magic or not

[mooeypoo]

the power of intention, sensing, focus, energy and movement and the skill of the mancer, the reader, the diviner . . . . connecting with energy points that which can be seen and unseen, . . . sensed and rhythmically and harmoniously connected with

...and this is science..... how?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I am just learning that this is indeed a science board, and scientific method must be adhered to, inorder to reach any valuable conclusions.

This method is required if your want any hypothesis to be accepted in any sort of scientific group or institution. No one will accept subjective results in science, tar.

 

I am not so sure that the subjective view and the scientific view need to be studied separately. Perhaps the two are more compatible than they seem.

If you treat reality as completely subjective, then that means that what is true to you is not necessarily true to me. Hence, whatever result or hypothesis you are making about reality is - by definition - true to only SOME people. That is an excellent philosophical argument, and a very interesting one, probably, but it's not science.

 

We treat reality as objectively existent because otherwise we would have no business researching it and reaching conclusions that affect others. Everything we've done so far in science showed us that even if reality has some subjective cases to it, the absolutely "big stuff" are completely objective.

 

If they weren't, you'd have no medicine, no engineering, no mathematics and no physics.

 

If you throw a ball from the top of the Eifel tower it will fall to the ground. That will happen no matter who throws the ball or at what time. That is an objective claim, which ahs been objectively proven.

 

When I play tic-tac-toe with my friend online, it helps me relax. That is a subjective claim, and it was proven on ME, not on anyone else. If I were to make the claim that all tic-tac-toe playing helps relaxation, I am transforming from a subjective personal claim to an objective claim and now I need to prove it - OBJECTIVELY.

 

That's what you're trying to do; Prayer may help you, or those you know, or it has helped you before, and now you search for ways to logically explain why it helped you. That's fine. But when you claim that prayer helps everyone, or that prayer helps in general, you are making an objective claim about objective reality and you need objective testing for this.

 

You should be careful to start with a hypothesis and follow its tests to the logical course rather than start with a conclusion and try to forcefully fit reality into it.

 

I accept that the studies show that indeed there is no Magic in prayer. That is to say, that congregations, cannot, by uttering words to themselves affect the health of a stranger. There is no mechanism through which this can be accomplished. If there were, then prayer would not have failed the test.

Or you may claim that you have another idea as to what may help here, and you will test for it. In that case, you're shifting from claiming it was "PRAYER" that helped to a claim that it was "POSITIVE THINKING" that helped. You can test this and reach a conclusion.

 

My argument is based around looking for a mechanism by which prayer indeed might affect reality.

Which is exactly the problem, tar.

 

Instead of researching reality and seeing where the evidence lead you, you are taking a conclusion you wish to be true and look for how to fit reality into it. That's backwards, it's not science, it's a logical fallacy, and it also will not result in representing reality, it will result in making hundreds of excuses for the sake of FORCING reality into what you want it to fit.

 

Do you see the problem here?

 

But still, even though my hypothesis is weak, and I will discard it, for the moment, I would like to keep open the possibility that prayer is a part of a mechanism, that is actually scientifically definable.

The hypothesis isn't the problem, the mechanism you're using to prove this hypothesis is the problem.

 

Keeping an open mind means you should go by what reality dictates - hence, if repeated experiments show no affect on anything at all, the conclusion is that there's no effect on anything at all. If you think of other options that the tests have missed, then you need to test for these options and follow the results.

 

As the old saying goes, tar, you should keep an open mind, but not so much as to have your brain fall out.

 

 

It may involve laws, and institutions, governments, religions, love, positive thinking, human wills and subjective thoughts of ones connection to the human race, the universe and an immortal spirit of some kind. But if it is a mechanism, a real mechanism, involving molecules that when put together, exhibit some emergent properties (humans,) then we can and should be able to approach it all, scientifically.

 

Regards, TAR

If you want to do apologetic theism (which is an interesting philosophical endeavour, though tending to be quite a dangerous one to one's logic) , you are more than welcome to, but you need to be aware that it is absolutely not science.

 

If you intend to discover reality and the machanisms that govern it, then your method should be as objective as possible, so you can get objective results. Otherwise, youre results will be subjective, which is great for you, but irrelevant for everyone else.

 

~moo

Edited August 25, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[padren]

That's what you're trying to do; Prayer may help you, or those you know, or it has helped you before, and now you search for ways to logically explain why it helped you. That's fine. But when you claim that prayer helps everyone, or that prayer helps in general, you are making an objective claim about objective reality and you need objective testing for this.

Just to be clear on the "Prayer may help you" note I think it's worth saying that you should always try to consider the most conservative way of evaluating the information. You can say prayer helped you but then always step back, and consider the statement - all you can really say is the action of prayer was followed by a positive result. You know you prayed, you know a positive result occurred - you can be sure of those as facts. You cannot be sure of the causation, thus to say "Prayer helped you" is a conclusion you drew by observing an action and a subsequent result that appear to follow a cause-effect connection.

 

It may feel cold and almost like "looking a gift horse in the mouth" and overly skeptical, especially when the result is such a godsend - but that doesn't have to be where you finish your investigation, it's just good to be aware that is the most valuable place to start. You start by assessing the most concrete facts that can be established, so when you do feel like drawing conclusions for any reason (science, faith) you are aware of that fact and haven't overlooked unsubstantiated assumptions you weren't aware you even made.

If you choose to believe the positive result was the result of prayer because of your faith - then it does your faith more justice to know that is the reason for that belief. To say "Praying helped for me" as if that was an objective fact proving causation to you in your case you are allowing yourself to believe the facts support that and the real reason - your faith - goes unappreciated as the source for that belief.

Which is exactly the problem, tar.

 

Instead of researching reality and seeing where the evidence lead you, you are taking a conclusion you wish to be true and look for how to fit reality into it. That's backwards, it's not science, it's a logical fallacy, and it also will not result in representing reality, it will result in making hundreds of excuses for the sake of FORCING reality into what you want it to fit.

 

To be a little pedantic I do think that could be clarified - we do see things we suspect have causal relationships and then test them... we are pattern finding creatures by nature after all. The key of course is when those patterns are tested scientifically we don't start with the assumption that the pattern we are testing is valid, and specifically try to invalidate it as much as we try to prove it, and don't adopt it as fact if it can't live up to scientific standards.

 

We see Newton's laws as a result of him identifying patterns, proposing a hypothesis and then proving that hypothesis correct. What we don't see, is that he probably found a myriad of other correlations in his early days and had to work tirelessly to weed out the ones that almost but didn't entirely fit.

If he hadn't gone to such effort to invalidate all of his work, we wouldn't have the body of work that does hold true today - he would never have gotten that far because he'd have been too mired in "almost but not quite" explanations that would preclude his subsequent discoveries.

 

In fact - I would love to see a book about all the failed hypotheses of the "great minds" that have given us such great discoveries as Newton. People always seem to have this idea that the finished product always popped into their heads because they were geniuses (they just SAW the pattern) and then the close minded contemporaries of the time booed, stroked their beards, clucked their tongues, and wondered what was to be done with the upstart... only to be overshadowed by the avalanche of evidence of his discoveries later.

 

The great thing is all those great thinkers undoubtedly "just saw" a huge number of patterns, most of which failed to hold up under scientific scrutiny and - in a stroke of real genius - they refined or discarded them without getting all emotional and attached to it. Discovering a pattern is almost an endorphic rush and a lot of people feel like tearing them apart is like beating a pet bunny to "see if it can survive" and instead coddle it. Those people end up cranks and crackpots though, whereas the ones that give us the ideas that survive for thousands of years not only worked hard to invalidate their discovery, but invalidated many many more we never heard of that they felt were just as precious at the moment.

[mooeypoo]

I agree, padren. I think you did a good job clarifying what I intended to say.

 

Another case in point here is that the "failed hypotheses" often lead to actual REAL discoveries. By trying to prove X, you sometimes, inadvertently, find the real cause behind some phenomena which is (often) exceeding your expectations.

 

I think I actually saw a book about failed hypotheses that lead to actual science, once, but I will need to look up my resources on that one and get back to you.

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

Speaking subjectively.

 

When I am in possesion of an insight, or a fact, I can sometimes tell when somebody else is operating without that insight, because they utter things that would not fit together well if they too were in possesion of that insight or fact. It is a little more difficult to know what insights and facts others are in possession of that I have not yet had or found out about, and do not possess. Knowing that I know more than many, and less than many others, I am always eager to bring those lacking to the insights and knowledge I have obtained, and always eager to be led to the insights and knowledge I have yet to have and find.

 

Again, subjectively speaking, I am constantly working on establishing a consistent worldview. I weed out the impossible in my own thinking, and constantly reevalute all the components, when new information or insights, new to me that is, come to light. It is important to me that my thinking is consistent with reality.

 

This thread is about "magic or no", and my vote is no. Magic is NOT consistent with reality. If there is no mechanism, if there is no cause and effect, if it does not fit together with reality, then it is NOT real. Supernatural events, disqualify themselves by definition. Dreams are dreams until realized. Thoughts are thoughts until expressed, beliefs are beliefs until tested against reality, and there, their truth or falseness will show itself. If they fit, if they work all the time, then they have a good chance of being true. If they often don't test out, then they are probably false. The true things are real, the false things are just in our imagination where everything doesn't have to fit together, and certain aspects of reality can be ignored, if desired.

 

The efficacy of prayer, has been disproved to the satisfaction of science. Understood. I read the study. I comprehend what it says and doesn't say about prayer. I "know" already that there is no magic, I have already come to the understanding that an Anthropomorphic God does not fit with what "we" know to be real. I know you can not talk to God and have him magically perform miracles for you. Understood. Agreed upon. Stipulated.

 

But still things must fit. Clairvoyant prays. This is a fact. This is real. Clairvoant is not "really" talking to an Anthropomorpic God, it is scientifically impossible. So to who or what is the appeal being made? Oneself? One's subcounscious? One's congregation? The patient? The people that see you pray? The doctors? The nurses? The human spirit? And if any of the above hear the plea, are they not in a position to respond to the plea? Have they not the power to effect reality? Close the window to stop the draft, or open it to allow in fresh air, straighen out the kinked hose, take a collection for new hospital equipment, help your body fight the infliction, say a supportive word, make an extra visit, pay closer attention, build new hospitals, and find new medicines and procedures to help.

 

I am not moving any goalposts, I am just noticing the mechanisms through which prayer actually does affect reality. And none of them are unscientific, and none of them are magic.

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

Mooeypoo,

 

Speaking subjectively.

I'll bite, but I must reiterate: Subjectively speaking is a problem when you try to reach an objectively empirical answer.

 

When I am in possesion of an insight, or a fact, I can sometimes tell when somebody else is operating without that insight, because they utter things that would not fit together well if they too were in possesion of that insight or fact. It is a little more difficult to know what insights and facts others are in possession of that I have not yet had or found out about, and do not possess. Knowing that I know more than many, and less than many others, I am always eager to bring those lacking to the insights and knowledge I have obtained, and always eager to be led to the insights and knowledge I have yet to have and find.

Fair enough. We all do that, when we are in possession of an insight. However, when individual (subjective!) insights "bump" against each other, how do you recognize which insight is better in representing reality? If I disagree with you just as passionately as you disagree with me, then how do we judge which of us is right -- or, for that matter, whether either of us is right?

 

The only way to reach such a conclusion is by transforming this subjective insight to an objective research and discuss objective reality. That is the point in science.

 

Again, subjectively speaking, I am constantly working on establishing a consistent worldview. I weed out the impossible in my own thinking, and constantly reevalute all the components, when new information or insights, new to me that is, come to light. It is important to me that my thinking is consistent with reality.

Great! But of whose reality do you speak? You subjective perception of reality, or the objective empirical fact of reality? Pick one, and don't mix the two.

 

This thread is about "magic or no", and my vote is no. Magic is NOT consistent with reality. If there is no mechanism, if there is no cause and effect, if it does not fit together with reality, then it is NOT real. Supernatural events, disqualify themselves by definition. Dreams are dreams until realized. Thoughts are thoughts until expressed, beliefs are beliefs until tested against reality, and there, their truth or falseness will show itself. If they fit, if they work all the time, then they have a good chance of being true. If they often don't test out, then they are probably false. The true things are real, the false things are just in our imagination where everything doesn't have to fit together, and certain aspects of reality can be ignored, if desired.

How did you judge that? How did you reach the conclusion that magic is false?

 

I happen to agree with you on that, but I agree because objectively speaking, magic does not work. When we test anything supernatural (or, to be fair, anything supernatural that was so far claimed to exist supernaturally) it simply fails all any any empirical testing. Some fail even before that, on the lack of merit of the logic or for the simple fact that they are impossible to handle objectively - for example, they are unfalsifiable.

 

When you discuss personal appeal, it is subjective, and isn't science. When you discuss how reality really work, you must transform into an objective few and examine your claims and their efficacy on objective reality.

 

The efficacy of prayer, has been disproved to the satisfaction of science. Understood. I read the study. I comprehend what it says and doesn't say about prayer. I "know" already that there is no magic, I have already come to the understanding that an Anthropomorphic God does not fit with what "we" know to be real. I know you can not talk to God and have him magically perform miracles for you. Understood. Agreed upon. Stipulated.

Not stipulated - evidenced. You have clear evidence that whenever the efficacy of prayer was tested empirically, it failed. That is quite clear.

 

I agree with you that there was another mechanism, because clearly *something* was working to the individuals that practiced prayer, otherwise they wouldn't have practiced it.

 

We differ on how to test it.

 

But still things must fit. Clairvoyant prays. This is a fact. This is real. Clairvoant is not "really" talking to an Anthropomorpic God, it is scientifically impossible. So to who or what is the appeal being made? Oneself? One's subcounscious? One's congregation? The patient? The people that see you pray? The doctors? The nurses? The human spirit? And if any of the above hear the plea, are they not in a position to respond to the plea? Have they not the power to effect reality? Close the window to stop the draft, or open it to allow in fresh air, straighen out the kinked hose, take a collection for new hospital equipment, help your body fight the infliction, say a supportive word, make an extra visit, pay closer attention, build new hospitals, and find new medicines and procedures to help.

 

To be fair, tar, what we have is a story by an individual. I'm not sure what, exactly, people are doing when they pray, and if all those who claim it worked for them (subjectively) do the same thing. I am also not sure if it actually worked. Can you be sure that the resulting "success" was really logically a success of praying?

 

Let me give you an example. Person A goes through a terrible accident and is now lying in the hospital in a coma. The doctors are fighting for his life. His friend decides to pray for him.

 

Person A goes through a lengthy, complicated operation where the doctors manage to save his life, but they must take out his leg. He comes out of the operation alive with a great potential of a good life with good health but without a leg.

 

The friend claims his prayer worked. He prayed for his friends life, the friend is alive, prayer worked.

 

Person A claims the prayer failed miserable. He has no leg, that's no way to live for him.

 

Who's right?

How will you be testing who is right?

And how do you know that it's the prayer? I claim it has nothing to do with the prayer, but rather with the doctors, and their skill. Whether the friend would be praying or not, would have no effect on the outcome whatsoever. How do you test to see which one of us (me, the friend, or Person A) is actually right in his and her representation of reality?

 

Do you see the problem? One of the biggest problems with prayer is that pretty much *ANY* solution that isn't death (and there are a lot of possible ones) considered to be a success.

 

The only way to measure these and how much efficacy they truly have on reality is to shift to an objective testing of reality.

I am not moving any goalposts, I am just noticing the mechanisms through which prayer actually does affect reality. And none of them are unscientific, and none of them are magic.

You don't anymore, which is great, but you did before, and here's why: It seems to me that your treatment to the efficacy of prayer isn't necessarily the prayer itself but rather accompanying issues.

 

For instance, we also spoke about this in the chatroom, but if a possible effect on an individual (positive or negative) results from someone's positive (or negative) thinking, and prayer made that person think positively (or negatively), then the actual effect stems from positive thinking, and not directly from the prayer.

That means that if you switch "prayer" to anything else that causes someone to think positively in the same level - and there ARE things like that - you achieve the same goal. That means that it's not PRAYER that has efficacy, but rather positive thinking.

 

That's a completely different conclusion, do you see?

 

So what we have here is a story by someone who, at some point, used prayer and it resulted in something good happening. Do you know for a fact how many previous times that failed? What if it failed 100 times and only succeeded once? That makes the efficacy of prayer 1 in a 100, which is less than chance, even, which makes prayer completely uneffective.

 

You don't have enough information -- or rather, enough RELIABLE information -- to reach a conclusion about prayer by one persn's story.

 

And because human beings have subjective memories (you remember only certain things, and in a certain way, and you might remember them differently than how they actually occured, depending on your biases and experience) then when a person tells you of his or her experience, it is UNRELIABLE as an evidence. You can use it to start an objective trial, or to support an already evidenced phenomena, but as a stand-alone evidence, anecdotal information is ranked one of the LOWEST ones.

 

If you ask my sister about her 10th birthday, she will tell you a horror story about how her friends never showed up and the food turned out to be spoiled. If you ask me about her 10th birthday, I will tell you about her friends showing up for a while until it started raining and they all went home. If you ask my mom how my sister's 10th birthday went, she will tell you that everyone had a lot of fun, the parents were cooperative, the kids enjoyed the games until they had to leave, THEN it was raining while we were cleaning up, and that my sister caught a nasty stomach bug the next day at school.

 

Memory is unreliable, and so are personal anecdotes. I can understand that you see a lot of people claim that prayer helps them, and so you want to see why, but then your course of action should come from first checking what, exactly, those people do -- do they all pray the same? Maybe one person sees prayer as "thinking positively about someone" and another sees prayer as a massive cult-thing (there are lots of cults who define their cultish activity as prayer..), and maybe another will tell you he only pray for himself while another will tell you it only works if a Rabbi blessed the pillow he's praying on, etc etc etc.

 

The first step is to define what it is you are about to test.

 

If you start with a conclusion that prayer must be working because some people claim it's working, you are essentially ignoring data (from all the people who prayer did NOT work for, and there are many - ask religious folks who lost a loved one; they prayed for him for sure, and failed) and starting with a conclusion (that prayer works!) without having enough information to support that conclusion.

 

Then, you continue in a fallacious method of trying to fit a mechanism to this poorly defined and poorly supported conclusion.

 

Do you see the problem we have with this subject, tar?

 

It's not about ignoring something that ahppens, it's about defining it well enough to be able to figure out what REALLY happens. Objectively.

 

When you do that, by the way, you can also make further predictions about the future --- if you know X works, then you know that if you do X when you need to, it will work. The power of prediction is one of the biggest advantages (and necessities!) in a scientific theory.

 

~moo

[bombus]

Mooeypooey:

I'll bite, but I must reiterate: Subjectively speaking is a problem when you try to reach an objectively empirical answer.

 

Great! But of whose reality do you speak? You subjective perception of reality, or the objective empirical fact of reality? Pick one, and don't mix the two.

 

It's not about ignoring something that ahppens, it's about defining it well enough to be able to figure out what REALLY happens. Objectively.

 

I think therein lies the problem. Objective reality might not actually exist, and perhaps science will one day have to accept that mind and matter are inextricably linked. Maybe this is where magic (if it exists at all) comes from - if you don't believe in it it will never work, but if you do, maybe it will!

 

I have been reading Roger Penrose's Shadows of the Mind. An interesting extract starts here (read the yellow highlighted text onwards):

 

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gDbOAK89tmcC&pg=PA419&lpg=PA419&dq=%22If+einstein%27s+general+relativity+has+shown+how+our%22&source=bl&ots=8RFmKauw5K&sig=nKIDfnKzVouk96b4EbJzZZhTEsw&hl=en&ei=qpWVSoi_DOaZjAfupdmBDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=%22If%20einstein%27s%20general%20relativity%20has%20shown%20how%20our%22&f=false

Edited August 26, 2009 by bombus

[mooeypoo]

We have no objective way to measure subjective reality; if reality is STRICTLY subjective, there's no meaning to "empirical evidence" and science is irrelevant.

 

Seeing as we know for a fact that at least some things are objective, because we successfully use them to predict how our reality "behaves", it is quite safe to state that anything subjective can stay the realm of philosophy, and science is safe and sound dealing with the objective, empirical reality.

 

~moo

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

Just lost a post I was working on. Can't reconstruct it. Sort of mental water under the bridge.

 

Thanks for your post though, and yes, I see what you are saying.

 

Regards, TAR

[bombus]

We have no objective way to measure subjective reality; if reality is STRICTLY subjective, there's no meaning to "empirical evidence" and science is irrelevant.

 

Seeing as we know for a fact that at least some things are objective, because we successfully use them to predict how our reality "behaves", it is quite safe to state that anything subjective can stay the realm of philosophy, and science is safe and sound dealing with the objective, empirical reality.

 

~moo

 

The problem is perhaps one of demarcation between philosophy and science. A pretty good article is here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem#Logical_Positivism

 

and one on the general philosophy of science here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Critiques_of_scientific_method

 

Also an article about the existence of objective reality:

 

http://www.rense.com/general69/holoff.htm

[tar]

Bombus,

 

Thanks for the links. Especially the Talbot one with the hologram idea.

Fits nicely with the ideas I've been entertaining about memory and human perception, which have their impact on both our perceptions and the actual reality we perceive.

 

Mooeypoo,

 

I suggest that science and human subjective experience are closely intertwined. And that the "objectivity" of science can only be obtained by the establishment of a common "mind" that can objectively view the world.

This common mind, that humanity has constructed, maintained and referred to, throughout its history of religion, philosophy, politics, engineering, technology and science is real. But this common mind, or maybe even a reference to it, is in some ways as illusive and etherial as the idea of God or prayer. Not easily defined by science. Experiments to test it's singular existence as an entity would prove it false and non existant. Seems like magic, with no physical characterisitics, no way to disect it, and measure it, no formula to apply to it, no predictive model to construct. Yet it is real. We all know it, maybe by different names, and we all effect it and are affected by it.

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

I don't understand why you keep insisting inserting prayer and God into this, tar. I do agree that there's a philosophical issue with "consciousness" and perception of reality. We solve this in science by relating to an EMPIRICAL version of reality -- hence, reality that we can measure.

 

If we can't really measure or test it, we leave it for the realm of philosophy. Which is a great and interesting subject, but is NOT empirical.

 

You can't mix empirical data - and empirical scientific subjects, with their methodologies - with subjects that by definitions cannot be measured.

 

For that matter, why not replace "prayer" and "God" with "wiccan ceremony" and "Zeus" ? Is it the same result? if not, why? How would you judge that it isn't? Is there any way to judge so? etc.

 

In other words, tar, I don't quite get the relevancy here.. we're discussing empirical science and you insist on inserting a subject that not only is not empirical but cannot be empirical. We can discuss it, but we have to redefine the discussion from science to philosophy, and not mix it.

 

Scientifically speaking, empirically tested reality shows that prayer is not effective.

 

Philosophical speaking, reality can be subjective and lord Xenu can exist. Trust me, I can make that argument philosophically and stay in the realms of logic, if we frame the argument in philosophy and not science.

 

Stop mixing the two.

 

~moo

[tar]

Mooeypoo,

 

You are saying two different things here. Which points out one of the major flaws in the study that I read about, that showed there was no empirical evidence to say that prayer was effective.

 

"You can't mix empirical data - and empirical scientific subjects, with their methodologies - with subjects that by definitions cannot be measured."

 

So why did scientists even TRY and measure prayer?

 

 

"Scientifically speaking, empirically tested reality shows that prayer is not effective."

 

But you admit that empirically tested reality is not "all" of reality, and there are real things that are not readily measured by empirical methods. Hence the failure to be able to measure it, does not make it unreal, just makes the serious attempt to measure it, laughable. And the assumption that the findings say that prayer has been properly scientifically tested and therefore forced out of the realm of "real" things, and its efficacy dispoven, even more suspect.

 

What about patterns and chaos, and life and love, and consciousness, and all sorts of things with emergent characteristics that resist empirical testing? Real or Magic?

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

The data clearly shows prayer doesn't work, and, in fact, may be detrimental.

People who do think prayer works are deluded, and (IMO) no better than somebody who thinks they're Napoleon, or that dancing in a specific pattern will make it rain in a desert.

 

Plain enough?

[tar]

Penrose's computational Turing machine approach, or Talbot's hologram approach.

 

Which do you think is more likely to reflect the reality of the human mind?

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

Mooeypoo,

 

You are saying two different things here. Which points out one of the major flaws in the study that I read about, that showed there was no empirical evidence to say that prayer was effective.

 

"You can't mix empirical data - and empirical scientific subjects, with their methodologies - with subjects that by definitions cannot be measured."

 

So why did scientists even TRY and measure prayer?

Good question. Remember I said that it's irrelevant in my first posts? Read up. Technically, the effectiveness of prayer is as "scientifically relevant" as measuring the effectiveness of wiccan winter dance.

 

However, since this subject is VERY VERY popular, scientists took it up. Good for them. We ended up having empirical results. If you feel like it, you can pick up wiccan winter dance and see if you get any results, too. I wouldn't recommend it, but if you think it has merit in reality - strong enough merit to "waste your time" in measuring it - then go for it. The results will tell the story.

 

In the case of prayer, obviously enough people claimed it worked - like the cases of ghosts, lepracauns (yup, science checked a few stories of that too, go figure) and bigfoot (same here, my my)- to have scientists get grants to actually test if it works. Woo hoo.

 

Pick a subject and research it, the fact it's researched does not give it validity, it just means it's popular enough to get money.

 

"Scientifically speaking, empirically tested reality shows that prayer is not effective."

 

But you admit that empirically tested reality is not "all" of reality, and there are real things that are not readily measured by empirical methods. Hence the failure to be able to measure it, does not make it unreal, just makes the serious attempt to measure it, laughable. And the assumption that the findings say that prayer has been properly scientifically tested and therefore forced out of the realm of "real" things, and its efficacy dispoven, even more suspect.

tar, philosophy is not the same as science!

 

Remember I said you're moving the goal post? We either discuss science (which we're supposed to) or we don't. If you want a philosophical debate about whether or not all of reality is measurable, then we will have to redefine the debate to be philosophical and not scientific. We will also have to switch forums for that. This is a science forum. Empirical reality is what we discuss here, not imaginative explanations for possible other subjective perceptions. That's philosophy.

 

What about patterns and chaos, and life and love, and consciousness, and all sorts of things with emergent characteristics that resist empirical testing? Real or Magic?

 

Regards, TAR

You're mixing a bazillion different subjects here, each can be discussed SEPARATELY, measured for its validity and discussed scientifically. Either it will be "discarded" as *proven false* (like prayer was) or regarded as irrelevant for it's unfalsifiable nature (like prayer, even if it wasn't actually empirically proven not to be effective) or measured objectively and regarded by the OBJECTIVE scientific results it produces.

 

You can't mix all those things together to prove your point, each of those is absolutely different. If you think they're alike, *and* that they are all objectively measurable in physical reality (PHYSICAL reality, tar, not abstract philosophy) then go ahead and discuss each separately, or show why they're all related exactly the same. But in this case you will need to speak scientifically. You will need to follow the scientific method.

 

You can't mix science and philosophy and come out with a science answer. If you mix the two, you'll come out with a philosophical answer. A scientific answer will be one that actually is relevant to the collectively accepted objective reality. The one that we can undeniably measure. The one by which F=ma, E=mc^2, etc, because they were PROVEN *objectively* regardless of what subjective thought anyone may have on them.

 

You can have subjective thoughts or opinions against E=mc^2, but those are absolutely irrelevant to science until you actually show any real physical effect that falsify E=mc^2. If you don't, it's philosophical thought exercise, that is may be totally interesting and entertaining, but is utterly irrelevant to science.

 

Science,tar. Science. Empirical, objective, methodological empirical measurment and description of reality. Objective reality. Even if a subjective reality exists, we know that an objective one exists as well otherwise my 100lb brick would take a different time falling to the ground from same heights than your 100lb brick from the same height.

 

SOME of reality may be subjective, but that's not to say all of reality is subjective. Or that is not to say that we cannot discuss objective reality. That's crap - proven. All the theories that are actually successful in making valid predictions (like evolution, gravity, relativity, etc) PROVE that reality can be treated objectively. Science deals with the objective part of reality, because the other part is irrelevant to it.

 

If we were to argue if Mars was a planet or a poopalooza ball, we'd never get away with actually making progress.

 

That's what I'm talking about when I tell you to stop talking science while actually talking philosophy. It's meaningless because it's a *TOTALLY DIFFERENT* discussion.

 

~moo

[tar]

iNOW,

 

"People who do think prayer works are deluded"

 

Well probably so. But you are testing philosophy and religion with a scientific testing methodogy build to test the efficacy of drugs. Rather slip shod, if you ask me.

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

Penrose's computational Turing machine approach, or Talbot's hologram approach.

 

Which do you think is more likely to reflect the reality of the human mind?

 

Regards, TAR

How is it relevant to the discussion at hand, tar?

 

You were given an answer that crushes some of the claims you made. Instead of dealing with it, you produce a "red herring" - an unrelated question that is SUPPOSEDLY related to the subject but only serves to divert the attention away from the fact you were just shown to have problems with your claims.

 

Stop, seriously.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

iNOW,

 

"People who do think prayer works are deluded"

 

Well probably so. But you are testing philosophy and religion with a scientific testing methodogy build to test the efficacy of drugs. Rather slip shod, if you ask me.

 

Regards, TAR

No, this thread is scientific. We are not measuring philosophy because philosophy cannot be measured. We discuss science.

 

Scientifically speaking, prayer was measured. Why? because they scientists got grants for it, obviously.

 

Scientifically speaking, prayer completely failed the measurement tests. Not only was it shown to have no effect, it was shown to sometimes have ADVERSE effects. You can twist it as much as you want, that will not change the fact it was shown to be completely ineffective.

 

Scientifically speaking Prayer is proven to be utterly ineffective, tar. Stop changing the discussion from philosophy when you feel like it to science when you feel like you're losing.

 

SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING prayer has as much merit in it as an indian rain dance, worship of the invisible pink elephant, goat sacrifices and wiccan ghost dance.

 

Stop diverting the argument to philosophy when we are talking about empirical science.

Edited August 29, 2009 by mooeypoo
Consecutive posts merged.

[tar]

Last Post.

 

This is obviously a waste of my time. And yours.

 

Mooeypoo,

 

We only have one reality. It all fits together, it all works. Same for any observer.

 

If you have found a way to view reality objectively through math equations, and someone else has found a way to view reality objectively through the eyes of an imaginary being, it is still the same reality you both are viewing. And all those things which you both agree are real are real to me too. But you believe in super strings and nuetrinos and dark matter, and they believe in angels and spirits and cosmic energy. And I believe you both are trying to put words to stuff that is really apparently existing, and part of our reality. What of it is figurative or literal, matter or energy, now or then, cause or affect, connected or separate, is all a matter of the position of the observer, the sensitivity of their senses/equipment, and the direction they are pointing their attention. If we are building a consistent model of reality it has to have a place in it, for everything that is real.

 

Regards, TAR

[mooeypoo]

Last Post.

 

This is obviously a waste of my time. And yours.

 

Mooeypoo,

 

We only have one reality. It all fits together, it all works. Same for any observer.

That's not what you claimed so far, you are aware of it, yes?

If there's only one reality, then the measurement of reality produces the answer about reality. Which means that if prayer was proven false in "objective reality" of science, then it's false in any reality.

 

I'm not sure I philosophically agree with that, by the way, but since we finally agree that we're not having a philosophical discussion, we can move on.

 

If you have found a way to view reality objectively through math equations, and someone else has found a way to view reality objectively through the eyes of an imaginary being, it is still the same reality you both are viewing.

No, you're missing the point.

 

Mathematics describe the same reality as physical theories do. They go together. If math leads us to something that physical experiments show as false, then there's something wrong with the math - it's not describing reality as it should.

 

Saying that reality is the same for everyone but different in the way you describe it is meaningless. It's either the same or it isn't. If relativity is producing valid predictions (and it does) then it doesn't matter through "whose eyes you view reality", it will produce valid predictions and describe reality. That's the meaning of a scientific theory.

 

If you have a theory that only works if you view it through a particular set of "eyes" and fails in physical tests, then it's not a valid scientific theory.

 

And in this case, prayer, which is the subject of our discussion for the past few pages, is completely ineffective practically. In reality. Proven.

 

Do you disagree? Excellent; produce evidence otherwise, but the evidence need to be *as valid* (or more valid) as the evidence that show it ineffective.

 

Otherwise, just concede that this is a philosophical issue that may or may not have to clash with modern science. You can believe in it if you wish, but understand that any sort of empirical debate about it is going to meet problems. As you can see in this current debate.

 

And all those things which you both agree are real are real to me too. But you believe in super strings and nuetrinos and dark matter, and they believe in angels and spirits and cosmic energy.

 

First, please don't tell me what i believe. It's not just about not being pretencious, it's also about the wording. I don't use belief when I discuss science becuse belief - in science - is not relevant.

 

If I need to use "belief" to support a claim or a position, then I am aware that it is not scientific. I have those, like anyone else, but I don't pretend these are scientific.

 

Any scientific matter - from Neutrinos to Dark Matter - has valid empirical basis to them. They might not be 100% proven, but they are quite close to it. They are supported by experimentation, by mathematical description, and they produce valid predictions.

 

You cannot say that about Spirits or cosmic energy. The comparison is invalid.

 

And I believe you both are trying to put words to stuff that is really apparently existing, and part of our reality. What of it is figurative or literal, matter or energy, now or then, cause or affect, connected or separate, is all a matter of the position of the observer, the sensitivity of their senses/equipment, and the direction they are pointing their attention. If we are building a consistent model of reality it has to have a place in it, for everything that is real.

 

Regards, TAR

You seem to not get what science is about, tar. Science is about empirical, methodological description of reality. It requires support - physical, realistic support, not imaginatory pretenda-support.

 

Dark Matter is supported by evidence. Can it be proven to not exist? doubtful (*something* is there for sure,the question is what) but possible. That's the corrective nature of science. But if it is proven to not exist, then the predictions we ARE MAKING right now by using its existence will have to be adjusted.

 

It will need to be adjusted because we manage to predict behavior in uor universe using the existence of Dark Matter and actually produce *TRUE* predictions!

 

You can't say that for ghosts. You can't say that for spirits. You can't say that for leprecauns. You cannot say that for prayer.

 

That's the difference.

 

 

And, by the way, tar, as a scientist, I will argue against points that seem illogical to me, but I will be looking forward to the day I am shown to be wrong, because that means I am growing as a person and as a scientist. It also happened before, and will undoubtedly happen again. I am not just not afraid of being shown to be wrong, I welcome it.

tar, coming to the chatroom and announcing you're not going to be reading any of this and then leaving suddenly without allowing anyone to answer you is not very much open minded, is it? What are you afraid of?

 

~moo

[swansont]

Last Post.

 

This is obviously a waste of my time. And yours.

 

Which is one reason why we don't get into religious discussions here

 

 

 

We only have one reality. It all fits together, it all works. Same for any observer.

 

If you have found a way to view reality objectively through math equations, and someone else has found a way to view reality objectively through the eyes of an imaginary being, it is still the same reality you both are viewing. And all those things which you both agree are real are real to me too. But you believe in super strings and nuetrinos and dark matter, and they believe in angels and spirits and cosmic energy. And I believe you both are trying to put words to stuff that is really apparently existing, and part of our reality. What of it is figurative or literal, matter or energy, now or then, cause or affect, connected or separate, is all a matter of the position of the observer, the sensitivity of their senses/equipment, and the direction they are pointing their attention. If we are building a consistent model of reality it has to have a place in it, for everything that is real.

 

Regards, TAR

 

The problem is that most of the non-scientific views are not objective.

[Edtharan]

I accept that the studies show that indeed there is no Magic in prayer. That is to say, that congregations, cannot, by uttering words to themselves affect the health of a stranger. There is no mechanism through which this can be accomplished. If there were, then prayer would not have failed the test. My argument is based around looking for a mechanism by which prayer indeed might affect reality.

Here is the simple logic of this Tar: There is no evidence that Prayer effects reality. Therefore, if you go looking for a mechanism by which it might effect reality, all you will ever get is that there is no mechanism as it does not effect reality.

 

Think of it this way. If I show that Invisible Pink Unicorns can not exist, would it be sensible for me to go looking for them? No.

 

This is what you are trying to do. You agreed that Prayer can not effect reality, but then you state that you are going to look for how it cna effect reality.

 

If it doesn't exist, you can not find it.

 

It is as simple as that.

[sananda]

You could say the placebo effect is a miracle but in effect it's a scientific process we don't fully understand.

 

All magic could fall under this category, i.e. science we just don't understand yet.

 

Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

This is a quote that could put an end to all religions.

[mooeypoo]

You could say the placebo effect is a miracle but in effect it's a scientific process we don't fully understand.

I think we do understand the effect, we just can't immediately categorize it in everything. In the effect of prayer, for instance, it's not categorically true that it's working -- for some it works, for some it doesn't.

 

All magic could fall under this category, i.e. science we just don't understand yet.

That's not quite accurate. If your intention is to say that magic can fall into the category of placebo, then it's quite a broad generalization - I'm not sure all what people consider supernatural or magic fall into that category. Some might, sure, but some is outright proven false.

 

Astrology is proven false, for instance. There is no "maybes" in it. Voodoo is also something we can safely say is not something "we don't understand yet". Same goes with leprecauns.

 

If you have a phenomenon you want to research, you have a very clear methodology by which to figure out its efficacy in reality. Most of the supernatural and "magical" claims have been tested and proven false. They no longer fall under "we don't understand yet" but rather under the discarded beliefs that preceded actaul scientific endeavor.

 

There are, indeed, things in science that we "just don't understand yet" but they have support in reality, in experimentation and in mathematics, they produce valid predictions and we can test other phenomena by them. We might not be 100% clear on their process - which is why we still have research - but we do not just drop the subject into that category randomly. Scientific phenomena need to have merit, period. So far all magical and supernatural claims that were made either have no merit or were proven to have no merit or were shown to be something entirely different - realistic, rather than "supernatural".

 

 

Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

This is a quote that could put an end to all religions.

Indeed.

 

And yet, it didn't.

 

~moo

[sananda]

if you know how the placebo effect works please share!!!

 

ok replace magic with "all unexplained phenomenon" can be termed science we do not understand yet

 

as for the arthur c. clarke point, it took Christianity a long time to get where it has... give arthur some time

[Edtharan]

You could say the placebo effect is a miracle but in effect it's a scientific process we don't fully understand.

The really big difference between the Placebo effect and Miracles is that Miracles (by the definition of miracles) break the laws of the universe. If it can occur through the normal laws of the universe, even if very unlikely, it can not be a miracle.

 

What you are doing is called "Equivocation". Because one thing is like something else in one aspect you are equating them as the same.

 

It is a bit like saying Whales are Mice because they have tails. As you can see, in the Whale/Mouse case it is clearly ridiculous. But you are using the same faulty logic to say that the Placebo effect is the same as a Miracle.

 

The Placebo Effect is caused by the the fact that many functions of our bodies are governed by our nervous systems. They are not necessarily under voluntary control, but the central nervous system can exert some measure of control over them.

 

For instance, in your neck, just above the shoulders, lies a small grouping of nerves (I can't remember the name of this part, so if someone does know could you let us know. Thanks) that regulate pain.

 

There are 3 parts to this. The first part is the Nerves coming form the peripheral nervous system (specifically the ones that activate when an injury takes place) into this ganglion. Then there are the Nerves going from this ganglion into the brain, and then there are the nerves going from the brain into this ganglion.

 

What is interesting is that there is nerves going from the brain into this region. What these nerves do is to regulate and stimulate the nerves going from this region into the brain. This means we can block signals from the injury receptors and reduce the amount of pain we perceive (this is currently being used in pain management - I am currently being treated for pain management and this is part of my treatment), but they can also stimulate the nerves going into the brain and even cause pain where there is no injury at all (neuropathic chronic pain).

 

As the central nervous system controls this "gate", it can reduce or prevent pain, or crate pain depending on what the central nervous system "expects". As your brain is the main part of your central nervous system, then it is possible to control pain via "placebo" effects by having the patient believe that they are receiving treatment. It is also possible to do the opposite effect (the "Noicebo effect") and cause the patient pain.

 

There are such locations for most of the places where the Peripheral nervous system connects to the ventral nervous system, and so through such brain structures you are able to control many autonomic functions in the body, including systems that respond to injury, infection and diseases.

 

So if you are convinced that a disease (which might be caused through the noicebo effect in the first place) can be cured, then the placebo effect, by damping down both the input into the central nervous system and also damping down the response to the problem can act to suppress the condition.

 

The general mechanism of both the Placebo and Noicebo effects are well understood, but the details are still being discovered.

 

The main point being is that we do understand the Placebo effect. The Placebo effect has nothing to do with a supernatural cause (it all follows the laws of physics). But, Miracles and other "Magic" by their very definition of what constitutes one, has to break the laws of physics. Because of this, you can not equivocate them.

 

Arthur C. Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

What he is saying is that to someone who does not understand complex engineering, then it appears as magic. But to the person who does understand the engineering ti is not magic.

 

Take for example the simple act of turning on your bedroom light. You know that you flick the switch, which connects an electric circuit with electricity supplied by the power station. This flow of electricity causes the filament in your light to heat up and glow -> Thus giving you light.

 

But think of what someone 1,000 years ago would ahve thought. They would ahve seen you doing magic. But did you do magic? Where you performing a "Miracle"? No. The reason being is that you didn't break the laws of physics.

 

Technology and Engineering are not Magic. No matter how advanced. That was what he was saying.