Worst Pseudoscience

[IDMR]

Well, my dear psychology major, may the mathematician ask you the statistical methods employed, sample size, selection criterion, etc? Perhaps a link to the actual study report?

[Rob Wilson]

And if he doesn't know? What if he has Terminal Cancer? Is blind? Has lost a limb? Suffering from Altsiemers? Has AIDs? Has been Paralysed the Destruction of his spinal column? Suffering from 80% coverage of burns? How exactly is the prayer going to help there, apart from assuaging the bad feelings of the one giving the prayer.

Actually in a number of studies.........patients who pray regulary and are semi-religious do tend to have a better recovery rate then non praying/non-religous. I didn't beleive it when my proffessor told me so I looked it up......and it's true (Psych major here so it's kinda my job to know after all ). So there is a benefit from it

And this affected the types of illnesses mentioned how? Also how was it shown these weren't a Psychosomatic reaction.. was it even attempted to remove psychosomatic as a cause and leave only the Prayer as the recovery medium. More importantly what criterion were used in these studies (did 10 minutes of pryer have a greater effect than 1 minutes? What illnesses were they recovering from (after all flu's tend to go away at varying rates), what was the statistical grouping methods used and how vigorous was the analysis and control).

Right now this is verging on inclusion to the Religous thread, lets see where it goes from here as to moving it.

[Zoink]

"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."

Here's two theories about the origin of humans:

(1) Evolution.

(2) A giant space-traveling hamster did it.

Which to choose?

The first seems complex at first, but its only because it takes longer. Each step of evolution requires simple changes. Simple organic molecules, combining over a billion years to produce a self-replicating molecule... recombining and mutating over a few more billion years to create more complex structures... and another billion of breeding, making subtle changes over time... and bingo humans. Simple steps, each with evidence that suggests this did happen.

The second theory seems simple. But is it really? It requires believing that something that I have no proof of, something that I just pulled out of my head, is true. Is that really "simple"?

Considering a more complete description of Occam's Razor: "the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known".

The existance of a space-Hamster (or God) isn't known, the processes within evolution are. Thus, the simple theory is evolution!

[Guest]

"Well, my dear psychology major, may the mathematician ask you the statistical methods employed, sample size, selection criterion, etc? Perhaps a link to the actual study report?"

Oh let's take our pick shall we?

First let's take The Handbook of Religion and Health, by Harold Keonig MD. Its a review of something like 1,200 studies. Of course most of this will be passed off as balderdash or pyscosomatic responses.

Or one might look at the studies done by Mitchell Krucoff out of Duke. You know the one where they did a controlled study of 150 patients undergoing angioplasty. Patients were assigned to a control group, image therapy, touch therapy, stress relaxation, or "distant prayer". Patients in the "distant prayer" group or the control were not aware of which group they occupied. Compared to the control group the "distant prayer" group suffered 25-30% fewer adverse outcomes (post-PCI ischemia, death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and urgent revascularization).

Now a study with blind subjects, and quantifiable data versus a control group obviously means nothing. And of course the American Heart Journal is a pseudoscientific rag, being published in such a journal means nothing, right?

http://www.geri.duke.edu/religion/research.html

I might suggest that before one blanketly declare that all the effects of prayer are psycosomatic, you read the science for yourself. Skepticism is healthy, preconceived biased, which seems to be in evidence here, is not. Of course there are legitimate concerns about Kurchoff's research (my personal greatest qualm is that n = 30 for any given group, but I'm suspending judgement till the 2nd phase of the NIH funded study ... with 1500 patients ... goes through), but a true adherent to the scientific method would look over the data and observations before passing judgement.

[IDMR]

I might suggest that before one blanketly declare that all the effects of prayer are psycosomatic, you read the science for yourself. Skepticism is healthy, preconceived biased, which seems to be in evidence here, is not. Of course there are legitimate concerns about Kurchoff's research (my personal greatest qualm is that n = 30 for any given group, but I'm suspending judgement till the 2nd phase of the NIH funded study ... with 1500 patients ... goes through), but a true adherent to the scientific method would look over the data and observations before passing judgement.

Which, of course, would be why I asked for the details to see them for myself, no?

[Rob Wilson]

"Well, my dear psychology major, may the mathematician ask you the statistical methods employed, sample size, selection criterion, etc? Perhaps a link to the actual study report?"

Oh let's take our pick shall we?

First let's take The Handbook of Religion and Health, by Harold Keonig MD. Its a review of something like 1,200 studies. Of course most of this will be passed off as balderdash or pyscosomatic responses.

Or one might look at the studies done by Mitchell Krucoff out of Duke. You know the one where they did a controlled study of 150 patients undergoing angioplasty. Patients were assigned to a control group, image therapy, touch therapy, stress relaxation, or "distant prayer". Patients in the "distant prayer" group or the control were not aware of which group they occupied. Compared to the control group the "distant prayer" group suffered 25-30% fewer adverse outcomes (post-PCI ischemia, death, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and urgent revascularization).

Now a study with blind subjects, and quantifiable data versus a control group obviously means nothing. And of course the American Heart Journal is a pseudoscientific rag, being published in such a journal means nothing, right?

http://www.geri.duke.edu/religion/research.html

I might suggest that before one blanketly declare that all the effects of prayer are psycosomatic, you read the science for yourself. Skepticism is healthy, preconceived biased, which seems to be in evidence here, is not. Of course there are legitimate concerns about Kurchoff's research (my personal greatest qualm is that n = 30 for any given group, but I'm suspending judgement till the 2nd phase of the NIH funded study ... with 1500 patients ... goes through), but a true adherent to the scientific method would look over the data and observations before passing judgement.

Pre-conceptions are not at issue here, but if they were surely a study by a religious motivated research group, looking into religious methods would be at the least be open to a bit of eyebrow raising.

Lets look at one of their studies shall we?

Religious Struggle and Mortality (When Religious Beliefs Adversely Affect Health)
[well that looks promising doesn't it, a religous goup looking into and finding evidenc that religion can adversely affect health, but lets look at the methodology shall we?]

Religious struggle was assessed by degree of subject agreement (on a 0 to 3 scale) to each of the following seven statements: wondered whether God had abandoned me; felt punished by God for my lack of devotion; wondered what I did for God to punish me; questioned God's love for me; wondered whether my church had abandoned me; decided the Devil made this happen; and questioned the power of God.

[Oh yes that's objective isn't it. It starts from the very proposition that religion has a basis in fact - the patients all believe in God - and then leaves no room whatsoever as to whether the patients give one fig what God thinks or not. Very objective indeed.]

And the Study you talked of

Intercessory Prayer and Cardiac Outcomes

[Note it's not Noetic treatments and Cardiac outcomes, it's not Non-standard treatments and Cardiac outcomes, no they wear their bible with pride and name it Intercessory Prayer and Cardiac outcomes, despite what the Studies findings were]

Results were not statistically significant for any of the outcome comparisons. However, compared to the control group (standard therapy), there was a 25% to 30% reduction in adverse outcomes in patients treated with any type of noetic therapy.
[Yep there was no Statistically significant results for any of the outcome comparisons... hang on, doesn't the next sentence directly contradict that?Maybe they were hopng no one would notice. And also you may note that the 25% to 30% increase was seen in ANY type of Noetic thereapy (thats stress relaxation, imagery, touch therapy, and distant intercessory prayer-to patients, not just the one mentioned in the title) also as it's spread around 4 groups, which was found to be the most therapeutic, there's no mention in the study. What was the Range and samples in depth, were there any Aethists at all in the groups. How rigourous were the controls?]

Mortality was followed for 6 months after hospitalization.
[What were the results after 1 year? Why stop at 6 months if the results were not Statistically Significant? Angioplasty recovery takes anywhere upto 18 months, why this arbritrary 6 month period? Have the experiments been repeated elsewhere by a none religious funded group? ]

I really think you should be a bit broader in your research, one source tends to lead to one view point.

[Guest]

"Pre-conceptions are not at issue here, but if they were surely a study by a religious motivated research group, looking into religious methods would be at the least be open to a bit of eyebrow raising."
Really so when people state that x has only a psycosomatic effect without any evidence to that effect weren't stating their preconception. Or did they have some unlisted scientific study to back that conclusion? Abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

"Lets look at one of their studies shall we?

Religious Struggle and Mortality (When Religious Beliefs Adversely Affect Health)
[well that looks promising doesn't it, a religous goup looking into and finding evidenc that religion can adversely affect health, but lets look at the methodology shall we?]

Religious struggle was assessed by degree of subject agreement (on a 0 to 3 scale) to each of the following seven statements: wondered whether God had abandoned me; felt punished by God for my lack of devotion; wondered what I did for God to punish me; questioned God's love for me; wondered whether my church had abandoned me; decided the Devil made this happen; and questioned the power of God.

[Oh yes that's objective isn't it. It starts from the very proposition that religion has a basis in fact - the patients all believe in God - and then leaves no room whatsoever as to whether the patients give one fig what God thinks or not. Very objective indeed.] "

It is an objective position to state that a person beleives in something ... be that quantum mechanics or God. Outward expression of beleif is both measurable and quantifiable, the scale is of course mutable. The bias of the experimentor is not of note so long as the data is independant. Many theories have been proved by their opponents (Einstein via Bell and Copenhagen comes to mind) or have been disproved by their proponents (Einstain via Bell and determinism).

As long as procedures are reproducable by any experimentor, bias is not an issue. Or should we discount research into drug effectiveness done by Pfizer?

"Results were not statistically significant for any of the outcome comparisons. However, compared to the control group (standard therapy), there was a 25% to 30% reduction in adverse outcomes in patients treated with any type of noetic therapy.
[Yep there was no Statistically significant results for any of the outcome comparisons... hang on, doesn't the next sentence directly contradict that?Maybe they were hopng no one would notice. And also you may note that the 25% to 30% increase was seen in ANY type of Noetic thereapy (thats stress relaxation, imagery, touch therapy, and distant intercessory prayer-to patients, not just the one mentioned in the title) also as it's spread around 4 groups, which was found to be the most therapeutic, there's no mention in the study. What was the Range and samples in depth, were there any Aethists at all in the groups. How rigourous were the controls?]"

Sigh. Let's say I did a study for the effectiveness of a new antibiotic. Now to get good results I compare it to a placebo, to penicillian, and to tetracycline. Now we already know that penicillian and tetracycline work better than a placebo, if my new drug works exhibits no statistically different results than penicillian and tetracycline does that mean that it can't exhibit statistically significant results when compared to a placebo?

Same type of results here. Patients received one of several "treatments", and most importantly those on the control were blind to the knowledge of being on the prayer list. In other words the only variable of difference between the control and the prayer group was the prayer ... which the subject was not aware of (or can we somehow develop pyscosomatic responses without having knowledge of the alleged pscosomatic trigger?).

"Mortality was followed for 6 months after hospitalization.
[What were the results after 1 year? Why stop at 6 months if the results were not Statistically Significant? Angioplasty recovery takes anywhere upto 18 months, why this arbritrary 6 month period? Have the experiments been repeated elsewhere by a none religious funded group? ] "
I would point you to the comments about the longer NIH funded study with more participants. This was a preliminary report on a small sample. A larger, more extensive study is currently underway and will be monitoring farther into the future. Scientists do not have infinite budgets so you can't make the perfect experiment on the first try.


"I really think you should be a bit broader in your research, one source tends to lead to one view point."
Funny how you have no preconceived bias, yet automatically assume that I have read only one source. For the record I have did a quick shot on PubMed (a clearing house for medical research) and I found *no* studies showing negative correlation, and only this study (which has preliminary data that might indicate something more than pyscosomatic response).

No preconceptions, my ass.

[Rob Wilson]

"Funny how you have no preconceived bias, yet automatically assume that I have read only one source. For the record I have did a quick shot on PubMed (a clearing house for medical research) and I found *no* studies showing negative correlation, and only this study (which has preliminary data that might indicate something more than pyscosomatic response).

No preconceptions, my ass.

No you cited only one source as your proof, if you had others you should have mentioned them as well.

And now your proof I had preconceptions is?

How about you showing that there ever were any studies to disprove it, or indeed any studies other than those by religious sponsored groups that prove it?

The Study you cited clearly stated there were *no* statistically signifigant results. Live with it. The study fails to give any details of worth (the complete age range, the medical conditions of each person in the groups, their religious backgrounds, the amount of prayer given, the condition of the patients after 18 months or at least complete recovery, the types of controil methods, who supervised the study from outside the research group itself, which of the methods were found to be the most effective, raw statistical data... the list goes on).

If they found that prayer was somehow effective (having utterly and conclusively ruled out every other type of influence) then I'd be happy, for the simple fact it would make more people well faster regardless of my own beliefs on the subject of religion. I suggest you think before making acussations of others in future. For a Psych student you show a surprisingly poor grasp of others motivations and thoughts.

[Guest]

"No you cited only one source as your proof, if you had others you should have mentioned them as well. "

I see, if one does not mention sources they are assumed not to have existed. In other words you have no sources, period. Oh and I would note that *two* sources were given, just for the slow of mind.

"And now your proof I had preconceptions is?"
Did I say I had proof? No, but the supporting evidence is that you immediately assume that I am merely quoting from one source. If I had quoted Bell on a quantum mechanics issue would that be indicative that I have no other sources? No. Of course the real "proof" is that you accuse me of having one source when I explicity mentioned two by different authors.

Frankly you posted "Yes but I was pointing out that the Prayer itself has no value." Despite the fact that you have *no proof* of this ascertion. Despite the fact that there does exist data which suggests that this might be the case. So did you just categorically assume this or do you have a peer reviewed study you plan to eventually cite?

"How about you showing that there ever were any studies to disprove it, or indeed any studies other than those by religious sponsored groups that prove it? "
Learn to read. I did a quick search at a scientific clearinghouse service ... I found none which refuted it. If you have experimental proof contradicting the study which I stated *might* have significance, please bring them forward.

"The Study you cited clearly stated there were *no* statistically signifigant results. Live with it. "
Ahh an abstract miner. There were no statistically significant results compared to *other neotic treatments*. Its like saying that there is no statistically significant results between natural insulin and commericial insulin (grown with bacteria) ... the two are chemically identical so there is no variance between the two. But compare either to a control group and you will see statically significant results.

"The study fails to give any details of worth (the complete age range, the medical conditions of each person in the groups, their religious backgrounds, the amount of prayer given, the condition of the patients after 18 months or at least complete recovery, the types of controil methods, who supervised the study from outside the research group itself, which of the methods were found to be the most effective, raw statistical data... the list goes on). "
1. I suggest you read the actual article, not just the summary which by nature does not provide all the data and procedure.
2. I suggest you realize that *budgetary constraints* do limit scope of research. Getting a truly random sample requires a large population, heavy monitoring requires more researchers to go out and gather the data. Longer run times for experiments means more man hours. In a nutshell this was a *preliminary* study, it was quick "cheap" (relatively speaking) and served primarily to justify further investigation.
3. You are assuming a continious relationship (or so it appears). I.e. that given x amount of prayer you get f(x) benifit. It might well be that once x > c an effect is seen, irregardless of how much greater x is (or on the flip side if there is too much prayer the almighty might get annoyed and plague the bugger out of spite). One should not assume upon the nature of a correlation.

My point is unlike you there are legit researchers doing standard scientific research. They are seeing responses to neotic therapy ... even prayer of which the subject has no knowledge. I beleive to be scientifically honest one should not say prayer has no inate value. Rather that it has not been proven that prayer has inate value. When a larger sample study is put forth claims of proof or disproof can be considered, for now judgement should be reserved unless you wish to use preconceived values.


For the record this is "another guest" (not the pysch major) and I might get off my ass sometime and make an account here, then again I am damn lazy.

[Skelron]

If people are going to knock Thomas Aquina's then could they please at least get his argument's correct. So far what I have seen are the, well rather pathetic criticisms that have been dealt wih in the very wording of his argument.

Here is the argument in full, and please for the purpose of the argument keep in mind that a Timeless and Transcendent being exists outside of time.

1.) All things have a cause that are in themselves by their nature caused.
2.) Since it is impossible that this loop has gone on for infinity (Since infinity is impossible to reach, to reach infinity means their is no start or end, if there is no start or end then you cannot exist at a point, Infinity rules out time. Note this is a staple point in Philosphy and not an argument put forward by Aquinashe has not just claimed this.) there must be something that was in itself not caused.
3.) but Since all things in time have a cause, and the cause cannot go on for ever, something outside of time must be the cause. (Which if you accept his argument it does follow on.)
4.) and this we call God (After three years of this argument that final phrase sticks in the mind like Glue)

Now on it's own this does not prove God, but Aquina's has another 4 argument's in which he expands the role of this Prime mover. The Flaw is that it still does not point fully towards the concept of God as described by the Christian faith not in his argument for a Prime Mover. At the same time the use of Occam's razor would say that the easiest solution is that a unknown Timeless entity is the same Timeless entity as one for which we have an existing concept of.

[The Yosemite Bear]

My favorite Psudo Science Buster's would have to me the early 20th century Tag team of Harry Hudini and Sir Arthur C. Doyle. They wen't after all kinds of loons and fakers.

I lkie your Rogue Trooper pic rob

[oberon]

I don't know if this counts, but the way humanities people use words like "episteme" to puff up their own writing, to say something that's obvious to everyone in the most unreadable format possible.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I think those New Age Mysticists are morons.