The best scientific method (Bayesian form of H-D)

M. Liars, not idiots. Which criticism would you like addressed? I think I addressed most on the ELS thread, but I would be happy to elaborate further here. It's not reasoning at all. It's making an effort to measure P, the plausibility of demons in someone's mind, given E, a certain form of evidence that we have obtained while supposing that demons are real. Your ad hoc explanations for why they would say such a thing can be formed into hypotheses if you like, and experiments done to measure the effect of such bias. That would be interesting too. I would predict, with you, that people with a very low or very high prior plausibility, close to zero or one, will admit very little or no change when presented with data that moves them away from the zero or one that their thinking is close to. They are, in fact, dogmatically opinionated, and reluctant to change their minds in the face of data. But those with middling prior plausibilities will have a more open mind, and data that makes the idea in their mind more or less plausible will have some effect.S.

P.You note, You are perhaps unaware of the Journal for Scientific Exploration.Much that I have cited as evidence has appeared in peer-reviewed journals. The classic prayer experiments, the bible codes are the best examples. Theomatics has not, but I and others have reviewed the results, and found them sound. You assert, and keep asserting that these reports with the evidence they contain, don't exist, perhaps justifying this curious statement on the fact that someone has come up with a rant that they are not valid.I keep asserting that I am totally uninterested in persuasion. My goal is understanding. I am totally convinced that, as Holmes states at the bottom of his posts, that persuasion is impossible, if someone chooses to be a fool. My definition of a fool is someone who will not submit their thinking to outside review and judging.If you really want a persuasive debate, we will see if we can find some objective outside referee, and a set of logical and scientific rules that we will abide by. We will find a way of keeping score, and will agree that, if the referee or scorekeeper declares a winner, whoever lost the debate will admit that they lost. As I understand our issue, we would debate the statement:Statistically significant results published in peer reviewed journals, or otherwise professionally reviewed, stemming from an appeal to hypothetical spiritual entities constitute evidence that increases the plausibility that such hypothetical entities are real.That Mammathus is starting to understand what I am saying achieves the only goal I have here. What he chooses to do with that understanding is up to him. Probably, he will choose to keep on believing what he wants to believe, as will you. But, at least, he had an inkling of something else to think. I don't know this, and since Kuhn, don't believe it. I don't even bother with peer review myself, since every paper I ever published that passed peer review was lost to science, while the invited publications have uniformly been influential. Review is desirable, and improves a report. But, in Loehr's case, it is so easy to replicate, and would have been so difficult to get past "sneer" review, that he did the right thing in ignoring his "peers." Your view of science is what Kuhn describes as paradigm maintaining. I, on the other hand, am doing science for truth. I don't agree that that's my position. I am here to state, as the guidelines suggest, additional information and additional arguments where it appears that someone does not have the information, or understand the argument. However, if someone is not persuaded by these things, while I am, we have reached an impasse, and my job is done. I go my way, reaping the benefits of any wisdom I accept and paying the cost for any stubborness I manifest. Likewise with those who looked at what I shared. Now, when you say something like, I am frustrated, since my point is not that these beings exist, but that they might exist, and that the idea that they do exist, under H-D methodology, has some plausibility, which has been increased by the data I present. So, I'm not sure what to do with non sequitors, with arguments against something I wouldn't want to defend. But, I get a lot of this here. Because blue jays are blue birds, someone wants to claim that they are bluebirds. I assert over and over again that H-D methodology never reaches any conclusion except that a certain idea has become plausible beyond reasonable doubt. Then, I note that certain experiments in the peer-reviewed journal confirm some ideas, and get back the most extreme responses claiming that I must not be a scientist because I believe we have to conclude from this evidence the ideas I note are confirmed. When someone is accused of believing what they state flatly that they do not believe, I would think as an administrator, you would intervene. But, to be fair, you do state that your bias is for evolutionary thinking. And, as I have noted in another thread, that in my experience handicaps your ability to think non-hypocritically.Now, for all I know, you agree that validated Christian prayer studies confirm, that is, make more plausible, the idea that demons are really out there. They don't allow us to conclude that demons are really out there, but the idea is somewhat more plausible because of the finding. The studies are weakened because what specifically was prayed is unknown, but it likely that some included prayers for deliverance from evil.But never mind. It's not that important to H-D science, since the process is supposed to go on. Next study, let's set up two groups, one getting prayer for miraculous restoration of tissues, and another for deliverance from demons causing sickness.One of the purposes, actually, of H-D science, is to minimize debate, which too often seems to go nowhere. Just do the next experiment. Let the data do the persuading, as it accumulates.If you want me to go away, Percy, just say so. I worked five years with people in denial, alcoholics mostly. You can't do anything for them until they are ready. When they tell, told, me to buzz off, I just looked at God, heard Him tell me that I no longer needed to try to help them, and went my merry way.It's your forum.Stephen

S.You say, about science, H-D science has no limitations regarding spiritual matters, and is often applied to deal with them. God, meaning the God, Jehovah, clearly states of Himself that He can be proved scientifically. "prove Me now in this." If He is out there, science can deal with Him. If He is not, the test He provides will "prove" or test the point. So, this statement is wrong. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is full of scientific articles pertaining to the supernatural. Dossey reviews hundreds of such studies. This statement is also wrong. True, but it also deals with what cannot be explained, such as quantum mechanics.About scientists who care nothing for human suffering, only their own egos:Consider the scientists 150 years ago who ignored the women dying of childbirth fever, so they could keep their professional smell acquired doing autopsies and wouldn't have to wash away the germs they were carrying. They did not concern themselves with human suffering. Today, we have better evidence for the effectiveness of prayer than Semmelweis was able to provide for handwashing. And, like handwashing, it is such an easy thing to pray, to do prayer experiments, and prayer has such a potentially powerful cure for so much human suffering. But scientists today, like the ones who ignored Semmelweis' early studies on hand washing, don't care that they might be able to lower the damage that potential demons are doing to people. They don't want to pray, think it will make them ridiculous before their peers, and don't care who might be helped by prayer. Instead, they concern themselves for their opinions and self-righeousness, do all they can to pick holes in the efforts of others to show that prayer can do some, maybe a lot, of good, and do their best to stay ignorant of ways that prayer has been shown to help.Stephen

S. Arrogance is thinking you know more and better than Yeshua or Jesus. It is looking over the human race, 80-90% of which believes in God, that demons exist, that prayer is essential to life, and ignoring the scientific evidence that confirms these beliefs, deciding that you know better, that what makes sense to you is more likely to be right, and doing what you think is right in your own mind is better. That's arrogance.At least you don't like arrogance.Stephen

Brad,An intriguing post, this! Lots of terms and allusions the meaning of which I am only dimly aware. But, I think I get your drift, and will try to rephrase the problem in H-D terms. Recall that H-D science attempts to deal with three problems: idea plausibility, idea subjectivity, and idea comprehensibility. It does this by forcing ideas into a modelled mode, a near- or actual mathematical statement that, to the original thinker, seems a caraciture (sp?) of the idea as it rattles around in their intuitive mind. But, these statements are well-defined, and one is able to deduce from them predictions of measurables. This process connects the idea to the rest of our known world in ways that deepen considerably our understanding of what it means.Let's say that you are wondering why there are more beetle species identified than fly species. (If, indeed, this is a true statement. I'm hoping it is one of the "everybody knows" of taxonomy.) Granted, if you are a taxonomist, you know a whole lot about the groupings for both beetles and flies, and want an explanation for all the questions raised by this knowledge at once. H-D science assures you that you will make satisfying progress towards that goal if you just focus on the beetle/fly problem, which is manageable.But, subjectively, we hunger for recognition, and want to answer questions and do science in such a way that our colleagues will be impressed. Again, H-D science assures us that our simple-minded beginnings, which will seem like play to our colleagues, and hardly worth the effort, in fact will take us places that will earn their respect. The discipline of the method, in part, works on subjectivity by forcing us away from cosmic, whole life emotional issues, and allowing us the passion of the game. Hence, we get the energy of subjectivity, without the deep philosophical entanglement. But that comes, later, without blinding us to arguments and data that cause us to fall behind in the game, to have the "My bad!" experience.Well, before I go further with this, am I on track? Is the beetle/fly question in the ball-park you are working in? Or have I totally missed what has got you and Levin and others wondering?Meanwhile, define conceptual neutralism for me, and elaborate on baramin. Incidence geometry for dummies? Sorry, but I have been deeply involved for twenty years working on applied epistemology and spiritual ecology, so haven't kept up as I might.Your calcium/zinc allusions also interested me. Do you take strontium? Lithium? Mineral nutrition and metabolism is a bit of a hobby with me, because of the way these influence the way one does "science." These and other minerals appear to either enable the mind to go certain places, or direct it to respond/react to ideas in a certain way. The beer makers are into some of this. And as we all know, "beer does more than theology can, to explain the ways of God to man."Stephen

Admin,You assert, if I may paraphrase, that human behavior may not be called science unless it is published in a peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps you could document that assertion for me. Never, in all my studies of scientific methodology or history, have I heard of such a thing. None of the web-sites that describe H-d science say that, to my knowledge. Instead, they assert a methodology, which Loehr followed. He was trained as a scientist, claimed to approach his work scientifically, presented it in his book in a way that made it easily replicatable, by anyone in their kitchen, with a friend or two.Meanwhile scientific studies of peer review have shown it to be "unscientific," that is, unreplicatable. See the review in Beth Savan's "Science under seige." It is useful, according to Kuhn's analysis, as a censorship tool, to be used by paradigm maintainers, to keep unwanted ideas away from the public. Perhaps that is why you find it so attractive.As to the "way we work here," as I have noted in the thread on evolutionist hypocrisy, it would not be surprising to me if you say you work one way, then set out and actually do work another.Loehr's book, by the way, is "The Power of Prayer on Plants." Advise me more specifically on what exactly I can say about this methodology as we work on a prayer experiment validating Loehr's work.Stephen

Percy,Thanks for reminding me where this was. I do lose posts here, when it is clear that a lengthy response is needed. I don't believe that confirmed prayer studies imply demons. They make the idea of demons more plausible than it was before, if we have any reason to believe that those praying were asking for God to deliver us from evil, e.g. that they were Christians. My statement about this was addressed to those who have put aside dogmatic opinionation, as defined by me to be the habit of giving new ideas a plausibility of zero or one. I thought I recall you describing yourself this way, but if not, please forgive me for putting this idea in front of you since those with DO cannot deal with such things. (See the quote at the end of Holmes' posts). Assuming that you have, in your mind, some non-zero, non-certain idea about demons, confirmed prayer studies are consistent with the idea of demons and increase the plausibility of that idea to some degree. Yeah, this definately weakens the influence of the prayer studies on the plausibility. That's why I recommend replication, with some persons using this standard Christian prayer, "deliver us from evil" while others do not. That should get us prayer studies that specifically enhance the plausibility of the demon part of orthodox theology. Sorry, I'm not following your argument here. We agree, I suppose, that the "deliver us from evil" in the Lord's prayer, which He commanded all Christians to pray whenever they do pray, is actually in there. Look at the Spindrift site for studies on the effectiveness of different ways of praying. I should note that their findings, which support the idea that "quiet" prayer is most effective, meshes with my own training, as reported in an earlier post, where the Hispanic exorcists (not Catholic) came and taught us to just be quiet, after asking that the evil be removed.But, I agree, the next studies need to specifically address this issue. Demons exist is a popular idea that has been around for a long time. The question is, how likely is it to be true, and what does it mean? And, given that some want it to be true very badly, while others are subjectively repulsed by the idea, or find it ridiculous, means that it is strongly subjective. A perfect scenario for H-D science, which exists to objectively assess the plausibility of an idea, using Bayesian methods, in a way that steadily deepens our understanding of what the idea really means, and in a strongly subjective context. But, of course, dogmatic opinionists, who assign a plausibility of zero to the idea, cannot use the method. The math in the bayesian formula won't work. I'm still trusting that that doesn't describe you, but correct me if I am wrong, and I'll shut up. Here, I am using confirm in my own, special, idiosyncratic way, where I mean to say that the plausibility of the idea that the bible is what it says it is, is higher given the validity of bible code studies. I agree, of course, that the connection...has not been scienctifically established. At least, H-D scientifically, since that method never establishes anything, and in fact exists to protect us from our inclination to establish anything scientifically, which historically has never been profitable. Once, the idea of a flat earth was established, as was Newtonian mechanics. OOPS! But, made very, usefully, plausible? Both flat earth mapping and Newtonian satelite engineering work very well, thank you. The rest of the story, on how much, if at all, existing bible codes studies improve the plausibility of the bible being what it says it is, is being discussed elsewhere. Either the pro-code sites are valid, or the debunking sites are valid. There's a choice we each have to make, based on personal standards of debate. I wish there were "Debates That Matter" somewhere, where an independent referee ruled, and clear rules were established. Until then, we are on our own. I'm not going to believe the Kuhnian majority on the matter. They have already been proven wrong-headed. As for me, I tend to ignore debunking generally as unscientific, and look at the efforts to replicate. And also, at the style of debate, whether it is addressed to objectivity or is appealing to subjectivity, ridiculing the other side, being sarcastic, etc. So far, it seems more likely, more plausible, to me that the debunkers are invalid, not those that contest their arguments. Again, I'm using confirm in my curious way. NDE's make several of the ideas in orthodox theology more plausible, to those who are on the fence on (not dogmatic about) the matter. I stand corrected. The published NDE studies have studiously avoided tying their results to orthodox theology. I meant to say that NDE's have been studied scientifically, and validated in an effort to maintain objectivity. The author of "Beyond's Deaths Door" was a Christian physician on some repute, who collected data from heart patients that died temporarily during his surguries. He questioned them as they awoke, and recorded their experiences, if any, doing this to validate for himself his Christian faith. So, I'm not the only one who, hearing of these reports, thought that the information tended to increase our sense of the plausibility of "orthodox theology." Theomatics was begun because luke-warm believers wanted to believe that the bible was more plausibly what it said it was, and finding extraordinary mathematical patterns through-out the scripture, set out to prove these were really present. Counseling with statisticians, and developing a rigorous protocol, they came up with some tools that validated the idea, that the bible says of itself, that it wal authored, or inspired, by a non-human of extraordinary intelligence and power. Applications of these techniques to other writings have provided a strong contrast to the results obtained with the Bible. That's what I know about theomatics, off-hand. It actually seems more easily validated than the Bible Codes. Washburn is quite frustrated that the codes are getting all the press, while his works, done decades earlier, are only quietly appreciated. But, of course, their effect on fence-sitters, is to make it more reasonable to jump off on the side of investing in getting wisdom for life from the bible. Drosnin said of his work, that if codes could be found in Moby Dick, he would discount them, and admit that he was wrong. So, the critics looked for codes there, and found them. That made sense to them, and apparently to you. Similarly, Jehovah says, "If you tithe, and the windows of heaven do not open, and I do not rebuke the devourer for you, then you may accept ideas about my reality as wrong." Now, you cannot give to the united fund, and call it tithing. He gives in the Bible clear directions about tithing, a protocol for the experiment. Do the study with scientific rigor. If you get negative results, you have as much right to debunk the bible as McKay had to debunk Drosnin. When someone says that, at times, they are going to speak figuratively, and in so doing use poetic license to say something that is literally not true, we do not call them lying, or call what they said a lie, when discussing that figure of speech. In fact, we might even sigh and say, "So true!" because the figure helped us to an insight. This is how the bible says that it is written. And so, it is right, even when it is "wrong." Remember, the bible is written as a public communication in a wartime situation, containing at once content intended to delude God's enemies, and content intended to help His friends. Again, I am using scientific the way I was taught, namely that it refers to the use of certain methodology. You are right, as far as I know, that no one is publishing on the matter, although Dr. Dossey's "Be careful what you pray for, you might get it." comes close. Wishful thinking on my part. I wish scientists who suspect demons have been behind certain life experiences would do studies and publish them. Thanks for the correction. I know what to pray for now. There is, as someone else has noted, tremendous amounts of anecdotal evidence that has been attributed to Demons, or Jinn, i think they called them. Most people in the world, in fact, consider the existence of demons most likely. So, that's not the reason scientists haven't studied the idea. Don't try to tell me that scientists don't ever respond to anecdotes, by the way, because I am a naturalist, and when someone comes off an expedition reporting some curious natural history phenomenon that I as a scientist am interested in, I go check it out. I got lots of dickcissel data that way, even though some of the anecdotes I heard about them being around weren't confirmed, or even shown to be mistaken. Frankly, it my gut sense that, as a naturalist expert at evaluating the distribution and abundance of life forms, I was derelict in my duty not to explore the anecdotes I had heard about demons. My first seminar on the subject was "the distribution and abundance of demons" beginning lightheartedly on the "angels on the head of a pin" joke.But, I agree. I am one in a thousand on this matter. As Kuhn reported has historically been the case.Stephen

Percy, I was thinking of the prayer studies that appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the bible codes paper, and some of the NDE studies. But you are right. I read Kuhn, and decided that if I wanted to be after truth, I had to get out of the mainstream.More later, another duty calls.S.

Brad,You note, I just learned that beer makers use lithium chlorite to sterilize their equipment, because it seems quite toxic to competing yeasts. Don't know that traces of the Lithium don't make it into the beer, which, like hops, would make it more mentally effective as a drug. Or, perhaps, the lithium in humans works to destroy toxic yeasts like candida known to modify behavior in ways conducive to the yeast (addictions to sugar, etc.).Meanwhile, this comment of yours demonstrates one of the main reasons H-D science is the best scientific method, which I have heretofore forgotten to mention. When students are trained in H-D science, they get more control of their own lives, in that they have a method that they can apply in day to day decisions, about health care, etc. Other methods of teaching science tend to make it so abstruse that the student becomes dependent on a priest-hood, basically, that knows the jargon, has the knowledge, and claims the authority to make decisions for others, to know the truth. Science as expertise, versus science as way of thinking. You were lucky to escape the electro shock, and to realize that nutritional hypotheses for mental aberrations can be tested with less risk.Ha, another benefit of H-D science! The point of scientific research is to get new knowledge "the easy way." To discover the experiment or data that can be done/gotten with a minimum of risk. Before one does high-risk, expensive acts that, if wrong, cost a lot more than the benefit gained is worth. To explain what? No, the question, Why are there more fish species than amphibian species? Is equally interesting. What simple answer would you consider interesting? Worth testing? Is Penrose's hypothesis aimed at getting at free will, consciousness, and human decision making? Have you seen the studies where humans are put in behavior mod conditioning trials of the Skinnerian sort, and don't behave like white rats? In H-D science, how we come up with a hypothesis is very flexible, even subjective, or inspired. Quantum mechanics is not reasonable, but is was proposed and tested and found to work. One of the main distinctions between real scientists and the paradigm maintaining frauds that Kuhn discusses, is that real scientists never forget the "childhood" of a scientific research programme, never forget that when an unreasonable, weird idea appears on the scene, that is implausible and difficult or impossible to understand, it must be given its chance to grow up, into the highly plausible, well verified, eminently practical ideas that much of science spends its time refining. Nurtured in that process, not neglected. I have an intuitive sense that I should say, "Hear, Hear!" to this comment, which I barely understand. Let's subject it to H-D analysis. Suppose it is true, what patterns in the c/e controversy can we predict we will find?What do you think about the cave-man diet application of evolutionary theory to humans? The weakness of H-D scientific reasoning in evolutionists seems to obscure this most persuasive application of the theory. It might be of interest to you, since protein requirements from that theory are predicted to be substantially higher than conventionally thought, which of course influences tryptophan availability to human brains. Because of the critical role of tryptophan in serotonin production, this allows us to predict epidemics of certain behavior patterns, such as depression. Conspiracy theorists claim that this relationship is so well established, that anti-depressant drug companies bought out the FDA, and made tryptophan illegal, to create a market for their products. Killed hundreds of people, in setting up a "reason" for the FDA action. But, of course, those trained in H-D science know how to do personal tests to keep themselves mentally healthy.Cheers,Stephen

M.First, the hypothesis that you were a liar was considered briefly, tested, and unsupported. So, it is less plausible than it was, and courtesy requires me to assume it is untrue until validated.Then you say, Now, this is a very good point. But, I do insist, in fairness, that the analogy we applied correctly. Let's take the idea that Santa really is out there. From that hypothesis, what can we predict? Christmas commercials? Well, given the common understanding of Santa, I would actually predict that commercials, if any, would focus on wish-lists and good behavior, and maybe types of cookies and milk ("skim, please, I'm watching my weight.") Commercials which feature a Santa at a toy store would not be expected, and any H-D thinking child would view this association as evidence that Santa and elves at the North Pole may not be the source of the toys they get each Christmas.Now, we ask this question: Suppose demons exist, in the context of orthodox theology (OT), Jehovah, Yeshua, the Holy Spirit, the blood of Yeshua, and the Bible as a "contact" with Jehovah giving methods for talking to Jehovah, driving away demons, getting to heaven, etc. If this is all accurate, what can we predict about the outcome of prayer studies? Well, Jehovah supposedly wrote in the bible that if you pray aright, you will receive. Then, "aright" is defined, as selflessly, with persistence, with joy and thanksgiving, testifying to the names of Jehovah and Yeshua, and to what happened at the cross, with faith that comes from hearing Jehovah's voice. There are some other fine points, but the above cover the main requirements. Now, if all the points of OT are true, then prayers that meet these requirements will result in less "evil." Sickness, depression, etc. Since this prediction has been validated, in many people's minds, mine included, the plausibility that the demons are really out there, along with the rest of OT, is increased. Granted, other people have the opinion that these studies have not been validated, but I see no reason to accept their opinion over those who differ with them. Of course, some nay-sayers will present their opinions as fact, which is how they see them. That actually makes those opinions less likely to be persuasive, as I understand subjectivity and epistemology. This is your best shot at reasoning? I can tell you feel very strongly about this. Forgive me, but I just see all this as an expression of your own guilt. It is very close to what I am tempted to say about you.It's interesting, actually, that we keep debating. Love of energy, I guess. But here we are, me suspecting that you are demon possessed, and you that I am deluded. But I'm having a good time, so don't be sad for me.Stephen

S.you ask, Well, remembering that science never disproves or proves anything, it is clear from Scripture that, if a study of tithing, done according to the rules given in the scripture for tithing, which did not produce some well-defined "openings of the windows of heaven" and "rebuking the devourer." this would "disprove" God. Opening the windows of heaven is elsewhere in scripture defined as increased rainfall, so, for example, if the governor of Kansas called for a test in some drought ridden counties, but not others, of tithing, called for, say, 1% of the population of the test counties to volunteer to tithe properly, and asked residents of control counties to abstain from tithing for one month. And then rainfall changes between the two counties could be compared. If the drought did not end in the test counties, and increase in the controls, this would be evidence invalidating the hypothetical God, Jehovah, as described in the scriptures. In H-D science, evidence is used in two ways, to confirm predictions and to form prior estimates of plausibility. Evidence "for" an idea is evidence that does not contradict it, and makes it ever-so-slightly more plausible. Now, weird or anomolous evidence, that suggests the existence of "spiritual" beings, such as souls, demons, gods, and the God, Jehovah, is "for" the plausibility of these things, not "against."Understand that my goal here is to make sure as many as possible understand a particular scientific proceedure, and to suggest that that proceedure be applied to the evolution/creation controversy. Since the creation hypothesis postulates the reality of a Creator, as well as demons, human souls, etc, as all being relevant to the understanding of "the Origin of Species." it's of value to evaluate the evidential plausibility of the idea that such creating spiritual beings exist. If all the "creatures" in our biological world were produced by artificial selection, for Jehovah, Satan, or us, we need to know this, and which "creatures" were created by which spiritual being, or by us. (Although, most think that we are spiritual beings as well.) This is true now, but it wasn't when they first began gathering evidence to test its predictions. Remember, Einstein never did buy it. Someday, perhaps, demons will be as well studied. But, the process has to begin, and be encouraged. Perhaps a difference between us, is that I consider the initial phases of the scientific validation of an idea, while you are focusing on its final stages, after years of testing. "might be out there" not "exist." Followed by a "so, let's study the idea further hypothetico-deductively, and see for sure." Good point. And the scientists did win the day. But, the scientists did not back up Semmelweis, Dr. Semmelweis, in his first experiments. Even though people were dying from failures to replicate and establish Semmelweis' point. But, I see your point here. It might have required extraordinary involvement from persons, scientists, who often are so focused on their interests that they don't get involved. The Bayesian model says that nothing only means anything. Many ideas have plausibilities conditional on a given bit of evidence. Actually, (I'll dig around and find the article, if you want) several scientists being interviewed about the studies confirming and validating prayer, though unbelievers, admitted that they prayed over their research, just in case it might help. Pray normally doesn't interfere with life activities. But, I really do hate those who hate God, so much that they won't talk to and with Him. We're here to do good, to make a difference, and when we neglect that duty, everyone else suffers. No, it is not. The job of all scientists is to try to understand what some other scientist has done, and to replicate it to see if they can get a similar result. The courtesy of science is to try to find the good in the work of others, and to build on it. Not as I learned or practised it. The self-correcting is right, but it is accomplished when predictions that a proponent of a theory has agreed should follow from his or her idea are not confirmed, in repeated trials. I do not think this. If I thought this, I would be wrong. Successful prayer makes the reality of the God prayed to more plausible. If that God works by delivering from demons, then it makes demons more plausible. The proper proceedure is to present your prediction to proponents of the idea being tested, to see if they would agree that this prediction logically follows from the theory. If possible, express the theory in mathematical terms, a model, so that differences of opinion about predictions can be settled.I do not expect 100% healing from prayer, because in the description of "right" prayer in the scriptures, there are lots of factors that can "fall short of the glory of God." And examples of people not praying "successfully." If Yeshua were the one praying, I would expect 100% success. My own rate has increased over the 25 years I have trained in the matter, to nearly 85%. But, partly that has come about because I am not willing to pay the cost of some prayers (e.g. 40 days fasting in the desert), to get the power. So, I pick my battles, so that I win most.Thanks for trying to understand.Stephen

S. Not in H-D science. The estimates of prior plausibility come from some sort of average of collective intuition. For you to ignore your fellow human's opinions, or to discount them severly, is to put yourself above them, arrogance. Good example. Map-makers today, for all practical purposes, often "believe" in a flat earth. Which is to say, that the flat earth people were not far wrong. Re demons, those who see a red-suited guy with a pointy tail and a pitchfork, would be flat-earthers. Not a bad approximation, but of course the real thing will be different. But not that different. A spiritual pathogen, where spiritual is understood to be the historic term for a part of the universe similar to, or equivalent with, "dark matter/dark energy." Demons are understood to have all known spiritual human characteristics: personality, free will, intelligence, power to use dark or spiritual energy and dark or spiritual matter, to influence electro-magnetic material. They can make themselves visible or invisible to humans at their discretion. Demons normally work by deception or lying. "The most successful lie of Satan, is that he doesn't exist." ((The Usual Suspects). But, they are able to put thoughts, desires, fears, in a mind, and to force certain choices (compulsions, addictions). This will take some time. I am using the anthropological data on religiosity in cultures, and the Gallup polls of religious belief within cultures. I would bet that my figures are an underestimate. Conversation, often one-way, with God. Again, this will take some time. Polls, and studies of comparative religions make the figure reasonable, if low. Thanks for trying to understand, in spite of my weaknesses.Stephen

P.Oops, sorry. I thought that my reply was my assent to these terms, to which I of course agree. What about discussing regular H-D science? Actually, I don't intend to discuss subjective bayesianism anymore at all, since I don't believe in it, don't practise it, never have, and am sorry anything I said gave the impression I thought it valid. My reference to subjectivity being appropriate in hypothesis formation, and evaluation of prior plausibilities somehow gave the wrong impression that I approved of subjective evaluation of data. You can see how strongly I disapprove of this in the way I respond when others respond to a published result with an "explaining away" that appears subjectively motivated. For example, I see sarcasm and ridiculing in McKay's re-interpreting of WRR's data, and thus tend to discount what he says as invalid, just because of apparent subjective fiddling with the data. Data are data. They have to be taken at face value, objectively, and only dispensed with, if they are "bad" by showing that objective efforts to replicate don't work. McKay and others did this fairly well with the cities experiment of Gans, and got a failure. But, unlike WRR or Gans, the outside panel picking the terms would not stand by their choices, but admitted making some technical errors. I'm still waiting for Gans to respond to this.So, anyway, what about normal bayesian methodology, as defined in Urbach's book, for example? That's what we need to talk about, if we are setting up a prayer experiment.Stephen

Schafinator,You ask, facetiosly (?), We're talking prior plausibilities, not posterior ones. When lot's of folks believe something is true, it's arrogant to not take their hypothesis under advisement, as having a prior plausibility worth evaluating. It's "true" only when the accumulating confirmed tests of predictions raise the posterior plausibility to near one. It means that they wish they had more faith, or belief in God, and do not see their unbelief as evidence that God is not real. It means that they know that there is something good and useful and real about "believing" in God, as if such a Being was itself real. Some view atheism as courageous honesty, but most, in my opinion and experience, view it as cowardly retreat from the struggle to believe. So many believe, that it is foolish to not try to find the true part of that belief. Hear everything, hold on to what is good. They believed both, and were only wrong on the one. I am convinced that we will only understand demons as we set out to test hypotheses about them. If demons have done their job, there will be no consensus view. The link below is rather scholarly.
Page not found - Apologetics Press Any that will talk. Didn't Goethe suggest that Satan carries on conversations with men, dealing with them for their souls. Jehovah, though, makes the clearest statements in writing about His availability for interviews. He makes it clear, in fact, that failure to "know" Him, and be known by Him, conversationally, knowing His voice, hearkening to His voice, living by every word that proceeds from His mouth, etc. leaves one out of the good things and places that are out there to enjoy.Stephen

Brad,You can stay out of the pigeon hole, by predicting patterns in the c/e controversy that correspond to those experienced by Galvani/Volta. Haven't read Pera's book, but it looks like it might give some clues as to how to do this. Get a sociologist, a pyschologist, or best of all, an historian of science, to see if being a creationist, or evolutionist, is simply to have a particular neurosis, bringing that neurosis to the table of the science.Stephen