designing a convincing prayer experiment

quote:

---

How on earth are you going to control this experiment?

---

That is doable. Here is what I would suggest. The study supervisor will be the only person to know which plants belong to which groups (prayer and non-prayer). The study coordinators will interact with the participants and will be blinded. All plants should be grown identically, including soil, temperature, planter size, exposure to light, and watering schedule. Also, the plants in the non prayer group should be handled like those of the prayer group, such as moving, touching, breathing on, etc. Plants should be scored on plant height, diameter of main shoot 1 cm above soil height (and a standardized protocol for determining soil level), time to germination, number of leaves, and number of flowers if applicable to plant species. Scores should be compared to prayer/non-prayer as well as the area they were grown in. For example, plants in the northwest corner of the growing area my grow taller regardless of prayer/non-prayer.This is a rough outline, but I think it hits on all of the main control issues. BTW, this thread is somewhat my doing. I encouraged Stephen to start a thread in order to design a prayer experiment with appropriate controls. I was hoping that we could set something up a solid methodology in order to look at possible affects of prayer, something that Stephen claims the majority of science ignores without reason. But you are right, I doubt a negative result would deter the belief that prayer has an affect on daily life, but it could still be investigated.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-26-2004]

quote:

---

I seriously doubt that prayer would have any effect on the plants but that is my own bias.

---

That is my bias as well, but I like testing my biases. In another thread I stated that argon did not dissolve in water. I was really embarrassed when I looked it up in Merck, 73 ml/l water. Ooops. Anyway, realize your bias but don't let it affect your work, always a good motto.

quote:

---

I would propose that the plants-"prayed-upon and non-prayed upon" not be seperated into their respective groups. I would think that this may set up some imbalance due to natural effects, more light for one over another, more moisture, etc. I think if the plants were mixed together with some marking, say a "prayer stick" placed to mark the plants being prayed upon, this would allow for those natural effects to be mitigated.

---

Actually, I did include this in the post you replied to:

quote:

---

by the way, not sure if anyone has mentioned this but why would "prayer" for the plants have to be "in-situ"? Why couldn't someone pray for the plants inside some building away from the plants. I'm sure god is smart enough to figure out which ones are being prayed upon without it being physically pointed out to him like some blind watchmaker.

---

As far as how the plants were prayed for, I left this open but left the contigency that ALL plants were to be handled the same (such as touching, breathing, etc.). If the prayed for plants are not touched, neither is the control group. As to the actual prayer protocol, I will leave that to the theologians. I am not here to decide the proper prayer technique, just defining contigencies to cover probable techniques.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-27-2004]

quote:

---

You're absolutely right about testing ones biases. I wonder though if any such test is even worth attempting. It can always be said that god's will is unknowable or that god doesn't want to be tested if such tests fail. No amount of negative results would stop certain individuals from promoting the "power" of prayer I suspect.

---

What one needs is the mechanism that causes better growth. Perhaps the nutrients in the soil increase directly after prayer, which then causes the plants to grow better. Without a measurable mechanism a correlation is just that, effect with no measurable cause. Such correlations lend to speculation, such as "Did it happen?" "No." "You must have done it wrong then," without knowing what you could have done wrong. Such things do happen in science, such as an experiment only repeatable in one lab (very rare, but has been seen). However, baseless speculation as to cause is not science, especially if it isn't repeatable.

Totally agree Ned. My associates and I have always dreamed of creating a journal named "The Annals of Failed Experiments." I think it would actually be informative, something for people to check proposed methods and assays against.A small n is also a problem, but most scientists realize this. Often the n is kept low due to constraints (eg, rare diseases) or out of respect for the subjects (eg, aniimal experimentation). However, the pharmaceutical industry is put under strict guidelines and the n often approaches hundreds of thousands, unlike the fertility experiment mentioned previously in other threads. There is no way a drug or treatment would make it to market on the weight of one experiment involving 50 volunteers.

quote:

---

That is, if I meddle with Satan's stuff (most of you, by OT), I must "fill up what is lacking in the suffering of Yeshua." "Be persecuted for righteousness sake." etc. It's a disciple's job to suffer with his master. It's how you get treasure in heaven, "like the prophets who went before you."

---

Just like evolutionists suffer the wrath of fundamentalist christians? So then we must be righteous because we suffer persecution?Also, I really don't think that anyone, creo or evo, is really "suffering" because of comments here on EvC. Perhaps intellectual sparring is the correct verbage, but I don't see anyone in chains. At least not yet, MUUUHAHAHAHAHA (evil evolutionist laugh).

Stephen,I said that I would return to this thread, and I will. However, Percy has made some very important points in message 75. These actually are foundational to questions that I want to pose. If you could respond to Percy's post, at least in part, I think I can work off of those answers to better explain my position.