Remote healing

[saizai]

Precisely. An assumption that you have no basis for. Which negates the value of the protocol.

False.

As I said above, you have only two options if you want to argue this.

Either prayer does not work - in which case this is entirely moot.

Or prayer does work - in which case it is potentially a valid objection... except that, as above, it is randomized out.

And that you just admitted that prayer works, which you as the skeptic are supposed to be arguing against.

 

[saizai]

Re: Re: QUESTIONS

.....why are you asking us?

Because of some of you might be interested in helping to suggesting a better design methodology, and these are open to being made better (since they're not yet defined).

If you do not, that is okay. I am sure Kramer will have suggestions, and that it will be something I work out in due course.

 

[chillzero]

The recipients will be a group of people drawn from various hospitals, who all have similar, serious, terminal conditions. They will be asked to answer a short survey (demographics, views on religion, etc. – see below), give informed consent to participating in the study, and choose how they want their information to be used. In no event will they know whether they were selected to be prayed for or not, or by whom, unless they abandon the study or the study comes to an end; nor will their doctors.

Potential disease candidates include: late-stage AIDS; cancer; coma; etc.

Apart from the very good feedback you have received so far, which you just don't seem to grasp, I wondered... how does a person in a coma fill in a questionnaire, and give consent?

I understand that you may have put a lot of time and effort into this, and so criticism may be hard to take. However, when presented with excellent points as made by CFLarson and Zep, you really need to give it a little more thought, setting aside your personal feelings for your work for a few moments, and give full attention to what they are trying to explain to you. I really don't see how they can make this any clearer to you.

 

[saizai]

Re: Re: Remote healing

Apart from the very good feedback you have received so far, which you just don't seem to grasp, I wondered... how does a person in a coma fill in a questionnaire, and give consent?

Granted, that's a gray area ethically. Practically, it's straightforward - their legal guardian can do these things.

You would get somewhat lesser accuracy for personal questions about them, but these are again superfluous; the only ones relevant to the mundane world are their demographics.

I understand that you may have put a lot of time and effort into this, and so criticism may be hard to take. However, when presented with excellent points as made by CFLarson and Zep, you really need to give it a little more thought, setting aside your personal feelings for your work for a few moments, and give full attention to what they are trying to explain to you. I really don't see how they can make this any clearer to you. [/B]

As I said, I am open to criticism. But nobody has refuted my argument that randomization controls for third parties.

 

[CFLarsen]

Then I'll ask you a final time: PLEASE explain why this would not be controlled by the randomization.

Quite specifically: how would third parties' prayer - granted that this is a double-blind study and therefore third parties have no possible means of knowing whether a particular person is in the control or test groups - have an effect that is different on the control group than the test group in any way?

If you can't show that, then you can't claim that it's a confound.

If you have uncontrollable third-parties' prayer then it isn't a controlled study!

I claim that there is no way for this to happen - that any effect of third-party prayer would be, statistically, randomly distributed between control and test groups. And that therefore there is no way for it to affect an overall outcome that measures the difference between these two groups.

If you can counter that argument, please do so. But you haven't - you've only reiterated your initial assertion that they somehow will.

It is not for us to counter that argument, it is for you to prove it statistically. You can't just throw something out and demand that we counter it. You have to prove your own claims.

To be quite clear: I make no pretense to control for whether any particular person is prayed for a specific amount (nor do I care). Solely for whether the test group as a whole will be prayed for more than the control, because that is what the "healers" are assigned to do.

To be quite clear: Then you cannot trust your data. It will be invalidated, if you can't control for any particular person is prayed for for a specific amount, or even whether it is being prayed for or not.

No: you can't control the "god made this hot because he felt like it" theory, on an individual sample level. Nor can you disprove it. But you can control it for the study overall - that is what randomization does.

Could you please stop misrepresenting what I say? I am not talking about fairies or god - I am talking about people praying for other people.

That's a detail of implementation. It has little to do with the methodology per se, given that I am specifying the statistical minimum outcomes I want - they in turn would define what the number of people needed.

No need to suddenly get flabbergasted.

I am not flabbergasted at all. I am just surprised that you can claim that this is such a good experimental design, yet you haven't thought it throught.

Now, please prove statistically that any effect of third-party prayer would be randomly distributed between control and test groups.

That is what you need to do next. Nothing else.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Remote healing

But nobody has refuted my argument that randomization controls for third parties.

You have just claimed that it does. You need to prove it. Statistically.

Go ahead.

 

[Beady]

There is an incredibly short article entitled "Testing Prayer" at the bottom of page 15, this issue (vol 11/ issue 4) of Skeptic magazine. Here's a partial quote, which bears directly upon the OP:

The usual proposal involves a challenge to God, in that it takes place in the present and asks for a future result. Galton's experiment took place in the past and looks for a past result..."An experiment, a test, implies doubt. Doubt logically invalidates prayer."

 

[saizai]

If you have uncontrollable third-parties' prayer then it isn't a controlled study!

It is not for us to counter that argument, it is for you to prove it statistically. You can't just throw something out and demand that we counter it. You have to prove your own claims.

Are you seriously saying that you do not accept randomization as the standard means for controlling - by making evenly distributed - for the effects of any and all outside variables?

To be quite clear: Then you cannot trust your data. It will be invalidated, if you can't control for any particular person is prayed for for a specific amount, or even whether it is being prayed for or not.

That comes under the above, again.

Could you please stop misrepresenting what I say? I am not talking about fairies or god - I am talking about people praying for other people.

And you're the skeptic. You are trying to defend an arguement that depends on assuming that people praying for other people has some effect. This is what you are trying to argue against.

QED - reductio ad absurdium.

Now, please prove statistically that any effect of third-party prayer would be randomly distributed between control and test groups.

That is what you need to do next. Nothing else.

Simple. There is some distribution of third-party prayer amongst the participating recipients. This is unpredictable and uncontrollable.

The recipients are randomly assigned to two groups - control and test.

Therefore, the distribution as a comparison of the two groups should be equal by definition: they are randomly assigned in equal proportion between the two groups.

Please refute that.

[Edit:] For ease of thinking about it, you could consider this to be a pool of random integers (each integer representing one 'recipient', and defining the number of times they are being prayed for before the effect of the study). They are randomly assigned to two groups.

The average of the two groups will be statistically equal - closer to equal the more samples you get.

I consider this to be such a basic tenet of research design (and mathematics) as to make requiring a proof thereof to be absurd.

 

[saizai]

There is an incredibly short article entitled "Testing Prayer" at the bottom of page 15, this issue (vol 11/ issue 4) of Skeptic magazine. Here's a partial quote, which bears directly upon the OP:

Nice piece of apologism.

Obviously, if doubt (in the form of experimentation) invalidates prayer - a theological position - then prayer is rendered unstudiable.

This is something I have to just assume to be false, since it's useless to do otherwise.

 

[chillzero]

Re: Re: Re: Remote healing

As I said, I am open to criticism. But nobody has refuted my argument that randomization controls for third parties.

I just don't understand why you don't get it.
If everybody in the entire test is being prayed for - whether by your people or by their friends and families - then you have no control group. It really is that simple.

OK, say prayer has a measureable effect.
Say that effect is like measuring blood sugars.

Your test is like saying we will give one group coffee with sugar in it, and the other group coffee with no sugar, and measure their blood sugars. BUT, we will not take into account whether they normally have sugar in their coffee, whether they all sat and shared coffee and doughnuts while they were waiting to be tested, nor will we control the amount of sugar any of them in either group partake. The ONLY thing of which we can be certain is that one group definitely had some sugar. There is the small possibility that someone in the 'control' group has never touched sugar in his life, but this is just as unlikely as a critically ill person having no-one to keep them in their thoughts and prayers.

There is no set, controlled and defined difference between the two groups in order to make a clear experiment.

This is basically what CFLarsen already said, but you decided to throw a supernatural slant on it by including fairies and so on.

 

[saizai]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote healing

OK, say prayer has a measureable effect.
Say that effect is like measuring blood sugars.

Sure, I'll take that analogy.

But you mistake one point, which I'll clarify by redefining your groups.

You take a large pool of people walking out of Starbuck's. They all have a coffee in their hand. Some have sugared their coffee before they left; some have not. Some have eaten sugar doughnuts, others only rye bread. Whatever.

You randomly put a sugar cube in the coffee of half of them.

You can say with absolute certainty that those people in whose coffee you put a sugar cube will, as a group, consume more sugar.

At no point do you say that one group has "no" sugar. That's totally irrelevant, and there's no way for you to do so anyway.

By one of the previous posts, there was a theological (not mundane-world methodological) argument t hat consuming *any* "sugar" was equivalent - that it did not matter how much you got. And this is a valid argument, theologically; it would point to a different result (i.e. a false negative). It would not, however, have any possibility of rendering a false positive.

And the more common assumption of prayer - that every individual's prayer can have some effect - would point to an opposite conclusion.

Nevertheless, both of these are purely speculative theological arguments, and not relevant to the methodology.

 

[saizai]

As a followup: CFLaren's argument would have it that third parties could change this fact - that the group you give sugar cubes to will as a group consume more sugar.

In zir version, this would involve something analagous to random people walking up to this pool of coffee-drinkers, and for whatever reasons they have in their little minds, also drop sugar into peoples' coffee.

The thing is, these third parties have no way of knowing, or acting differently towards, those people in whose cups *you* put a sugar cube. Because of the double blind, you have esentially done so in ultra stealth ninja style - nobody saw you do it, not even the coffee drinker. Or yourself, not that you talk to random people on the street.

So, the result still holds. Interference from random sugar-peddlers or no, the group you gave sugar to will still have, as a whole, one sugar cube more of sugar in their systems.

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote healing

Are you seriously saying that you do not accept randomization as the standard means for controlling - by making evenly distributed - for the effects of any and all outside variables?

Read what I am saying. You need to prove your claim. Do so.

And you're the skeptic. You are trying to defend an arguement that depends on assuming that people praying for other people has some effect. This is what you are trying to argue against.

QED - reductio ad absurdium.

I am not trying to defend that at all.

Simple. There is some distribution of third-party prayer amongst the participating recipients. This is unpredictable and uncontrollable.

The recipients are randomly assigned to two groups - control and test.

Therefore, the distribution as a comparison of the two groups should be equal by definition: they are randomly assigned in equal proportion between the two groups.

Please refute that.

You are merely repeating your claim. Can I see your calculations, please?

[Edit:] For ease of thinking about it, you could consider this to be a pool of random integers (each integer representing one 'recipient', and defining the number of times they are being prayed for before the effect of the study). They are randomly assigned to two groups.

The average of the two groups will be statistically equal - closer to equal the more samples you get.

I consider this to be such a basic tenet of research design (and mathematics) as to make requiring a proof thereof to be absurd.

Yeah. But we are not talking about random integers. We are talking about people praying. You cannot assume that people who pray behave like random numbers.

Yet, that's what you are doing. So, let's see some numbers and calculations.

 

[CFLarsen]

At no point do you say that one group has "no" sugar. That's totally irrelevant, and there's no way for you to do so anyway.

But you are testing whether there is "sugar" (namely prayer) in people's "coffee" (namely healing). It is totally relevant.

 

[chillzero]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Remote healing

Sure, I'll take that analogy.

But you mistake one point, which I'll clarify by redefining your groups.

You take a large pool of people walking out of Starbuck's. They all have a coffee in their hand. Some have sugared their coffee before they left; some have not. Some have eaten sugar doughnuts, others only rye bread. Whatever.

You randomly put a sugar cube in the coffee of half of them.

You can say with absolute certainty that those people in whose coffee you put a sugar cube will, as a group, consume more sugar.

At no point do you say that one group has "no" sugar. That's totally irrelevant, and there's no way for you to do so anyway.

By one of the previous posts, there was a theological (not mundane-world methodological) argument t hat consuming *any* "sugar" was equivalent - that it did not matter how much you got. And this is a valid argument, theologically; it would point to a different result (i.e. a false negative). It would not, however, have any possibility of rendering a false positive.

And the more common assumption of prayer - that every individual's prayer can have some effect - would point to an opposite conclusion.

Nevertheless, both of these are purely speculative theological arguments, and not relevant to the methodology.

I didn't mistake that point at all. Perhaps I should have added the point that you are testing for the existence of sugar - not the amount.

 

[chillzero]

As a followup: CFLaren's argument would have it that third parties could change this fact - that the group you give sugar cubes to will as a group consume more sugar.

In zir version, this would involve something analagous to random people walking up to this pool of coffee-drinkers, and for whatever reasons they have in their little minds, also drop sugar into peoples' coffee.

The thing is, these third parties have no way of knowing, or acting differently towards, those people in whose cups *you* put a sugar cube. Because of the double blind, you have esentially done so in ultra stealth ninja style - nobody saw you do it, not even the coffee drinker. Or yourself, not that you talk to random people on the street.

So, the result still holds. Interference from random sugar-peddlers or no, the group you gave sugar to will still have, as a whole, one sugar cube more of sugar in their systems.

I think now you are playing with us.

You cannot say that one group has more sugar than the other, unless you know how much sugar was used by every single person in the first place. You could have picked a group the majority of which only take one sugar in their coffee, and added another cube, whicle the group you did not add to, take two or more sugars anyway. Therefore - apart from everyone having sugar - they all have almost equal amounts.

I will restate what I said above - you need to stop posting back so quickly, take time to read what is being put forward and consider it carefully against what you believe.

 

[saizai]

I am assuming nothing about the behavior of people who pray - I am merely turning your pointing out that people might be prayed for in different amounts, into a number.

And taking it one step further - that *all* of your recipients are prayed for a random number of times.

1) Are you denying that this is an equivalent form of your argument?

2) Are you denying the elementary math concept that a random string of numbers, split randomly into two groups, will have equal averages as the N->infinity?

As an addendum, I'd strongly recommend that *you* read some basic texts on study design. Here are a couple short articles on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_design
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomisation
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~alex/teaching/WBI/doe.shtml (viz. "randomization"; Simpson's pardox does not apply as this is w/a controlled factor)
http://www.sas.org/E-Bulletin/2002-02-15/features/body.html

I think you will find that randomization is, if anything, the most core element of sound design.

If you are making a serious claim that randomization is not reliable to account for uncontrolled variables (such as blinded third party interference), then I am forced to conclude that you have little interest in actual experimental design, or are purely interested in taking a combative stance - i.e. being a troll.

 

[saizai]

But you are testing whether there is "sugar" (namely prayer) in people's "coffee" (namely healing). It is totally relevant.

Bad analogy on your part. In this case, the coffee is merely a medium.

The "healing" - the result, as it were - is various other measures - e.g. how hyper they are, whether their arteries clog, etc. IOW, does the presence of sugar in their diet have any effect?

 

[CFLarsen]

saizai,

Just provide the calculations.

That's alll you need to do. There is no need to point to any sites, there is no need to continue with your argumentation.

Let's see some statistical calculations from you.

That's all.

 

[saizai]

I think now you are playing with us.

You cannot say that one group has more sugar than the other, unless you know how much sugar was used by every single person in the first place. You could have picked a group the majority of which only take one sugar in their coffee, and added another cube, whicle the group you did not add to, take two or more sugars anyway. Therefore - apart from everyone having sugar - they all have almost equal amounts.

I will restate what I said above - you need to stop posting back so quickly, take time to read what is being put forward and consider it carefully against what you believe.

Are you kidding me?

Have you taken any elementary math?

You do not need to know the baseline amounts in any way, nor do you need to care about any random interference from third parties. All of that is made irrelevant by the fact that you are randomly choosing people to receive an extra cube of sugar.

Those people you choose will, as a group average, have that one cube extra.

If you don't believe me, please go talk to a math professor.

I can translate this into actual math, though frankly doing so is a pain. I find it very difficult to believe that you consider yourself a rationalist (do you?) and are not willing to accept such a basic precept.

Go read some articles on randomization in study design. There are plenty.