4 ms·
Near 50% effectiveness is quite a bit better than the (in my opinion) 0% effectiveness of prayer
by girvo 7y ago
Near 50% effectiveness is quite a bit better than the (in my opinion) 0% effectiveness of prayer
- komali2 7y agoThat's not opinion - no study has shown prayer to have any effectiveness on flu symptoms.
- wongarsu 7y agoI'm not aware of any studies showing that it has no effect either. If I had to guess I would estimate a prayer to be as effective as a placebo, but to proclaim that as fact seems a bit unscientific.
- Lio 7y agoThere has been quite a bit of study of intercessory prayer. i.e. for people that don't know they are being prayed for. No affects have been found. > In 1872, the Victorian scientist Francis Galton made the first statistical analysis of third-party prayer. He hypothesized, partly as satire, that if prayer were effective, members of the British Royal Family would live longer than average, given that thousands prayed for their well-being every Sunday, and he prayed over randomized plots of land to see whether the plants would grow any faster, and found no correlation in either case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
- thinkingemote 7y agoThe wiki page contradicts your statement about "no effects". there's been a number of studies showing lots of effects. Most studies seem to show slight positive effects from prayer, some show none and some show negative effects.
- Lio 7y agoFrom the wikipage: > Meta-studies of the literature in the field have been performed showing evidence only for no effect or a potentially small effect. I'm an atheist so I take the "no effect" over the "small effect".
- pdpi 7y agoYou don’t get to take the “no effect” over the “small effect” just because you’re an atheist. That is precisely what taking faith over data looks like!
- Lio 7y agoMy answers would be that we're arguing over statistical noise. I take what I consider to be the simplest explanation in the absence of a credible alternative, that prayer does nothing when the recipient is unaware of it. I take that view because I've never heard an alternative explaination that didn't appear to break the second law of thermodynamics.
- ru999gol 7y agoextraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. A magical, invisible, omnipresent, omnipotent "all known laws of nature defying"-being that answers prayers, requires significantly more evidence than a small effect in some meta study.
- pdpi 7y agoAbsolutely. My point is that "I'm an atheist so I'll take the option that agrees with my personal beliefs" isn't a valid line of reasoning. You could symmetrically argue "I'm a catholic so I'll take the option that suggests there is an effect, albeit a small one". Now we're just arguing whose personal beliefs are right. A more properly scientific line of reasoning would be to instead say that you'll assume the small-to-nonexistent effect is nonexistent until somebody produces a model capable of predicting the proposed small effect, or a myriad other arguments along the same general lines.
- jjeaff 7y agoI think your opinion is wrong. Even placebo has a higher than 0% effectiveness.
- sooheon 7y agoI assume they're testing prayer without the recipient's knowledge, to control for placebo.
- mensetmanusman 7y agoThe person praying knows they are praying...
- jjeaff 7y agoSounds like an improper use of prayer then. The refrain "I'm praying for you" isn't meant to be some kind of conspicuous display of faith.