THAT HEALING PRAYER BROUHAHA

[RichardR]

From today's commentary: (http://www.randi.org/jr/070904that.html#1)

A heavy discussion has being going on for weeks now about a study that appeared to validate the power-of-prayer notion that has been under question for so many decades. I've declined to address the current exposure of the farce until it was definitively settled; that time has arrived. Which is all very well, except that Randi does not tell us about anything that was actually wrong with the study.

Randi's article consists of several "poisoning the well" type ad Hominems, and an Appeal to Authority (Jaroff), but no explanation of what was actually flawed in the study.

I find this rather surprising, especially as Randi himself posted recently, "we want to serve as a source of information for the press, for students, for scientists, for authors, and for anyone else who would like to have an "alternate" view of subjects…" This article is not much of a source of information on this study, in my view.

Disappointing, to say the least.

[Brown]

Originally posted by RichardR
Which is all very well, except that Randi does not tell us about anything that was actually wrong with the study.

Randi's article consists of several "poisoning the well" type ad Hominems, and an Appeal to Authority (Jaroff), but no explanation of what was actually flawed in the study.

I find this rather surprising....Me too. Just reading between the lines, my guess is that the data got "cooked." This would explain the "editorial review and assistance" line. Translated, it means, "I only reviewed the data that were given to me and the conclusions based thereon; but I didn't participate in the data collection myself."

A few years ago, I worked with some university researchers who were convinced that their research would rock the world. They considered themselves viable candidates for the Nobel Prize in Medicine. They were readying publications and speeches about their discovery, and were preparing to become celebrities. And then they found out that a graduate student had been "cooking" their data. Their discovery (while still having some validity) was not so Earth-shaking after all. Did these researchers want to talk about this afterward? Hell, no.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Brown
Me too. Just reading between the lines, my guess is that the data got "cooked." ... That's probably right. But Randi doesn't tell us that nor does he hint in what way it was cooked.

Randi quotes Jaroff. But Jaroff doesn't explain it either. He relies on solely on ad Hominem: (http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,660053,00.html)

But Dr. Flamm has been unrelenting. Since 2001, he has published critiques of the study in The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, and in the current issue of Skeptic magazine, blew the lid off the scandal. He reported that in the years following publication of the prayer study, Wirth and an accomplice had been indicted on felony charges, including 13 counts of mail fraud and 12 counts of interstate transportation of stolen money. The two men have since pled guilty, and face fines and prison terms; Wirth is refusing to talk to the press.So what? This says nothing about the study. (And this is not the first time Jaroff has written a fluff so-called debunking piece.)

If Randi thinks the JREF should "create a new generation of critical thinkers" then he should learn that critical thinking means not to rely on logical fallacies. Instead, the actual flaws in the study should be listed. (http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/wirthstudy.html)

Now THAT'S educational.

I'm really disappointed in Randi's flawed non-debunking article. Perhaps he should debate on the forum more to sharpen up his critical thinking skills.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Of course, isn't it immediately obvious that prayer is untestable? How does one go about setting up a protocol for it?

As long as there are church congregations (as well as individuals) that do 'general' prayers ("Help all you need it", etc.) it remains competely impossible to test prayer.

Even if you could test it, and it was shown to have an effect, what would that say about god? He only helps those who have someone to pray for them?

No, prayer is nonsense. It is untestable, and it is philosophically repugnant. What other answer is needed?

[CFLarsen]

RichardR,

Have you written to Randi?

[steenkh]

I think Randi's idea was that we should read the Dr. Flamm's critique ourselves in the Skeptical Enquirer.

[Loon]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
Even if you could test it, and it was shown to have an effect, what would that say about god? He only helps those who have someone to pray for them?

It needn't say anything about god. It might be proof of psi or something. Lots of ancient shamanistic practices ascribe spiritual significance to things that we now know are pretty basic biochem; example: "Thank the spirits of the willow tree from which I stripped some bark for during your headache." We of course now know that the willow bark had aspirin in it.

It is not totally inconcievable (albeit improbable) that prayer might be the same sort of thing.

[Prolix]

It's one thing when a soft-science journal like Social Text fails to exercise proper review of a proposed article, a la http://skepdic.com/sokal.html , but it's a much worse thing when a purportedly scientific medical journal acts negligently.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
Of course, isn't it immediately obvious that prayer is untestable? How does one go about setting up a protocol for it?

As long as there are church congregations (as well as individuals) that do 'general' prayers ("Help all you need it", etc.) it remains competely impossible to test prayer.


I agree, prayer by healing is nonsense.

There is one test they could do... get people to pray for bacteria or some other organism that wouldn't normally receive a prayer.

"Dear god, please bless these E. Coli that i pulled from my butt..."