Awe in Science (page 6)

cofty

I agree with the second part of the proverb.

Deputy Dog

cofty

Placebo effect is precisely why double-blind trials are the gold standard for testing.

I agree, but, it is real and part of the data.

If a scientist believes that a theist god actually healed a number of people in his trial group then the data is meaningless.

Not if he believes God uses doctors, drugs, science as part of the healing.

cofty

I agree, but, it is real and part of the data.

No its not. Double-blind trials exclude the effects of placebo.

Not if he believes God uses doctors, drugs, science as part of the healing.

If he believes that intervention by god played any part in the healing then science is impossible.

mamochan13

Interesting discussion. I like your prayer example, Cofty.

Tammy brought up something I was going to also mention, the idea that scientists must shelve ALL preconceived notions so they don't taint the evidence. It's difficult to do. I've read many instances of scientists who inadvertently (or deliberately) influenced the outcome of research by looking for a particular result and favoring only the outcomes that supported his or her preconceived idea.

I'd also add that science would search for answers and not discount evidence that some people were being healed by god, if it existed. In that context science is not impossible, it's inclusive of all possibilities.

Deputy Dog

cofty

If he believes that intervention by god played any part in the healing then science is impossible.

God even uses you

cofty

I think you have missed the point DD

still thinking

marking..interesting discussion

EntirelyPossible

God even uses you

Can you show that in a lab?

jgnat

Placebo effect is precisely why double-blind trials are the gold standard for testing. - Cofty

I agree, but, it is real and part of the data. - Deputy Dog

If a scientist believes that a theist god actually healed a number of people in his trial group then the data is meaningless. - Cofty

Not if he believes God uses doctors, drugs, science as part of the healing. - Deputy Dog

------

Boy, if I am going to explain this, it's gonna be weird. I am going to try and show DD how this reliance on faith as part of healing, during a double-blind scientific test, is impossible.

How would a scientist go about testing if prayer (tangible evidence of faith) has a measurable effect? Let's take the common cold so that no-one is endangered during the test. A random sample group of people are infected with the common cold. A third of the group is given a placebo. They are prayed over using a standard text by "unbelievers". The second group is prayed over, using the same text, by "believers". The final group receives no prayers at all. Test to see if there is any measurable reduction on the length of the cold by any of the three groups.

As for testing a new drug, the power of divine intervention must be negligible to get a statistically significant result. If it were a factor, the scientist would have to diminish its influence in order to get a good result. The scientist is trying to find out if the drug works or not. I have not heard of any examples where divine intervention had to be screened out.

------

Now, family doctors, that's another story all together. Their specialty, says my sister, is to supervise our "deaths". Theirs is not the joy of the wonder-cure. After the family doctor does their best, all there is left is prayer. My sister, the family doctor, is a big fan of prayer.

Awe in Science

Share this