Thread for comments about the What's The Harm thread

[Ashles]

Please put your comments in this thread instead of clogging up the What's The Harm thread

 

[Beth]

They are absolutely not. But this has been explained to you in this thread Beth and you are choosing to ignore the difference. You are actually clearly obviously playing stupid.
'Other causes'? You really are clutching at straws now.

But if you don't doubt the veracity of any of the stories then there isn't a problem, is there.You are arguing against the validity of stories whose validity you don't doubt. Strange behaviour. I wonder why that would be?

I'm not doubting that such events occurred. I am not convinced that those events were CAUSED by the beliefs you would attribute them to. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Causality due to belief is an extremely difficult case to prove.

It is not a double standard and you know this full well.

No, I don't know it. That's how it comes across to me. If the difference between the two examples I gave is so clear and has been explained over and over (I haven't seen it, but I do have some posters on ignore), then it shouldn't be any trouble for you to outline the differences. Perhaps you would you be kind enough to identify those objective differences for me?

You are providing a perfect example of someone who claims to understand the potential problems with these claims, then wants to try to totally hide or ignore them when they happen.
You are almost endorsing the cases we have outlined here.
As a result I find your additions to the thread actually quite useful as an illustration of how defensive people get when their fantasy belief systems are questioned.

It's one of the reasons these beliefs end up getting propogated so much. Believers' pretense that it is all good and never bad.

Hmmm. First you claim I have a "fantasy belief system" and then that this fantasy "fantasy belief system" you believe I hold is threatened by being questioned. If that was the case, why would I be hanging out on this forum at all, where any and every belief system is constantly being questioned?

Are you sure you are not projecting regarding the defensive behavior when beliefs are questioned? After all, I am questioning your belief regarding the harm of various alternative belief systems and your posts seem quite defensive to me - telling me I'm 'clutching at straws', have a 'fantasy belief system' and am being 'a bit of an idiot'. In fact, keep it up and I may end up putting your posts on ignore too. I've never seen any reason to voluntarily interact with people who consistently insult me or put me down.

I enjoy playing devil's advocate and often take positions in arguments I don't necessarily endorse personally. I haven't expressed my personal opinions one way or the other regarding any of the beliefs referenced in this thread. I haven't claimed that no harm occurs, only that the anecdotal evidence provided here is no more supportive of the postulate that harm occurs than is similar anecdotal evidence (which abounds) that benefits occur. Oh, and I've said that if you accept such anecdotal evidence for one side, you should also accept it for the other or you are applying a double standard. My, those are controversial opinions aren't they.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No, I don't know it. That's how it comes across to me. If the difference between the two examples I gave is so clear and has been explained over and over (I haven't seen it, but I do have some posters on ignore), then it shouldn't be any trouble for you to outline the differences.

Or you could take 'em off ignore. Just a thought. I notice that you haven't bothered to respond to any of my my posts... could it be? ... Well, please yourself.

Ashles, you might just quote everything I've posted on this subject.

* sigh *

As a matter of fact, a lot of cutting and pasting will be a bit of hassle for Ashles, and it would be less "trouble" for Beth to just take off her blinkers and re-read the thread... but when backed into a corner... "No, you haven't explained this to me! Show me where you've explained this to me!" will always hold off any argument at all... for a while.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I haven't claimed that no harm occurs, only that the anecdotal evidence provided here is no more supportive of the postulate that harm occurs than is similar anecdotal evidence (which abounds) that benefits occur. Oh, and I've said that if you accept such anecdotal evidence for one side, you should also accept it for the other or you are applying a double standard. My, those are controversial opinions aren't they.

Will you please give any examples whatsoever?

Thank you.

Will you please try to say what on Earth you mean by "anecdote", as it appears to differ from the meaning used by the rest of the English-speaking world?

Thank you.

Will you please explain how these examples, whether or not you class them as "anecdotes" do not constitute disproof of the contention that belief in the paranormal is always harmless?

Thank you.

Will you please try to respond to what is posted here, instead of talking offensive rubbish?

Thank you.

 

[Ashles]

I'm not doubting that such events occurred. I am not convinced that those events were CAUSED by the beliefs you would attribute them to. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Causality due to belief is an extremely difficult case to prove.

That's strange. It appears very obvious in many of those cases.
Please if you have doubts pick one and go through it.

No, I don't know it. That's how it comes across to me. If the difference between the two examples I gave is so clear and has been explained over and over (I haven't seen it, but I do have some posters on ignore), then it shouldn't be any trouble for you to outline the differences. Perhaps you would you be kind enough to identify those objective differences for me?

The examples on that thread mostly have completely checkable sources.
And they also don't violate the current known laws of science, which should make them just a tad more likely.
(Also see later comments)

Hmmm. First you claim I have a "fantasy belief system" and then that this fantasy "fantasy belief system" you believe I hold is threatened by being questioned. If that was the case, why would I be hanging out on this forum at all, where any and every belief system is constantly being questioned?

Well, firstly you were applying for the million dollar prize so hanging around here kind of makes sense.
Secondly this is a premiere site for 'proving' paranormal ability.
As you know, it is my opinion that you really wish to believe in the existence of paranormal abiltiy, but you have also been scientifically trained. It would only make sense you would end up on this site.
Thirdly, many sceptics visit believers sites. Conversely many believers visit this site. There is always a vague hope you can get the other side to see your point of view.

Are you sure you are not projecting regarding the defensive behavior when beliefs are questioned?

Don't worry. I'm 100% sure.

After all, I am questioning your belief regarding the harm of various alternative belief systems and your posts seem quite defensive to me - telling me I'm 'clutching at straws', have a 'fantasy belief system' and am being 'a bit of an idiot'.

A curious attempt to reverse the situation. However it remains fact that we were citing examples where a belief in the paranormal or pseudoscience has been damaging and it was you who then criticised these examples. The defensive behaviour is yours and attempting to turn it around isn't really very convincing.
Also it might help to remeber that my belief system is backed up with actual scientific evidence. Indeed it is based around it.
And I actually find your repeated questioning of these stories (despite the fact you claim not to be questioning them) rather odd.
I called you 'a bit of an idiot' because I am convinced you know exactly what I am saying, yet keep pretending not to.

In fact, keep it up and I may end up putting your posts on ignore too. I've never seen any reason to voluntarily interact with people who consistently insult me or put me down.

If that's what you feel you have to do, fine. I have personally never felt the need to put anyone on ignore as I can debate without feeling the need to avoid anyone's comments.
I am perfectly capable of just not responding if they are not deserving of it.

I enjoy playing devil's advocate and often take positions in arguments I don't necessarily endorse personally.

And that's often called 'trolling' on the internet.

I haven't expressed my personal opinions one way or the other regarding any of the beliefs referenced in this thread.

But my point is that I think you have, very clearly. Not just in this thread but in others as well.

I haven't claimed that no harm occurs, only that the anecdotal evidence provided here is no more supportive of the postulate that harm occurs than is similar anecdotal evidence (which abounds) that benefits occur. Oh, and I've said that if you accept such anecdotal evidence for one side, you should also accept it for the other or you are applying a double standard. My, those are controversial opinions aren't they.

And as has been said repeatedly these are specific examples of demonstrable harm directly attributable to belief and practice of paranormal abilities.

It is a response to comments that these things are 'harmless'.

Why you don't understand this is becoming increasingly confusing.

You accept that damage can be caused by these beliefs. That is what we are saying.
You have no issue with any of the examples given.
So what is your point exactly?

If you have any issues with any of the stories then treat them sceptically, as we would. But you aren't doing that. You are just making a vague general dismissal of them. This just doesn't carry any weight.

 

[Dr Adequate]

In what sense do we object to "anecdotal evidence"?

 

[rppa]

You accept that damage can be caused by these beliefs. That is what we are saying. You have no issue with any of the examples given.

Is that true? Then what do I make of this comment by Beth?

I'm not doubting that such events occurred. I am not convinced that those events were CAUSED by the beliefs you would attribute them to.

If you have any issues with any of the stories then treat them sceptically, as we would.

I have the same request. Beth, please pick a story from the harm thread where you feel doubt that belief in the paranormal was the cause, and let us discuss the alternative hypotheses.

In Beth's defense, I will say that her suspicions are warranted to this extent: it is certainly possible that a rabid anti-psychic could attempt to spin these individual stories into a general statement about how all psychics cause harm.

However, there is no indication here that anyone has made an attempt to generalize, and accusing us of generalizing, of drawing general conclusions from specific histories, is wrong.

So that leaves the specific cases, which we attest are illustrations of where particular practitioners have caused harm due to their victims belief in the paranormal. You contend that in some or all of these cases, there's no evidence of such a causal relation.

Get specific. Please.

 

[Beth]

Ashles,

I don't have time to review the entire thread. I'll just comment on a couple of the more memorable ones. I think the logic applies to all of them.

1. The child murdered by the person administering 'rebirthing' therapy. First of all, I'm not sure why this example is in there at all. It doesn't involve any sort of paranormal belief.

That harm occurred is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' is not so clear. I don't consider a person who dies on the operating table because the surgeon was drunk or otherwise incompetent to be an indictment of the surgical procedure that was attempted. Likewise, I don't consider this example to be an indictment of the 'belief' of the perpetrator of the crime.

2. The practice of psychic hotline operators of telling a person that their S.O. is cheating as a way to get them to stay on the line.

That harm occurs is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' of the caller is debatable. Personally, I call greed the cause of that crime, but that's my own biases showing. If a young women is dressed provacatively and raped, was the cause of the crime the way she dressed? In both cases, I think that the victim was made vulnerable by their belief/behavior, but I wouldn't call that vulnerability the cause of the crime.

I see this attempt to collect instances of harm as being analogous to believers collecting verifiable instances of people who were cured after seeing a faith healer. Sure, such cases exist, but the causality is assumed. If you wouldn't consider a similar listing of such 'verified cures' as evidence... well, I think I'll quit repeating myself at this point.

As far as playing devil's advocate being trolling behavior. Some places, yes it is. However, of all forums on the internet, I would think this is one where such behavior would be acceptable. After all, this is a skeptics forum and presumably any belief can be questioned with logic and reason being the criteria by which arguments are judged. My personal beliefs and motivations are irrelevant to the argument. Why do you keep making inaccurate suppositions regarding them and then claim that I am reacting defensively to supposed threats to my supposed beliefs?

Beth

 

[Beth]

In Beth's defense, I will say that her suspicions are warranted to this extent: it is certainly possible that a rabid anti-psychic could attempt to spin these individual stories into a general statement about how all psychics cause harm.

Thank you for coming to my defense. I did post some specific examples in my response to Ashley. However, I'm not concerned about the generalization that all psychics cause harm. That's a rather foolish argument right up there with the idea that no pyschics cause harm. I'm concerned about attributing the causality to the 'belief' rather than to the individuals - psychic or otherwise - who committed the crimes.

 

[voidx]

I have not read the thread in question, but from what I see here I see where people might be making a potential mistake. Looking for a single solitary cause for any event is usually quite difficult. Most incidents happen for a multitude of reasons. In that there are multiple causes for any event. To what degree each caused contributed to the event in question is really all we can try and analyze.

Peoples beliefs in this sense would obviously seem to cause, or exacerbate harm where there might have been none, or harm to a lesser extent.

I think saying people's beliefs make them vunerable to harm is merely playing at semantics. People's beliefs can lead them into situations where upon they can be harmed. Therefore beliefs are a contributing factor to harm, and so are one of the causes of said harm.

I think examples can be found where peoples beliefs very directly result in them coming to harm and others where they are perhaps a lesser contributing factor. However the concept seems fairly justifiable to me.

 

[Ashles]

Ashles,

I don't have time to review the entire thread. I'll just comment on a couple of the more memorable ones. I think the logic applies to all of them.

1. The child murdered by the person administering 'rebirthing' therapy. First of all, I'm not sure why this example is in there at all. It doesn't involve any sort of paranormal belief.

It is there because it was a belief in things for which there was absolutely no evidence. "Attachment disorder" does not exist, so it is an example, not necessarily of paranormal beliefs, but strong belief in something that appears, by any reasonable measure to be non-existent.
I know I have mentioned 'paranormal' repeatedly, but the thread also applies to pseudoscience.

That harm occurred is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' is not so clear. I don't consider a person who dies on the operating table because the surgeon was drunk or otherwise incompetent to be an indictment of the surgical procedure that was attempted. Likewise, I don't consider this example to be an indictment of the 'belief' of the perpetrator of the crime.

Again you make the illogical comparison with medicine.
Anyone on the operating table almost certainly needs to be there.
Nobody needs to be in a rebirthing situation in the first place. it is their beliefs and the encouragement of others that puts them there.

2. The practice of psychic hotline operators of telling a person that their S.O. is cheating as a way to get them to stay on the line.

That harm occurs is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' of the caller is debatable. Personally, I call greed the cause of that crime, but that's my own biases showing. If a young women is dressed provacatively and raped, was the cause of the crime the way she dressed? In both cases, I think that the victim was made vulnerable by their belief/behavior, but I wouldn't call that vulnerability the cause of the crime.

The operators are lying to make more money. That is fraud.
A belief in mediums leads to the risk of being defrauded. In that case there is the harm.
And what on earth is your rape analogy about? I don't follow that at all.

this attempt to collect instances of harm as being analogous to believers collecting verifiable instances of people who were cured after seeing a faith healer. Sure, such cases exist, but the causality is assumed. If you wouldn't consider a similar listing of such 'verified cures' as evidence... well, I think I'll quit repeating myself at this point.

And I'm repeating myself in saying that this is different.
If someone claims to have been paranormally cured it is perfectly right to doubt that as no such ability has ever been observed to exist. Other explanations are almost certainly the cause.
This list is showing examples of harm that have arisen and that no-one is contesting.

As far as playing devil's advocate being trolling behavior. Some places, yes it is. However, of all forums on the internet, I would think this is one where such behavior would be acceptable. After all, this is a skeptics forum and presumably any belief can be questioned with logic and reason being the criteria by which arguments are judged. My personal beliefs and motivations are irrelevant to the argument. Why do you keep making inaccurate suppositions regarding them and then claim that I am reacting defensively to supposed threats to my supposed beliefs?

Beth

I mention (my perception of) your beliefs as I feel they are relevant to your continued questioning of the thread.
Often believers do ask 'what's the harm' in these beliefs, and the thread answers that question.
You don't doubt that harm can be done, and you don't doubt these stories, so it seems strange that you keep criticising the thread in principle, rather than because you actually doubt anything in it.

And this forum is a questioning forum, but I am uncertain as to what you are actually questioning? These aren't anecdotal stories like we are used to reading from someone just telling a story that happened to them - these are reported and checkable stories, so the 'double-standards' argument does not seem to be valid.

 

[rppa]

Specifics at last! Thank you.

1. The child murdered by the person administering 'rebirthing' therapy. First of all, I'm not sure why this example is in there at all. It doesn't involve any sort of paranormal belief.

You don't think it involves believe in rebirthing?

That harm occurred is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' is not so clear.

Er... then what is your alternate hypothesis of why this person was performing these actions on this child?

What is your alternate hypothesis for why this person was invited by the family to do this procedure?

I don't consider a person who dies on the operating table because the surgeon was drunk or otherwise incompetent to be an indictment of the surgical procedure that was attempted.

No, but it's certainly a consequence of trust in the doctor, a trust which in retrospect is misplaced. Had you not had that trust, you'd go to a different doctor.

It's also a consequence of the doctor's belief that he is competent to perform the procedure, a belief which is again misplaced. Had he not had this belief, he would opt not to do the procedure.

Likewise, I don't consider this example to be an indictment of the 'belief' of the perpetrator of the crime.

Likewise, this person performed this fatal procedure because of his belief that he could do some good by doing so, and the girl's parents allowed him to by their belief.

Just as with the doctor the death is a direct consequence of the beliefs of both the parents and the perpetrator, that the procedure is a good thing to do.

There is a valid point to be made here, but not the one you're trying to make.

 

[Harlequin]

That harm occurs is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' of the caller is debatable. Personally, I call greed the cause of that crime, but that's my own biases showing. If a young women is dressed provacatively and raped, was the cause of the crime the way she dressed? In both cases, I think that the victim was made vulnerable by their belief/behavior, but I wouldn't call that vulnerability the cause of the crime.

Beth is trying to make an analogy where belief in the paranormal is similar to dressing provocatively. It's a personal choice, that may lead to a higher risk of someon taking advantage of you. We hold the rapist responsible for their actions, but somehow the victim is responsible when a Medium cons them out of their life-savings.

It's an interesting idea, with some validity. However the analogy is not perfect. A minor modification makes it slightly better: Not only is the person dressed provocatively, but they are wandering drunk and alone, late at night, in a back alley behind a strip-bar. We should still feel sympathy and blame the criminal instead of the victim, but you would be justified in adding "What the hell were you thinking? Obviously this was a stupid thing to do" into the discussion.

 

[Bronze Dog]

We should still feel sympathy and blame the criminal instead of the victim, but you would be justified in adding "What the hell were you thinking? Obviously this was a stupid thing to do" into the discussion.

And that, in a nut shell, is what the skeptical movement is about. If people would make an effort to stop, look at the evidence, and think, there'd be a lot fewer victims out there.

Blindly believing in something unproven is like driving without your seatbelt: Even if you get hit by a drunk driver going down the wrong side of the road with his headlights off, you're still at least partially to blame for not taking a simple precaution. Wearing the seatbelt of skepticism prevents you from getting hurt, as well as from blame.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Beth Clarkson:

That harm occurs is indisputable. That harm occurred because of the 'beliefs' of the caller is debatable. Personally, I call greed the cause of that crime, but that's my own biases showing.

So you are saying we should place our efforts in a fight against greed?

If I buy a used car which is presented to me (by someone with the degrees in automotive engineering and mechanical engineering) as being in top running order and having been thoroughly checked out, and the car turns out in fact to be a lemon, what is my recourse?

You are saying here that the car seller’s actions were not the cause of my monetary loss; his greed was. I suppose he could be indicted for greed.

If a young women is dressed provacatively and raped, was the cause of the crime the way she dressed? In both cases, I think that the victim was made vulnerable by their belief/behavior, but I wouldn't call that vulnerability the cause of the crime.

Who is saying that the victim’s vulnerability caused it? I, and I think others here, might say that the belief allowed the opportunity for the crime, but it was “caused” by the conscious decisions of the perpetrator whose motivations may have been either fraudulent or delusional.

As far as playing devil's advocate being trolling behavior. Some places, yes it is. However, of all forums on the internet, I would think this is one where such behavior would be acceptable. After all, this is a skeptics forum and presumably any belief can be questioned with logic and reason being the criteria by which arguments are judged.

Yet you take offense when someone responds to your arguments. Devil's Advocate or not, they will be questioned. You are saying here:

I don't really mean it; why are you actually responding to me?"

Originally posted by Ashles:

I have personally never felt the need to put anyone on ignore as I can debate without feeling the need to avoid anyone's comments.
I am perfectly capable of just not responding if they are not deserving of it.

Hear, hear. This has long been my stance.

 

[Beth]

I think examples can be found where peoples beliefs very directly result in them coming to harm and others where they are perhaps a lesser contributing factor. However the concept seems fairly justifiable to me.

I don't object to using these as examples of a belief being a contributing factor to harm. But, if we apply the same standard and logic to the other side of the argument, verified incidents of people being cured after taking homeopathic medicine would be justification for saying that homeopathy (or at least a belief in homeopathy ) is a contributing factor is bringing someone back to health.

 

[Beth]

Specifics at last! Thank you.



You don't think it involves believe in rebirthing?

I don't think they believe that a literal rebirth has occurred. That's a belief generally ascribed to by christians not therapists.

Er... then what is your alternate hypothesis of why this person was performing these actions on this child?

What is your alternate hypothesis for why this person was invited by the family to do this procedure?

Does every 'rebirthing' end in death? Or can we presume that there was more to it than simply attempting this 'therapudic' action?

No, but it's certainly a consequence of trust in the doctor, a trust which in retrospect is misplaced. Had you not had that trust, you'd go to a different doctor.

It's also a consequence of the doctor's belief that he is competent to perform the procedure, a belief which is again misplaced. Had he not had this belief, he would opt not to do the procedure.

I could say the same here. A consequence of trust in a therapist which in retrospect was misplaced. A consequence of a belief the therapist had that he/she was competent to perform the procedure, a belief which was again misplaced. But belief in the therapist and his/her competence is not what was at issue regarding the harm caused. It was belief in the therapy itself.

Likewise, this person performed this fatal procedure because of his belief that he could do some good by doing so, and the girl's parents allowed him to by their belief.

So is it the belief in the procedure that is the cause of the harm or belief in the persons ability to competently perform the procedure?

Just as with the doctor

the death is a direct consequence of the beliefs of both the parents and the perpetrator, that the procedure is a good thing to do.

There is a valid point to be made here, but not the one you're trying to make. [/B]

There are, no doubt, many valid points to be made from this example. I still consider my point valid. If you do not, so be it.

Beth

 

[Beth]

It is there because it was a belief in things for which there was absolutely no evidence. "Attachment disorder" does not exist, so it is an example, not necessarily of paranormal beliefs, but strong belief in something that appears, by any reasonable measure to be non-existent.
I know I have mentioned 'paranormal' repeatedly, but the thread also applies to pseudoscience.

Ah, well, that would explain it.

Again you make the illogical comparison with medicine.
Anyone on the operating table almost certainly needs to be there. Nobody needs to be in a rebirthing situation in the first place. it is their beliefs and the encouragement of others that puts them there.

Elective surgery is quite common. I don't think you can claim that almost anyone on the operating table "needs to be there". As far as the "need" for rebirthing, I'm not familiar with the approach to say whether or not it is "needed" in any situation. But does anyone not in danger of hurting themselves or others be said to "need" therapy. Or, like elective surgery, do they simply hope their life will be improved as a result? "Need" is not a well-defined term and, I don't think, particularly relevant to the argument one way or the other.

The operators are lying to make more money. That is fraud.
A belief in mediums leads to the risk of being defrauded. In that case there is the harm.
And what on earth is your rape analogy about? I don't follow that at all.

Harlequin did a rather nice job of elaborating on this, so I won't bother.

And I'm repeating myself in saying that this is different.If someone claims to have been paranormally cured it is perfectly right to doubt that as no such ability has ever been observed to exist. Other explanations are almost certainly the cause.
This list is showing examples of harm that have arisen and that no-one is contesting.

There is nothing paranormal about the rebirthing therapy. Would you be willing to accept people's testimony about how it benefitted them? One need not presume anything paranormal occurred for people to have benefitted from such things as acupuncture, homeopathy, psychic healing. Would you accept verified stories about how people were better after having recieved such therapy as evidence of their benefit?

I mention (my perception of) your beliefs as I feel they are relevant to your continued questioning of the thread.

Why does it bother you that I question the thread? Why not simply respond (or not) to my comments rather than making accusations about my beliefs and motivations?

And this forum is a questioning forum, but I am uncertain as to what you are actually questioning? These aren't anecdotal stories like we are used to reading from someone just telling a story that happened to them - these are reported and checkable stories, so the 'double-standards' argument does not seem to be valid.

I'm questioning the willingness of posters here to accept these stories as evidence of harm when, in other threads, they have not been willing to accept similar stories as evidence of benefit.

 

[rppa]

Elective surgery is quite common. I don't think you can claim that almost anyone on the operating table "needs to be there".

You're playing semantic games again, deliberately or not.

With elective surgery, the patient is making a choice whether or not to correct a condition. But the condition is real. There is something there to correct.

As far as the "need" for rebirthing, I'm not familiar with the approach to say whether or not it is "needed" in any situation.

Apparently it's to correct "attachment disorder". You're saying that, in analogy to elective surgery, there might be some question as to whether it is important to correct "attachment disorder".

The distinction between that and an elective medical procedure is that there is no such thing as "attachment disorder". What is it that needs correcting? So this particular case also hinges on a belief in this disorder. Without that belief, there's no question of calling in the "practitioner" to correct it. So it absolutely hinges on a belief system, on something for which there is no scientific evidence. There is a direct causal relationship.

 

[voidx]

I don't object to using these as examples of a belief being a contributing factor to harm. But, if we apply the same standard and logic to the other side of the argument, verified incidents of people being cured after taking homeopathic medicine would be justification for saying that homeopathy (or at least a belief in homeopathy ) is a contributing factor is bringing someone back to health.

I disagree with your counter example. We can quantify how a persons belief's lead them into a situation where upon they are more likely to come to harm. You cannot necessarily point to homeopathy and quantify how it lead someone to become cured. Simply being contrary does not always mean one's logic is valid.

The main reason for this is that people's belief's often are directly in opposition to some sort of scientifically/logically/rationally held concept. So by holding the belief, many people are dodging or skirting a particular scientific concept, in favour of their belief. Because of this the beliefs a person holds can be quantified by looking at the scientific/logic/rational concept that are intentionally ignored as a result of their belief. So when someone's belief in prayer leads them to give up their cancer treatments, we can quantify it because we can objectively look at the detrimental results on that person as a result of giving up their cancer treatment. It really doesn't work very well the other way. Why not? Because in the above case we go from abstract (belief) to objective (scientific concept). The opposite would be going from objective to abstract, and that's a little more logically difficult to justify. Or the other case of moving from abstract to psuedo-objective, as would be the case with homeopathy. They think they can show it objectively, but in reality they cannot.