John Platko wrote:

redwhine wrote:

John Platko wrote:

OlivierK wrote:You're getting there. The effects of prayer contamination are at such a low level that they're indistinguishable from zero. Far from requiring a better methodology, that actually addresses your concern with the original study. At this point, were you not engaging in apologetics you'd be saying "I guess those null results are legit."

Instead you're just arguing that the effects must be minuscule based on the premise that the effects are minuscule. That's not actually very impressive.

Given the evidence of miracles at Lourdes, which as I recall, require prayer, we have no reason to expect a completely null result. My logic is sound.

What "evidence of miracles at Lourdes" would that be, pray tell? (I know of none.)

Approximately 35 claims per year are brought to the attention of the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Most of these are dismissed quickly. Three to five each year are investigated more thoroughly, by drawing up a Medical Bureau, comprising any doctors who were present in Lourdes at the time the apparent cure took place (this is the rationale for all members to notify the bureau of their visits to Lourdes).

The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on).

If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs. CMIL meets annually. A full investigation requires that one of its members investigates every detail of the case in question, and immerses him/herself in the literature around that condition to ensure that up-to-date academic knowledge is applied to the decision. This investigator may also consult with other colleagues about the case.

This information is presented at a CMIL meeting. Also present at the meeting are the head of the Lourdes Medical Bureau and the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes (currently this is Nicolas Brouwet). The cured subject is not normally present.

For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established:

The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt
The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure)
The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required)
The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness)
The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit)
The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence)
CMIL is not entitled to pronounce a cure "miraculous"; this can only be done by the Church.The bureau may only pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable".A full investigation takes a minimum of five years (in order to ensure that the cure is permanent), and may take as long as ten or twelve years. It is recognised that, in rare cases, even advanced malignant disease or severe infection may spontaneously resolve.

The CMIL board votes on each case presented. A two-thirds vote is required for CMIL to pronounce a cure "inexplicable".

If CMIL decides a cure is medically inexplicable, the case is referred to the Bishop of the diocese where the cured subject lives. It is he who, in consultation with his own experts and with the Vatican, makes the decision about whether a cure is "miraculous". He may, for whatever reason, refute the claim.

Jacques Perrier, the former Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, made a statement concerning the question of miracles in Lourdes. The bishop wishes to have a new approach to cures in Lourdes, especially concerning the different stages of recognising them. In his words: “For the Church, as well as for the believer, a pilgrimage to Mary is more than a journey to a miracle. It is a journey of love, of prayer and of the suffering community.” [5]

Occasionally cases are dismissed by the Medical Bureau but still attain a level of fame and notoriety. One example is that of Jack Traynor.

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

35 claims per year out of how many millions? What a fucking joke!

The Catholic Church has a high bar for recognizing a cure as a miracle attributed to Lourdes. This is the approved list.

http://en.lourdes-france.org/deepen/cur ... in-lourdes

Given all of the medical personnel involved, this is no joke to some.

Of course the list of recognized miracles is not meant to be the complete list of miracles that have occurred, just the ones that have gone through the rigorous process required by the church to authenticate an actual miracle.

John Platko wrote:

OlivierK wrote:You're getting there. The effects of prayer contamination are at such a low level that they're indistinguishable from zero. Far from requiring a better methodology, that actually addresses your concern with the original study. At this point, were you not engaging in apologetics you'd be saying "I guess those null results are legit."

Instead you're just arguing that the effects must be minuscule based on the premise that the effects are minuscule. That's not actually very impressive.

Given the evidence of miracles at Lourdes, which as I recall, require prayer, we have no reason to expect a completely null result. My logic is sound.

Templeton wrote:Thinking here that the actual action of prayer and the impact it has physiologically would be a more direct way of answering the question; Can illness be cured by prayer?

Perhaps comparing prayer studies to similar studies measuring the effects of meditation on illness might be more meaningful.

quisquose wrote:My daughter was diagnosed with cancer when she was 7.

Apparently she was cured by a work colleague when she prayed for her on a pilgrimage to Lourdes.

Boy did I have to bite my lip and smile when I was told that!

hackenslash wrote:It's interesting, isn't it, that you'd hace been described as 'tasteless' for challenging that, yet no such label is ever applied to the credulous...

hackenslash wrote:

John Platko wrote:

OlivierK wrote:You're getting there. The effects of prayer contamination are at such a low level that they're indistinguishable from zero. Far from requiring a better methodology, that actually addresses your concern with the original study. At this point, were you not engaging in apologetics you'd be saying "I guess those null results are legit."

Instead you're just arguing that the effects must be minuscule based on the premise that the effects are minuscule. That's not actually very impressive.

Given the evidence of miracles at Lourdes, which as I recall, require prayer, we have no reason to expect a completely null result. My logic is sound.

The problem there is that the 'confirmed' instances from Lourdes are fewer than should be expected from mere statistical anomaly (I don't have the precise figures, but I researched them for a debate at RDF). In other words, pure fluke outperforms prayer, even at this holy site.

Oh, and I don't think 'evidence' means what you think it means

John Platko wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

John Platko wrote:

OlivierK wrote:You're getting there. The effects of prayer contamination are at such a low level that they're indistinguishable from zero. Far from requiring a better methodology, that actually addresses your concern with the original study. At this point, were you not engaging in apologetics you'd be saying "I guess those null results are legit."

Instead you're just arguing that the effects must be minuscule based on the premise that the effects are minuscule. That's not actually very impressive.

Given the evidence of miracles at Lourdes, which as I recall, require prayer, we have no reason to expect a completely null result. My logic is sound.

The problem there is that the 'confirmed' instances from Lourdes are fewer than should be expected from mere statistical anomaly (I don't have the precise figures, but I researched them for a debate at RDF). In other words, pure fluke outperforms prayer, even at this holy site.

Oh, and I don't think 'evidence' means what you think it means

I realize you don't think evidence means what I think it means. But as I patiently explained in a previous thread, what constitutes ""evidence" is in the eye of the beholder. There are all kinds of evidence and a wide range of standards as to what is accepted as evidence in various domains. Such is life.

And perhaps what you call " statistical anomaly" is actually the hand of God at work.

John Platko wrote:But as I patiently explained in a previous thread, what constitutes ""evidence" is in the eye of the beholder.

hackenslash wrote: The problem there is that the 'confirmed' instances from Lourdes are fewer than should be expected from mere statistical anomaly (I don't have the precise figures, but I researched them for a debate at RDF). In other words, pure fluke outperforms prayer, even at this holy site.

hackenslash wrote:And perhaps my penis is 13 inches long. That's where that game gets you.

As for standards of evidence, I only have one. Anything that doesn't meet that standard is summarily dismissed, which is why John's getting nowhere.

John Platko wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

John Platko wrote:

OlivierK wrote:You're getting there. The effects of prayer contamination are at such a low level that they're indistinguishable from zero. Far from requiring a better methodology, that actually addresses your concern with the original study. At this point, were you not engaging in apologetics you'd be saying "I guess those null results are legit."

Instead you're just arguing that the effects must be minuscule based on the premise that the effects are minuscule. That's not actually very impressive.

Given the evidence of miracles at Lourdes, which as I recall, require prayer, we have no reason to expect a completely null result. My logic is sound.

The problem there is that the 'confirmed' instances from Lourdes are fewer than should be expected from mere statistical anomaly (I don't have the precise figures, but I researched them for a debate at RDF). In other words, pure fluke outperforms prayer, even at this holy site.

Oh, and I don't think 'evidence' means what you think it means

I realize you don't think evidence means what I think it means. But as I patiently explained in a previous thread, what constitutes ""evidence" is in the eye of the beholder. There are all kinds of evidence and a wide range of standards as to what is accepted as evidence in various domains. Such is life.

And perhaps what you call " statistical anomaly" is actually the hand of God at work.

John Platko wrote:

hackenslash wrote:And perhaps my penis is 13 inches long. That's where that game gets you.

As for standards of evidence, I only have one. Anything that doesn't meet that standard is summarily dismissed, which is why John's getting nowhere.

Does the prayer medical study that you introduced into this thread meet your standard for evidence?