Fatima children

Canonisation

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Fatima children

#41  Postby John Platko » May 14, 2017 1:59 pm

newolder wrote:
John Platko wrote:...
:sigh: I'll spell it out. The studies are flawed because you can't control who prays for people in the way you can control who actually gets real drugs. Are medical studies involving the administration of drugs done without controls on who actually gets the drugs?

You don't seem to understand the idea of randomised controlled trials.


It is true that I don't understand the probability distribution of intercessory prayer as it applies to random people with medical issues, would you be so kind as to share your data on that with us.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Fatima children

#42  Postby John Platko » May 14, 2017 2:00 pm

chairman bill wrote:You can't control who had a goat sacrificed to Beelzebub - maybe that's the secret sauce.


That sums it up nicely. :thumbup:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Fatima children

#43  Postby John Platko » May 14, 2017 2:15 pm

Shrunk wrote:
solazy wrote:https://www.voanews.com/a/brazilian-boy-survival-brain-injury-fatima-miracle/3848137.html

So the doctors were wrong and he just had a minor injury.


Well, it sounds like he had quite a significant injury (He was in a coma) but, sure, they could have been wrong in the prognosis. That's easy to do. We also don't have any firsthand report from the doctor's themselves.

Of course, I don't really know how the Vatican defines a miracle. Maybe they think doctors are infallible like the Pope, so when they get something wrong it's miraculous.


According to The Science of Miracles: How the Vatican Decides
Nearly all, or "99.9 percent of these are medical miracles," O'Neill said. "They need to be spontaneous, instantaneous and complete healing. Doctors have to say, 'We don't have any natural explanation of what happened,'" O'Neill said.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Fatima children

#44  Postby newolder » May 14, 2017 2:31 pm

John Platko wrote:...

It is true that I don't understand the probability distribution of intercessory prayer as it applies to random people with medical issues, would you be so kind as to share your data on that with us.

Yes, your routine misrepresentations are tedious. Nevertheless, I can share a link to the methodology: here 'tis.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6624
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Fatima children

#45  Postby newolder » May 14, 2017 2:43 pm

John Platko wrote:...

That sums it up nicely. :thumbup:

It sums up your ignorance and/or misrepresentation of the term, 'Randomized Control Trial', quite well.

Try this instead.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6624
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Fatima children

#46  Postby John Platko » May 14, 2017 3:34 pm

newolder wrote:
John Platko wrote:...

That sums it up nicely. :thumbup:

It sums up your ignorance and/or misrepresentation of the term, 'Randomized Control Trial', quite well.

Try this instead.


That is no substitute for an actual rebuttal to my argument. :nono: One cannot do a trial on the effectiveness of a "treatment" if one cannot know and/or control who does, and who does not, receive the treatment. Assumed "it all washes out in the randomness" is not science - it's make believe.
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Fatima children

#47  Postby newolder » May 14, 2017 3:38 pm

John Platko wrote:...

That is no substitute for an actual rebuttal to my argument. :nono: One cannot do a trial on the effectiveness of a "treatment" if one cannot know and/or control who does, and who does not, receive the treatment.

Then I conclude you have not read the link about the method.
Assumed "it all washes out in the randomness" is not science - it's make believe.

Stop misrepresenting things you do not understand.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6624
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Fatima children

#48  Postby John Platko » May 14, 2017 3:48 pm

newolder wrote:
John Platko wrote:...

It is true that I don't understand the probability distribution of intercessory prayer as it applies to random people with medical issues, would you be so kind as to share your data on that with us.

Yes, your routine misrepresentations are tedious. Nevertheless, I can share a link to the methodology: here 'tis.



:eh: That doesn't help your case, it just makes mine.

First, it reiterates what I said, a trial is supposed to give he medicine to some and not to others, and know which is which. But that's hard to do when anyone can give the "medicine" - and we have no idea of what that distribution looks like - or even if the effect is linear.

Then, it goes on to say that the people doing clinical trails are untrustworthy - they have a strong tendency to only report on the trials that say what they want to hear.

:picard: :picard: :picard:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Fatima children

#49  Postby romansh » May 14, 2017 3:49 pm

John Platko wrote: That study has been debunked on the forum long ago. There are many control issues with intercessory prayer studies.

Do you have a scientific reference that the 2006 study has been debunked John?
"That's right!" shouted Vroomfondel, "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
User avatar
romansh
 
Posts: 2707

Country: BC Can (in the woods)
Print view this post

Re: Fatima children

#50  Postby newolder » May 14, 2017 4:06 pm

John Platko wrote:...
:eh: That doesn't help your case, it just makes mine.

First, it reiterates what I said, a trial is supposed to give he medicine to some and not to others, and know which is which.

If you understand the method then you'll be able to state 3 benefits of Randomization.

But that's hard to do when anyone can give the "medicine" - and we have no idea of what that distribution looks like - or even if the effect is linear.

Then, it goes on to say that the people doing clinical trails are untrustworthy - they have a strong tendency to only report on the trials that say what they want to hear.

:picard: :picard: :picard:

You are dribbling again and I have other things to attend to.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6624
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Fatima children

#51  Postby John Platko » May 14, 2017 4:33 pm

romansh wrote:
John Platko wrote: That study has been debunked on the forum long ago. There are many control issues with intercessory prayer studies.

Do you have a scientific reference that the 2006 study has been debunked John?


I have a common sense argument why the study is unscientific and more importantly unreligious. I'll spell it out again:

1) No one can control who prays for a person and who does not. Especially problematic is the use of wildcards, i.e. "*" in prayers. I could pray for the people in a hospital, I could pray for people recovering from heart surgery. etc. etc. A dose of prayer is not like a dose of penicillin. :no:

2) One needs a good model of how prayer works before one can scientifically study it's effectiveness. Did the "scientists" take into consideration that it might matter who is doing the praying? After all, the whole concept behind Saints is that some people have more pull with God than others. It's not the Saints doing the miracles :nono: God allegedly does that, the Saints just intercede on behalf of the people praying to (technically with) them.



3) If intercessory prayer involves something supernatural, as some claim, then it is by definition beyond the reach of scientific understanding, i.e. scientific study of anything supernatural will, by definition, fail.

But as for "scientific" debunking: Well here's what one of scientists who did the study said:

from
"Each study builds on others, and STEP advanced the design beyond what had been previously done," said Dusek. "The findings, however, could well be due to the study limitations."
:roll:
I like to imagine ...
User avatar
John Platko
 
Name: John Platko
Posts: 9411
Male

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest