to the AR4 to show you why you were wrong in stating that climate science is "elitist" and "closed" and so forth, NOT to prove to you that it's true but simply to show you that your claims about it are simply wrong. Completely. I mean, this isn't like arguments about God or Popper's philosophy of Darwinism, where you can debate back and forth indefinitely. This is just a demonstrably wrong statement, like claiming that the state of Hawaii does not exist. In two seconds you could click on the AR4 link and see that you are wrong, but you don't.
So as you said about Feynmann, global warming is explained very well, the hypotheses, the models, the data, etc etc, for anyone who'd care to objectively learn about it.
If you misunderstand them and refuse to learn what they actually say, they are still experts in group #1. You have only kept them in group #2 in your own mind.
Wow, we're back on AGW now.
I've explained to you before that your concept of AGW and the AGW as I understand it are two different things.
As you claim, if people put CO2 in the air, then it is AGW.
As I claim, so what? It is not a crisis.
The consumer-oriented version of AGW is that it is going to kill the earth, its inhabitants, and maybe destroy the universe -IFF we don't pile our wallets in a stack for Al Gore and the Obama Cap and Traders to rifle through (overstated only slightly, see the protests at the conference).
And that is the version of AGW that I care about. They are two different things.
I have done my own little equations and I am satisfied that saturation will occur and cooling will follow that saturation, possibly already has, and I am convinced that the alarm is a political structure, not scientific. If you believe that paleohistory does not influence the idea of panic-crisis, v.s. no panic-crisis, I don't know what else I can tell you.
We might be stuck on opposing notions.
Maybe if I repeat, I really don't care about the science. (although the culture of this particular endeavor is corrupt).
I care about the panic-crisis the political PTB are trying to stir up.
Interestingly, in the news yesterday a new report says that cooling might last a number of decades. Maybe tomorrow they will report that it might last centuries. Or like the MET, report this to be the warmest winter ever, based on measurements taken only in November.
I should have mentioned, as long as we are on AGW and experts: I refer you to Ian Plimer and his new book, Heaven and Earth, which I found informative.
Dr Plimer is dripping with credentials, so he cannot be discounted as an expert source, right?
His book contains 2,311 references to studies which back up his various attacks on AGW (the science) and AR4 specifically.
He is an expert. Do you trust him?
>Wow, we're back on AGW now.
Only because I find your reasoning baffling to the point of endless fascination. :) And because it's relevant to the "expert" dispute that was raised.
>overstated only slightly, see the protests at the conference
Completely agreed. There's a guy with a blog who is doing a hunger strike for climate. Trust me, I roll my eyes at this as much as you.
Enviro-crazies accept global warming because of ideology, not science. It does not however follow that global warming is therefore ideology and not science. Affirming the consequent, I believe?
>If you believe that paleohistory does not influence the idea of panic-crisis, v.s. no panic-crisis
It's not a matter of what I believe, it's a matter of fact. The fact in question is that climate scientists get their concern over global warming from measuring PRESENT DAY heat transfer at top of atmosphere (TOA), which shows CO2 radiative forcing to be the strongest of all known climate drivers.
It's also a fact that they do NOT get their concern from looking at temperature charts and saying, "Gee whiz! I wonder why the temperature is going up here in the 20th Century! OMG! PANIC!!"
>Dr Plimer is dripping with credentials, so he cannot be discounted as an expert source, right?
There is a fascinating interview with him and George Monbiot, and Monbiot raises a question that Plimer completely twisted the words of a study to say the opposite of what it actually said. Monbiot then spent the rest of the interview trying to get Plimer to address this criticism, and Plimer absolutely refused to answer the charge. The interview moderator then tried to get him to answer the question, but he would not. Plimer engaged in so many red herrings he must stink like the hold of a Deadliest Catch boat. It's here if you're interested.
But more importantly, appeal to authority is perfectly valid unless: "The 'authority' cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: 'I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV....' The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine." From Fallacy Files.
Plimer is a geologist.
If you can't watch the video, here is an article about the Monbiot/Plimer interview: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
Fascinating, the amount of wriggling Plimer does, when pressed on the incorrect information he keeps parroting even after shown to be wrong.
But,but,but he's an expert. No one has a RIGHT to question him!! And that is my point. Plimer has put it all out in front and it is subject to question. His data is annotated but his graphs are not. The subtext sometimes doesn't match the text. He made a mistake by allowing things to be seen. Radicals are now OMG questioning the expert! Who do they think they are? HE wrote the book, they are just deniers! Deniers!
BTW, There is no such thing as a PhD in atmospheric climatology, that I know of. All of these guys have degrees in something else. geology is as good a degree as anything else. Don't question the expert!! We must accept his thoughts as better than our own. He won the Eureka Prize, Australia's "highest scientific honor"! He has published over 120 scientific papers! He CANNOT be questioned, he is an expert!
[Sorry for the weak satire, I know it is unbecoming, but this conversation is somehow beyond reason - so what is left?]
Discussing Argumentum Ad Verecundiam is beyond reason? But I thought you were a strictly logical person. Isn't that how you analyze atheism, by using logic and reason? Do you deny that Argumentum Ad Verecundiam is a logical fallacy?
You seem to be confusing humility with submission. I don't submit to experts absolutely as gods, I simply recognize that I am not as smart as people who have devoted their entire adult lives to studying a subject.
I've taken the time to read what AGW says (NOT accepting it as true, JUST understanding the argument it makes), and then read the counter arguments, including your blog posts. Almost every skeptic attacks positions that AGW does not take and has never taken. This is confirmation in my mind that Argumentum Ad Verecundiam is absolutely a logical fallacy, as Lock says.
Pride is generally considered the deadliest of the seven.
Post a Comment