Spindrift - Research on prayer

[Duer 157099]

I posted this in the prayer section, thought maybe I should post here too

Does anybody here know about this group called the Spindrifters?

Here's a site with a little info

http://home.xnet.com/~spindrif/Research.htm

It's about scientifically validating the effects of prayer. The guys who founded the group were Christian Scientists, and they were excommunicated (I think) and really treated badly for undertaking this work.

I can't understand why Christians would be opposed to the scientific study of the effects of prayer! I mean, their research showed that there are effects, and that certain "methods" were better than others. What could be wrong with that?? Seems like worthwhile time spent.

Anyone interested in this topic?

[Lindacooks]

1. CNN had an article about this last week. Prayer doesn't help.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/03/30/prayer.study.ap/

Patients who knew they were being prayed for actually had a higher rate of complications.

[Duer 157099]

3. I heard about that; but I don't think it invalidates this research

I mean, negative results can be interpreted many ways, including a poorly designed or executed protocol.

Positive results, on the other hand, might be really worthwhile to look at.

[greyl]

6. Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is a type of statistical bias describing the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. In inductive inference, confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study. To compensate for this observed human tendency, the scientific method is constructed so that we must try to disprove our hypotheses. See falsifiability.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis. As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Wikipedia

This tendency to give more attention and weight to data that support our beliefs than we do to contrary data is especially pernicious when our beliefs are little more than prejudices. If our beliefs are firmly established upon solid evidence and valid confirmatory experiments, the tendency to give more attention and weight to data that fit with our beliefs should not lead us astray as a rule. Of course, if we become blinded to evidence truly refuting a favored hypothesis, we have crossed the line from reasonableness to closed-mindedness.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that people generally give an excessive amount of value to confirmatory information, that is, to positive or supportive data. The "most likely reason for the excessive influence of confirmatory information is that it is easier to deal with cognitively" (Gilovich 1993).

Skeptic.com

[TallahasseeGrannie]

10. That was one study out of many

and the first that I know of that came up with that conclusion. I'm interested in seeing it replicated..you know it will be!

But I'm not jumping in on that one until I hear more.

[tocqueville]

2. recent research shows it has a negative effect on healing

I lost the link, maybe someone can help

[Duer 157099]

4. So not only does God say "no"

He actually says "screw you"! lol...

[greyl]

5. Here are some links and a thought

The excerpt provides one reasonable explanation for the the complications, but I wonder if there's another. As the placebo effect is wholly agreed to exist, is it possible that those who knew they were being prayed for and believed in prayer gave up some of their own responsibility in the healing process?
I don't know, that may be a stretch. Bethea's explanation makes more sense.

Over the next month, patients in the two groups that were uncertain whether they were the subject of prayers fared virtually the same, with about 52 percent experiencing complications regardless of whether they were the subject of prayers.

Surprisingly, however, 59 percent of the patients who knew they were the targets of prayer experienced complications.

Because the most common complication was an irregular heartbeat, the researchers speculated that knowing they were chosen to receive prayers may have put them under increased stress.

''Did the patients think, 'I am so sick they had to call in the prayer team?' " said Charles Bethea of the Integris Heart Hospital at Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, who helped conduct the study.
boston.com

Also " ChristianScienceMonitor

and "Prayer 'no aid to heart patients" BBC - similar study from 2005

[Duer 157099]

7. Here's the thing, though:

The Spindrift research was, for that reason, specifically conducted on plants and yeast. They would stress the yeast (or plant seeds) out in various ways, like by depriving the culture of nutrients, and then they would have people pray for one aliquot but not the other; and they observed (apparently) repeatable results using this method.

They took out the placebo effect and the subject effect; I'm still reading the book, so can't really comment further on their techniques.

But I'm intrigued enough to perhaps try some experiments of my own.

[moobu2]

8. Let them publish their work

in a peer review scientific publication and make all the tests and evidence etc… available to the science community. If it’s true, then I’m sure they would win a Nobel Prize.

[greyl]

9. Yes. nt

[Duer 157099]

12. You have too much unwarranted faith in the scientific community

if you believe what you posted

[moobu2]

14. Yeah I believe what I posted

Publishing scientific claims so other experts in that particular field can make judgments about it’s validity, is the accepted process. It’s is the only way to keep crackpots and quacks (like this nut making these claims about prayer having any effect whatsoever) to a minimum. This process wont eliminate all the crackpots, but if they haven’t published their work, it's a good sign the claim is probably not true.

Scientific journal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nature, Science and PNAS
For a broader class of publications, which include scientific journals, see Academic journal
In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest journals such as Nature publish articles and scientific papers across a wide range of scientific fields. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer-reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity. Although scientific journals are superficially similar to magazines, they are actually quite different. Issues of a scientific journal are rarely read casually, as one would read a magazine. The articles are written as part of the scientific method; they generally must supply enough details of an experiment that an independent researcher could potentially repeat the experiment to verify the results. Such journal articles are considered part of the permanent scientific record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal

[Duer 157099]

15. Um... yeah, I know, but thanks

I've published in Science, I am a bit familiar with the process.

My comment stands.

[moobu2]

17. The guy’s that conducted the “research” were mentally disturbed

They were a father and son team and eventually committed double suicide. Who knows, maybe they thought the mother ship had come for them.



Praying is the same thing as casting a spell or an magical incantation, it has no real effect at all.

[Duer 157099]

18. Exactly, "who knows" -- certainly not you

I would venture to say that many scientists who have contributed greatly to their field, *may* have had mental or emotional problems at some point in their life, and some have also committed suicide.

Does that invalidate their research? Try getting *that* thesis peer reviewed, since you're so fond of that method to validate reality for you.

Here, check out the "magical thinking" these guys at Princeton are engaged in:

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

[beam me up scottie]

19. Magical thinking?

More like wishful thinking.

Check out this fascinating interview with Dean Radin.

[greyl]

20. The Princeton Eggs aren't peer supported

and are in fact, total bunk. You've hit on the point that Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy,(Dr. Jones anyone?) but you haven't shown that scientific peer review is as unreliable as you assert.

[Duer 157099]

21. Can you prove the Princton eggs are bunk?

I'd sure like to hear about it. Please point me to the peer reviewed article that says so.

And so what about Dr. Jones, are you saying that because he has not published his findings in a peer-reviewed journal, that they are automatically false? Can you see the problem with your reasoning?

May I point out to you that scientists who have later won Nobel prizes were initially ridiculed and had difficulty getting their research published? Surely you're aware of this FACT, aren't you?

Read up on, for example, Thomas Kuhn's notions of how a scientific paradigm shifts. It is not an overnight phenomenon, and it is very, very rigidly structured. The wheels of science, at least peer-approved science (or the publication thereof), move very slowly.

Doesn't bother me in the least to think outside of that box. Bothers me how many "scientists" don't.

[greyl]

24. Yes, I can.

I have before in the Science Forum-->Meeting Room partially referring to the interview bmus linked to above.

But I 'm confused. I thought you mentioned the gcp as an example of crazy stuff that can be found at the university level. Are you saying you believe the EGGs are a real phenomenon?

"And so what about Dr. Jones, are you saying that because he has not published his findings in a peer-reviewed journal, that they are automatically false? Can you see the problem with your reasoning?"

Of course I'm not saying that non-peer reviewed papers are automatically false. That's you using a strawman argument. Read my posts again to see what I'm saying.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Can you post some cites

for egg refuting? (does THAT sound odd or what?)

I've been very interested in that study but have only read the website out of Princeton. But I have to tell you, having living there, I think Princeton must have the highest atheist per capita in the whole US! One reason I've the eggs caught my eye.

[greyl]

27. Here's a few that crack the eggs:

This one is a pdf by that deals specifically with the EGGs as related to Sept 11, 2001.
Heavy on the data analysis:

Abstract
We have conducted an independent analysis of the worldwide network of random number
generators called EGG’s by the Global Conscious Project (GCP) personnel. At the time
we found direct contradictory statements with regard to the proper protocol between a
published account and an account posted on the GCP web site
http://noosphere.princeton.edu. (Subsequently, this inadvertent ambiguity has been
corrected.) We provide, nonetheless, our analyses of both proposed methods.

The formal test hypothesis according to the published protocol, namely that there would
be at least a significant deviation (i.e., p = 0.05) of the accumulation of χ2, which was
derived from squaring the Stouffer’s Z across valid EGG’s at each second, was satisfied.
However, we show that the choice was fortuitous in that had the analysis window been a
few minutes shorter or 30 minutes longer, the formal test would not have achieved
significance. We discuss the implications of this finding.
The alternative analysis based upon the instructions posted on the GCP website, however,
showed chance deviations throughout.

We also provide verification of a separate analysis posted by Dr. Dean Radin, but we
differ markedly with regard to the posted conclusions. Using Radin’s analysis, we do not
find significant evidence that the GCP network’s EGG’s responded to the New York City
attacks in real time. Radin’s computation of 6000:1 odds against chance during the
events are accounted for by a not-unexpected local deviation that occurred approximately
3 hours before the attacks.

We conclude that the network random number generators produced data consistent with
mean chance expectation during the worst single day tragedy in American history.
more: www.jsasoc.com/docs/Sep1101.pdf

These links are all heavier on analysing the logic behind the claims of the GCP:
www.skepticnews.com/2005/02/rednova_news_ca.html
www.skepticnews.com/2005/04/terry_schiavo_a.html
www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20050308.html
www.geocities.com/lclane2/globalconsciousness.html


The interview with Radin in which he may have been better off pleading the 5th:

Another serious problem with the September 11 result was that during the days before the attacks, there were several instances of the eggs picking up data that showed the same fluctuation as on September 11th. When I asked Radin what had happened on those days, the answer was:

"I don't know."

I then asked him - and I'll admit that I was a bit flabbergasted - why on earth he hadn't gone back to see if similar "global events" had happened there since he got the same fluctuations. He answered that it would be "shoe-horning" - fitting the data to the result.

Checking your hypothesis against seemingly contradictory data is "shoe-horning"?

For once, I was speechless.
www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm

and wikipedia, fwiw. :)

To be clear, I'm not "against" the idea of some global consciousness at all. Nevertheless, as yet I haven't seen evidence of it.

For good measure, here's a review of Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" which adds doubt about his honesty.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

28. That is very disappointing

not so much that the concept might not be true, but that a quality university like Princeton and exceptional scientists would "play along" or somehow be hoodwinked by this guy.

Thanks for the information. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

25. This is a private question

and you can tell me to stuff it

but when you wrote this...

Praying is the same thing as casting a spell or an magical incantation, it has no real effect at all.


I wondered whether you have ever spent much time praying before. Because I am a fairly sensible person and I have encountered what I believe to be real effects of prayer many, many times. But I have done some heavy duty praying.

If you have, and have had no results, I can see why you would be disappointed. Prayer is not easy.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

11. I know this is a hokey source

being a paper written by a DD student, but it does cite a lot of studies.

http://www.plim.org/PrayerDeb.htm


have at it. Just don't hit me.

[Duer 157099]

13. Nobody will hit you, I hope

Here are some more sources, with some publications as well:

http://ions.org/research/projects.cfm

http://ions.org/research/dh/articles.html

[beam me up scottie]

16. This is a ridiculous waste of time.

How in the hell do the "researchers" know WHAT the people are praying for?

:banghead:

[Duer 157099]

22. That's your argument? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

23. Actually it's called common sense.

:eyes:

People who think they can read minds should give it a whirl.

[Dogmudgeon]

29. How is it possible to "scientifically validate" faith?

It's like "scientifically validating" falling in love or "scientifically validating" why you prefer chocolate to vanilla.

The whole religion-is-science thing came from religionizers who were insecure in their faith, anyway. "Proving" that one truly believes the One Truth Faith -- with Science! Or, in some cases, using Science as a surrogate for Faith.

How about proving that Ashley is hotter than Mary-Kate by a small-cohort case-control study? We would also need a high-end digital oscilloscope, some Holy Water, a Schlieran optical analysis device, the rental or lease of one of the nails of the True Cross, and a peer-review panel; and maybe an E-Meter would be handy, too.

And prayer may or may not have any effect on healing. Let the Spindrifters study it all they want. I would personally prefer the attention of Doctor of Medicine to a Doctor of Divinity, but to each their own. And, considering that it's rare for any two scientific studies of well-agreed-upon phenomena match, either, we can expect a lot of pro-and-con to come out of such research for many years. It's been 35 years since the Yippies tried to levitate the Pentagon, and some of them still swear that they did it.

There is a HUGE amount of "scientificating" done these days, supposedly to counter America's long love affair with religionizing. Again, I think it's a reflection of the insecurity we have in our convictions, as well as our lack of confidence in our ability to reason. We're all so desperately afraid to be wrong! But why do you think they call the primary method for reality testing "Trial and Error"?

--p!

[greyl]

30. When faith claims detectable effects,

it's possible to scientifically test the faith.

If God exists, it isn't afraid of scientific knowledge.

[FM Arouet666]

31. Crap pseudo-science

http://home.xnet.com/~spindrif/Discov.htm

Scientifically validating prayer? How so? Prayer involves asking a super-natural entity to perform some physical action. Belief in the supernatural runs anathema to the philosophy of science.

Their research showed that there are effects? Please, show me the data. The web site offers very little data. I particularly like the link posted above. 'Quantum physics and prayer.' What a hoot. Quantum mechanics is a very difficult topic to understand and I do not claim to be an expert. I have read numerous books by the late Richard Feynman, his descriptions of quantum mechanics presented with wit and insight, a must read. The weirdness of Quantum mechanics is a lightning rod for the tin foil hat alternative science crowd, and much to my chagrin, I see it has attracted the religious nut crowd as well.

I would be happy to review any data supporting the claim that prayer is effective. The link posts only results, a red flag for deception. I wonder, such profound results, why no publication in a major science journal? Have the results been verified by other researchers?

My initial impression is that this is crap pseudo-science. You have made the claim, by proxy, support your position.

[greyl]

32. re bmus and FM's point

that prayer can't be scientifically studied:
I was thinking that you may be correct for a few days, but isn't it true that all we objectively know about targeted(?) intercessory prayer is that
- the prayor believes they are praying properly
- the prayor believes there will be detectable effects - that praying works, iow.

Isn't that testable? Why would it be necessary to reconcile and quantify some super-natural entity to test the effects of prayer?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

33. I agree with the poster up thread

who said the science is the opposite of the supernatural.

So it would seem to me that a study of prayer would not presuppose the existence of a supernatural entity.

I would think the research would set out simply to see if there was any difference in an prayed for sample and a control sample. And prayer does not have to be silent. It can be recited orally.

It would be the researchers conclusion that either prayer had an effect or it didn't. But to draw a conclusion about the existence of a Creator (although I am a believer) would not follow.

T-Grannie

[beam me up scottie]

34. You cannot test what a person is thinking.

Period.

I could say I'm praying for bush's boo boo from his latest face plant to go away.

How would you know that I'm telling the truth?

[greyl]

35. Iow, all the negative results in the world

wouldn't mean we can be certain prayer doesn't work because those praying in the study could be lying? That's giving a more than fair benefit of the doubt. :)
And if there were positive results?

How about this:
Nunci Cereb claims they can start fire with their mind.
Are you saying that claim can't be tested?

[beam me up scottie]

36. Why would I be saying anything about Nunci Cereb claims?

Again, you cannot KNOW what someone is thinking.

[greyl]

37. Is it possible to test her claims?

I'm trying to equivocate starting a fire with one's mind with prayer for specific and above average healing.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Have at it.

I'm done with this idiotic thread.

[greyl]

39. As a skeptic, you know that it's possible to reach

rational/objective conclusions about most manner of claims.
I don't understand what the problem is here.

Compare prayer with gravity. We detect and measure gravity by its effects - not its substance, right?

[beam me up scottie]

40. As a skeptic, I shouldn't have to explain to you what the problem is.

From a Salon article on faith healing:

Koenig is the author of "The Healing Power of Faith" (Simon & Schuster), a compilation of scientific studies that examine the impact of religious belief on physical and mental health. "These studies are inexplicable within the realm of science," he says. "There's no traditional scientific mechanism in action, and scientists have a problem with that."

Dr. Stephen Barrett has a big, big problem with that. "This study is a well-designed waste of time," says Barrett, board chairman of the health fraud watchdog organization Quackwatch. "You can't generate magical forces with magical thinking. It's absurd."

****************

Barrett dismisses the entire study as a roll of the dice. Though the 10 percent difference may seem like divine intervention, he says the study has no clinical significance. "What it reflects is a lucky hit," he says. "A chance phenomenon."

The researchers acknowledge an element of chance in their study -- as well as an element of distortion, since patients in the control group most likely had friends and family praying for them, too. Harris writes, "It is probable that many if not most patients in both groups were already receiving intercessory and/or direct prayer from friends, family, and clergy."

There's no telling, in other words, how much "supplementary prayer" went unaccounted for. Which raises another devilish question from Barrett: What if someone out there was praying for one of the sick patients to get worse? Wouldn't that skew the results?

"What if you pray against somebody?" Barrett says. "Can that do harm? Is health determined by who prays harder?"

http://www.salon.com/health/feature/1999/11/03/prayer/print.html

Like I said, if you want to pursue this, have at it.

But my opinion regarding attempts to pimp science in order to validate superstition still stands.

[greyl]

41. Strawman

"...regarding attempts to pimp science in order to validate superstition still stands"

? I don't think that's an intentional strawman, but the weight is the same. Zero.

Is there evidence that intercessory prayer doesn't work? I think so.
From what I understand of your argument, we don't have evidence that prayer doesn't work.
Forgive me for being confused.

[beam me up scottie]

42. Right.

Of course, my argument is that you can't test the effects of prayer any more than you can count the number of angels doing the funky chicken on the head of a pin, but what do I know?

[greyl]

43. i give up nt

[beam me up scottie]

44. Well, you know me, I'm just trying to play along and fit in.

What can I say? :shrug:

[greyl]

46. what the fuck is that supposed to mean?

"Well, you know me, I'm just trying to play along and fit in.

What can I say?

[greyl]

45. Is it possible to test her claims?

I didn't ask if you wanted to.