designing a convincing prayer experiment

A Google search for 'hypothetico-deductive' unearthed a peach of an essay by Sean Scheiderer at Ohio State University that describes your poor Doctor Steve here to a tee. Recall that Popper's H-D method included the prospect of falsification, from which the good Doc feels his hypotheses are conveniently exempted. Discussing the end stage of the falsification process:

quote:

---

Finally, when no other fault can be discerned, the hypothesis must be abandoned and a new theory devised. However, sometimes this is too much to expect from scientists who are also passionate humans. They may continue to cling to an untenable hypothesis, perhaps even after the establishment of another well-supported theory, sometimes even until their own death.

---

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Benzene rings and wave/particle duality were not discovered using subjective Bayesianism. To the contrary, we have hard evidence of both.So, perhaps you can explain to us what is scientific about this: And tell us where the information for this comes from: --Percy

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

Thanks for the reference. I had already found the link and read that passage, and I commented on a couple other portions in Message 170 of the The best scientific method thread.--Percy

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]

I noticed that Ned posted a nice setup for this kind of experiment. At least it looked really close to what I was trying to propose. I probably should have read a little further.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.

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.

How cynical! How right! The real danger is that with small "n" there will be the occasional such test that does produce a significant result if you run enough such experiments. The "usual" reaction (not just on the part of the faithful, I might add) is to grab that one as "proof" of something.This happens in the medical literature (personal communication with my brother) apparently.This is an example of the recognized publication bias problem where negative results do not get published as readily as positive ones.At some point there has to be a good statistician involved to determine what statistical protocols will be involved as well.

---

Common sense isn't

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.

From Message #51: "It can always be said that god's will is unknowable or that god doesn't want to be tested if such tests fail."From Message #41: "Maybe not. Or maybe s/he is and does not require some silly parlor game to prove his/her existence."[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-27-2004]

P. It was the critical step in the discovery of benzene rings, which had been an insoluble problem, before the dream. I suspect from Jehovah, but dreams, intuitive hunches, exciting ideas remain something of a mystery. But, we need them. Who was it who sat around without sleep for days, with ball-bearings in his hands over tin pie plates? When he'd fall asleep, the balls would drop and clang and wake him up. Because he got a lot of appealing ideas when waking up. Very subjective though. Most didn't work out, but were improved by the effort.By the way, you apparently subscribe to a scientific method which does not allow anything from the Bible to be used in forming hypotheses or gathering data (?). I don't. Neither did Witztum. Or those getting prayers for fertility, I wager. Evidence for demons, in my view. Read anything for science but History's most popular, influential book? Where did that idea come from?S.

MrHambre,Malachi 3:10-12 describes the falsification test.Stephen

PAulk, Didn't the data indicate that they had high fertility with or without prayer? It is interesting that, perhaps, there are factors creating infertility that vary with age, and with vulnerability to prayer. That older women get infertile for spiritual reasons, young women due to diet, say. Lots of research to do.Stephen

P.Reading the Hypo-Ded pages on Google impressed me with the number of observational sciences wanting to use the method. Sciences where predictions about unknown patterns in nature could be predicted and looked for, to validate theories to some degree. That's how I made my name in ecology, not doing experiments. Besides, I have out testing prayer experiments, personally, for 25 years. Give me a break!S.

P. I'm helping others walk the trail that has got me in such (interesting) trouble. And, every post, every reply, I learn something.