Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate?
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 211 of 279 (382123)
02-03-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Kader
02-02-2007 3:16 PM


Re: Try harder to get out of your box
Ok, I read it. I do not understand the reasoning, and I don't understand how he can give it.
Then I learned about double-blind studies, and it was like a tornado blowing down a house of cards. I discovered that I, like most people who love alternative medicine, had made a huge (though understandable) mistake.
What mistake? Alternative medicine is wrong? In some sort of general way this is probably true, but what in the world does that mean? Every herbal and alternative treatment is proven unreliable? That's not even true.
Here's what the NIH says about the studies on acupuncture, for example:
quote:
According to the NIH Consensus Statement on Acupuncture, there have been many studies on acupuncture's potential usefulness, but results have been mixed because of complexities with study design and size, as well as difficulties with choosing and using placebos or sham acupuncture. However, promising results have emerged, showing efficacy of acupuncture, for example, in adult postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and vomiting and in postoperative dental pain. There are other situations--such as addiction, stroke rehabilitation, headache, menstrual cramps, tennis elbow, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain, osteoarthritis, low-back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, and asthma--in which acupuncture may be useful as an adjunct treatment or an acceptable alternative or be included in a comprehensive management program. An NCCAM-funded study recently showed that acupuncture provides pain relief, improves function for people with osteoarthritis of the knee, and serves as an effective complement to standard care.7 Further research is likely to uncover additional areas where acupuncture interventions will be useful.
Many, many herbal treatments are not useful. The fact is, personal experience and anecdote are entirely sufficient to find that out. "If you don't treat a cold, you'll be sick for an entire week. Take herbs, and it will only last seven days." We pretty much all know that's true without a double blind study.
On the other hand, it took double blind studies to convince many people that vitamin C at the outset of a cold won't reduce the severity of it.
People act like cultures have been using all these herbs that get pushed by herbalists for thousands of years and believe they're successful. That is what the herbalists say, but I see no indication it's true for most of their wares. Those things are not backed up by long experience in culture, but just by the sales pitch of the herbalist.
I've been prone to strep throat every year. Someone told me garlic works as an antibiotic. I tried it, it worked, every bit as well as what the doctors prescribe. (My strep has grown to scarlet fever and severe ear infections left untreated; it's an issue for me.) I do it every time now, and it's worked four times in a row. Much cheaper, and likely less dangerous, than prescribed antibiotics.
Now what if a double blind study comes along and shows garlic has no antibiotic properties? That's real likely, as I have a sample size of four, which, for proving that garlic is an antibiotic, is nothing at all. However, in my situation, it's a large enough sample size to be pretty confident it will work next time, even if it's only the placebo effect. And if it is the placebo effect, what does that matter? I still ought to take it, as it's inexpensive, safe, and works without me having to take time off work to go to the doctor.
So what does it mean that double blind studies are everything? They helped that guy stop being a snake oil salesman. Great. In the meantime, they proved that the personal experience and anecdote that created the acupuncture field were accurate. They've also proven that the use of limes for crossing the ocean, an idea found by personal experience and anecdote, was a great idea.
In fact, am I missing something, or didn't Darwin provide a basis for this whole debate board without the benefit of double-blind studies, by observing and recording? (I know he did studies, and I loved the way he grew a forest with a fence!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Kader, posted 02-02-2007 3:16 PM Kader has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 212 of 279 (382131)
02-03-2007 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Kader
02-02-2007 3:16 PM


double blind studies and other studies
Here's one more thing this guy said:
In observational studies, researchers don’t actually give people any treatment. Instead, they simply observe a vast number of people. For example, in the Nurse’s Health Study, almost 100,000 nurses have been extensively surveyed for many years, in an attempt to find connections between various lifestyle habits and illnesses. Researchers have found, for example, that nurses who consume more fruits and vegetables have less cancer. Such a finding is often taken to indicate that fruits and vegetables prevent cancer, but this would not be a correct inference.
No, it would not be a correct inference to say that fruits and vegetable prevent cancer. It would, however, be a correct inference to say that people who eat fruits and vegetables have less cancer. We also know that people who eat their veggies like mom said also exercise more and take a multivitamin and live longer. So the conclusion is, if you want to live healthier and longer, you ought to do what they do.
He agrees with this. He says:
People who eat more fruits and vegetables may have other healthy habits as well, even ones we don’t know anything about, and they could be the cause of the benefit, not the fruits and vegetables.
Right, and that's why responsible nutritionists draw the right conclusions from the right studies, not the wrong conclusion. Sure, there's "doctors" who draw the wrong conclusion, but the real nutritionists are not drawing the wrong conclusion, and they're learning real and useful things from the nurse's study.
This may sound like a purely academic issue, but it’s not. Researchers looking at observational studies noticed that menopausal women who take hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have as much as 50 percent less heart disease than women who do not use HRT. This finding, along with a number of very logical arguments tending to show that estrogen should prevent heart disease, led doctors to recommend that all menopausal women take estrogen.
It turned out to be bad advice. Should I therefore conclude that without double blind studies we should never make recommendations and that the recommendations based on studies that don't show causation are guaranteed to be incorrect 100% of the time?
Of course not. How many times has something like this happened? Was there a 95% chance this recommendation was going to be right? 20%? Was the risk of heart disease worth taking the chance?
You can't just pick one piece of advice, point out it was wrong, and imply that all advice given off observational studies is dangerous. It's not true.
He finishes with a section called:
quote:
Double-Blind Studies, and Nothing but Double-Blind Studies
Personally, my guess would be that the way he became a snake oil salesman in the first place, who needed to be delivered from that way of life by double blind studies, is because of the very kind of reasoning he uses in this article that has turned him from a practitioner of alternative medicine to someone pushing "Double-Blind Studies, and Nothing but Double-Blind Studies." He's just extreme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Kader, posted 02-02-2007 3:16 PM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Kader, posted 02-05-2007 9:49 AM truthlover has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 213 of 279 (382466)
02-04-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by truthlover
02-01-2007 3:42 PM


Re: bias, again
quote:
Ok, Schraf, yours first. (I hope the change to nator wasn't a dislike of the Schraf part; I'm used to referring to you as Schraf. If there's some reason I should quit, that's fine.)
Nah, you can call me whatever you like (within reason).
Of course you don't believe that you are deluded. That's the nature of delusion, isn't it? If you knew you had deluded yourself, you wouldn't be deluded anymore.
quote:
You can "LOL" if you want, but my point was valid. It's not so simple that people are simply deluded, don't know it, and that's that. In fact, it's almost never that simple in real life. Deluded people can be educated; they can be told how they were deceived; they can be shown something they missed. That's how real life works from minor disagreements among members of a household all the way to members of the Branch Davidians.
But nothing you've just written counters my point in the least.
People who are deluded, by definition, don't know that they are deluded.
The nature of their particular delusion doesn't matter at all.
You are trying to find a technicality to get around a tautology, but that's impossible.
The ONLY way to counter it in situations like we've been discussing is by the double-blind methods percy and I have been harping on about.
quote:
No, that's the only way too eliminate it. It is not the only way to counter it.
Bias in can be greatly reduced, but if there is a human element present anywhere in any scientific investigation, there is probably some bias in there somewhere.
quote:
I used to read nutrition journals regularly. Tentative conclusions are drawn all the time apart from double blind studies, especially where they are impossible.(snip)
That's a pretty good response, but the evidence for prayer that we've been talking about doesn't even come close to the nutritional studies you are talking about. You are arguing with very flimsy anecdote and lots and lots of unchecked bias.
In the nutritional studies, we know with pretty good confidence that there is a difference between those who take vitamins and those who don't. With your prayer claims, we don't have any idea if there is a difference or not.
quote:
However, you haven't walked in my shoes, experienced the things I've experienced, and yet there is an assumption you make that those consistent, positive results haven't happened.
No, no, no, no, no.
I have made no assumption regarding any anecdotes that you have brought forth.
I am sure that you have had some instances where prayer seems to have worked.
Yet again, I will state that looking only at the positives in no way can ever tell you if those positive results are "consistent".
Never. Ever. Not ever. Period.
quote:
My objection all along has been not to the argument that my judgment is questionable, but that the evidence really doesn't exist.
TL, you haven't come remotely close to presenting any evidence in any way that would allow a rational conclusion to be reached.

'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman
"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by truthlover, posted 02-01-2007 3:42 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 12:04 PM nator has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 214 of 279 (382470)
02-04-2007 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by truthlover
02-02-2007 8:51 AM


Re: Weighting success and failure
quote:
However, the answer to this question is that there's a lot of "lives of faith" that don't produce any results and ought to be abandoned.
So, the point of living a "life of faith" is to "get results"?
...as in, "get special favors from God"?
This may not be what you mean but in the context of the ongoing discussion on the effect of prayer on healing, that is what your above statement seems to imply.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by truthlover, posted 02-02-2007 8:51 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 11:46 AM nator has replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 215 of 279 (382576)
02-05-2007 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by truthlover
02-03-2007 12:47 PM


Re: double blind studies and other studies
It would, however, be a correct inference to say that people who eat fruits and vegetables have less cancer.
How would that help us ?
So the conclusion is, if you want to live healthier and longer, you ought to do what they do.
But we don't know what they all do.
Right, and that's why responsible nutritionists draw the right conclusions from the right studies, not the wrong conclusion. Sure, there's "doctors" who draw the wrong conclusion, but the real nutritionists are not drawing the wrong conclusion, and they're learning real and useful things from the nurse's study.
What are you talking about ? I thinkyou missed the point, wich was :
FROM that study, nutritionnist started advising eating more vegies and more fruits to prevent cancer.
Double blind study proved us wwrong yet again. Fruit and vegetables does NOT help prevent cancer.
Should I therefore conclude that without double blind studies we should never make recommendations and that the recommendations based on studies that don't show causation are guaranteed to be incorrect 100% of the time?
The whole point here, is that we cannot trust our own experience. And that double blind study are the most accurate form of study available to us. So when it doesn't agree with our preconceived ideas (like fruit preventing cancer) WE ADAPT. Because double blind studies give more accurate results.
As for the 100% wrong, I don't know wher eyou get that. I'm just trying to say that double blind study have shown us that we cannot trust our own experience. Why is it so hard to understand.
So each time you have to choose between personal experience and the result of a published double blind study...well I think I've said it enough now
Of course not. How many times has something like this happened? Was there a 95% chance this recommendation was going to be right? 20%? Was the risk of heart disease worth taking the chance?
More beating around the bush...
Doctors recommended estrogene based on a observational study. There is no % of being right. Just like fruits and vegies seemed to prevent cancer, estrogen seemed to be effective against heart disease.
And double blind studies shown us how WRONG we were.
You can't just pick one piece of advice, point out it was wrong, and imply that all advice given off observational studies is dangerous. It's not true.
And I agree with you. But there is one thing you might not yet grasp.
double blind studies are one level above other type of studies it's like the super study. And I never said not to trust any opther study, I said, double blind study is more accurate. So if a double blind study disagree with an observational study, the observational one is wrong. It's as simple as that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by truthlover, posted 02-03-2007 12:47 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 11:32 AM Kader has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 216 of 279 (382597)
02-05-2007 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Kader
02-05-2007 9:49 AM


Re: double blind studies and other studies
As for the 100% wrong, I don't know wher eyou get that. I'm just trying to say that double blind study have shown us that we cannot trust our own experience. Why is it so hard to understand.
So each time you have to choose between personal experience and the result of a published double blind study...well I think I've said it enough now
I already know that if you have to choose between personal experience and the result of a published double blind study. That's never been at issue. I would never have disagreed with that, even before this whole thread started.
There is no % of being right. Just like fruits and vegies seemed to prevent cancer, estrogen seemed to be effective against heart disease.
And double blind studies shown us how WRONG we were.
They showed us we were wrong in that instance. They didn't show, imply, or even address whether there was a chance the estrogen recommendation was likely to be correct.
Based on the other info, it might have been entirely reasonable for the estrogen recommendation to be made. Maybe the other info (observational studies and reasoning, according to your article) allow us an 80% likelihood that the estrogen recommendation was correct.
Right now, in hindsight, there is zero chance. The question is not "what do you do after you've done double blind studies and answered your question beyond a reasonable doubt"? The question is, "What do you do before you have your question answered, when all you've got is whatever small or large amount of info you have?"
But there is one thing you might not yet grasp.
double blind studies are one level above other type of studies it's like the super study.
I do grasp that, and if you had pointed me to an article that said that, you'd have gotten a different response.
And I never said not to trust any opther study
The guy who wrote that article you referred to said it repeatedly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Kader, posted 02-05-2007 9:49 AM Kader has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 02-05-2007 11:37 AM truthlover has replied
 Message 222 by Kader, posted 02-05-2007 1:23 PM truthlover has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 217 of 279 (382598)
02-05-2007 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by truthlover
02-05-2007 11:32 AM


Re: double blind studies and other studies
The question is, "What do you do before you have your question answered, when all you've got is whatever small or large amount of info you have?"
IMO? Either learn to live with uncertainty, or recognize that if you choose to come to a conclusion at this point, you're just picking the answer you like best.
I, personally, think that's unlikely to be a legitimate path to truth. But I guess some may disagree (again, by jumping to the conclusion that they like best: that "there are other paths to truth.")

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 11:32 AM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 12:14 PM crashfrog has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 218 of 279 (382601)
02-05-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by nator
02-04-2007 10:04 PM


Re: Weighting success and failure
So, the point of living a "life of faith" is to "get results"?
...as in, "get special favors from God"?
This may not be what you mean but in the context of the ongoing discussion on the effect of prayer on healing, that is what your above statement seems to imply.
I don't understand the reason for this question. Of course the point of living a life of faith is to get results. That includes finding favor with God. Maybe that's all it includes, but I don't know how you define "favor with God."
Christianity assumes that much of what God commands is against our human nature. Thus there are commands to "deny yourself." Everyone knows that denying yourself is not easy, thus the effectiveness of a diet depends mostly on the willpower of the dieter, and some people can quit smoking and others seem unable to, etc., etc., etc.
Thus, at the very heart of New Testament Christianity is the teaching that Christ's Spirit provides power to live in a new way. Thus the reason for "ye must be born again."
Results means that that's really happening. Paul once said, "I am confident that he who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus." In the churches I used to attend, no one could be confident of that. Most people grew cold and bored or quit. Results means being in a life of faith where one can be confident, like Paul was, that people who begin this life grow in it.
Jesus said, "If you remain in me, and my words remains in you, you shall ask what you will and it shall be granted you." So results means getting your prayers answered.
I would include all that as obtaining favor with God. It seems to me that's the purpose of a life of faith in God. If I choose a life of faith, and most people's prayers are ignored, and people have no strength or willpower to continue, then I figure we're doing something wrong or this is all imaginary.
That was happening, so I opted for we're doing something wrong, and I kept looking for a way that worked. I found it. This one works.
Is there something strange about that? It seems the only wise way of faith there is to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by nator, posted 02-04-2007 10:04 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by nator, posted 02-05-2007 8:59 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 219 of 279 (382603)
02-05-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by nator
02-04-2007 9:43 PM


Re: bias, again
You are trying to find a technicality to get around a tautology, but that's impossible.
I don't think that's true.
Bias in can be greatly reduced, but if there is a human element present anywhere in any scientific investigation, there is probably some bias in there somewhere.
This is what I was saying. I have no problems with this. In fact, I've stated this repeatedly myself as a disagreement with "bias makes every conclusion invalid and all evidence worthless."
That's a pretty good response, but the evidence for prayer that we've been talking about doesn't even come close to the nutritional studies you are talking about. You are arguing with very flimsy anecdote and lots and lots of unchecked bias.
Well, that's your assessment of it. I'm not asking you to assess my stories differently than this.
I have been saying all along that IT'S POSSIBLE that evidence could exist on an individual basis, though purely from experience, that would make it reasonable for a person to believe or continue believing in God. I gave examples of what such experiences might be. I never suggested those examples were enough to conclude anything. I have no desire to try to describe the last 23 years, the things that have happened, and have everyone assess it.
But I have been arguing that after enough unlikely events, it becomes reasonable to think that those events are not chance, even if that judgment can't be conclusive.
And I don't think you've said anything to disagree with that. In fact, I don't know why, granting the nutrition studies as an example, that you don't agree with me.
Example: Kader directed me to an article on alternative medicine. He points out that even if an herb has a 1 in 10,000 chance of working, it might work on me when I use it, and boom, I'm a believer, but my belief is wrong. True enough.
However, I don't live alone. I live on 100 acres with 250 people of whom I know every first name and am friends with all of the adults. If we try an herb 300 times, and it works 250 times, I would know about it. And I would know that herb has a much better than 1 in 10,000 chance of working. My conclusion would be valid, and have almost zero chance of being wrong.
Now, on the other side, I could not know there's an 83.33% chance of it working. I couldn't even know there was a 50% chance of it working. But I could confidently assert that this herb works far more than .01 percent of the time.
I don't know it's not dangerous. I don't know that it's good to take. All I can know is it works pretty often. (Statistics would probably tell me that my range of error is small enough to justify believing it would work at least 50% of the time.)
I know I just gave another example and another set of reasoning. I don't believe I'm arguing anything different than this line of reasoning, though, and I believe this line of reasoning is valid and reliable.
You don't have to believe the evidence that there's divine intervention in our life is that great. I'm just asking you to admit that if we offered up 300 prayers for something that had a 1% chance of happening, and it happened 250 of those 300 times, that we would be justified in concluding that our prayer is related to those results, and that it would be reasonable not to dismiss prayer.
Nutritional scientists argue that such observation does not prove causation. True enough. It does however, establish relationship.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by nator, posted 02-04-2007 9:43 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 02-05-2007 9:07 PM truthlover has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 220 of 279 (382605)
02-05-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by crashfrog
02-05-2007 11:37 AM


Re: double blind studies and other studies
IMO? Either learn to live with uncertainty, or recognize that if you choose to come to a conclusion at this point, you're just picking the answer you like best.
I, personally, think that's unlikely to be a legitimate path to truth. But I guess some may disagree (again, by jumping to the conclusion that they like best: that "there are other paths to truth.")
I have learned to live with uncertainty.
My point, crash, is that the choice must be made. Sometimes, there's two paths in the road. The choice for which path is not always 50/50. You chose one of those paths. You chose to abandon the faith you were in? Did you just choose the path you liked best? I doubt it. You chose to give up the path you were on, because there was no evidence for that path.
I did, too. I gave up the same one you did, if I read your posts right. I just tried another one, besides unbelief. I did indeed jump to the conclusion I thought most worth trying, "There's another path that no one I know has tried. I have to try it before I give up."
That path is successful, based on the same sort of observations that made me think the other wasn't successful. I don't think abandoning that path for one of unbelief (and thus a completely different lifestyle) is a 50/50 shot and a decision to be made on the basis of which I prefer. I think it's a decision to be made on the basis of what looks most true to me, and the very same things that made me and you think that other path look not true have made me think this path looks true.
That's all I'm saying. Maybe everyone knows that's what I'm saying. It doesn't seem like it, though, so I'm answering your post and possibly beating a dead horse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by crashfrog, posted 02-05-2007 11:37 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by crashfrog, posted 02-05-2007 12:19 PM truthlover has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 221 of 279 (382606)
02-05-2007 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by truthlover
02-05-2007 12:14 PM


Re: double blind studies and other studies
I think it's a decision to be made on the basis of what looks most true to me, and the very same things that made me and you think that other path look not true have made me think this path looks true.
I guess, but I'm looking at your path, and I don't see it leading anywhere special. And you've chosen to give me an insight into your thought processes (which I posted about, as you'll recall) and it doesn't look like a process that leads to truth, to me.
I'm not here to tell you you're an idiot, or something; just that I could never be convinced by what seems to convince you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 12:14 PM truthlover has not replied

  
Kader
Member (Idle past 3727 days)
Posts: 156
Joined: 12-20-2006


Message 222 of 279 (382611)
02-05-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by truthlover
02-05-2007 11:32 AM


Re: double blind studies and other studies
I already know that if you have to choose between personal experience and the result of a published double blind study. That's never been at issue. I would never have disagreed with that, even before this whole thread started.
And when Double blind studies find none to very little correlation between people that are prayed for and people that arent.
When all the evidence (on a larger scale) show that christian (or any othe religious group) don't live longer then an atheist.
You choose to think that prayer have an effect.
So I think you DO disagree. Or if you don't you'r making a poor case for yourself

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 11:32 AM truthlover has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 223 of 279 (382722)
02-05-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by truthlover
02-05-2007 11:46 AM


Re: Weighting success and failure
quote:
I don't understand the reason for this question. Of course the point of living a life of faith is to get results. That includes finding favor with God. Maybe that's all it includes, but I don't know how you define "favor with God."
Well, I guess I'd like a more specific definition of how you define "favors from God."
I mean, when I was a believer I viewed the Bible as a source of guidence for how to get along with other people so that everybody's life gets better. I prayed for the wisdom to do the right thing, not so much for God to grant special favors.
If, however, you are defining "special favors from God" as healings in response to prayer, are those the "results" of faith of which you speak?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 11:46 AM truthlover has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 224 of 279 (382728)
02-05-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by truthlover
02-05-2007 12:04 PM


Re: bias, again
quote:
You don't have to believe the evidence that there's divine intervention in our life is that great. I'm just asking you to admit that if we offered up 300 prayers for something that had a 1% chance of happening, and it happened 250 of those 300 times, that we would be justified in concluding that our prayer is related to those results, and that it would be reasonable not to dismiss prayer.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
The problem is, you aren't currently including in your analysis the 50 times that prayer doesn't work. Not only aren't you counting those times, you actually have no idea how many times prayer does or doesn't work.
That is because you are not calculating the statistical chances of something happening (or not) in each instance.
Like I said, you haven't presented any data in any form that can allow anyone to make a rational determination of the efficacy of your prayer.
Not even remotely close.
Edited by nator, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by truthlover, posted 02-05-2007 12:04 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by truthlover, posted 02-06-2007 12:03 PM nator has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 225 of 279 (382928)
02-06-2007 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by nator
02-05-2007 9:07 PM


Re: bias, again
Schraf, I did define what I meant by favor with God/results, in post 218.
I agree, wholeheartedly.
What you were agreeing to is most of what I was asking anyone to agree to.
The problem is, you aren't currently including in your analysis the 50 times that prayer doesn't work. Not only aren't you counting those times, you actually have no idea how many times prayer does or doesn't work.
That is because you are not calculating the statistical chances of something happening (or not) in each instance.
I most certainly am including the times that prayer doesn't work or things happen that go against what I believe.
What I grant you, and have granted from the beginning, is that I have not computed the statistical odds, kept track of every instance of prayer (and Percy scoffed and said it would be a waste of time when I suggested it).
In fact, I...
haven't presented any data in any form that can allow anyone to make a rational determination of the efficacy of your prayer.
On the other hand, I haven't tried to. This is why I kept repeating things. I'm a real one step at a time person. I think through things step by step, not all in one general thing.
Here's how I see the questions:
1. Is there "data in any form that can allow someone to make a rational determination of the efficacy of prayer"?
This has been discussed from the beginning, and everyone's answer was yes (an answer I did not expect based on comments I've read).
2. What constitutes that sort of data?
We've been arguing about this back and forth in a manner that frustrated me a lot. I gave examples, they were replied to as though I was offering proof, and really I was asking (and wanting to argue about) what constitutes valid data.
I heard "only double blind studies." I disagreed with that, and at this point I feel like it's been admitted that it's not "only double blind studies," but I also feel like that point of view is still being argued.
3. Specifically, could there be (totally hypothetical, is it possible sort of question) a series of events after prayer so unlikely as to establish that prayer was related to it?
You said "I agree wholeheartedly" to this. I've mostly been asking just this question, because I felt like it would be a waste of time to discuss whether such evidence existed if it wasn't even agreed that there could be such evidence. You said, "I agree wholeheartedly," but as far as I know, Percy has never agreed to this.
4. Do I have any data that meets the criteria that you agreed wholeheartedly to?
I've never even addressed this question, because there's never been enough agreement to address it. Everyone's heard me like I've been addressing this question the whole time, which is why I kept repeating myself.
I think I do have data enough to justify choosing a path, but I can't back that up. You all have given valid reasons why even if I really did have 300 events with a 1% likelihood of happening, and they happened 250 times of those 300 in response to prayer, you couldn't trust my data, because of problems of bias.
I just think it would be stupid for me to see the pattern I see and ignore it.
Is that 1,2,3,4 any clearer, or was that a complete waste of everyone's time?
The problem is, you aren't currently including in your analysis the 50 times that prayer doesn't work. Not only aren't you counting those times, you actually have no idea how many times prayer does or doesn't work.
Why are you saying this? Are you saying it's unavoidable that I'm so biased I would never be able to notice how often prayer doesn't work? Or are you saying I'm purposely ignoring the times prayer doesn't work. The latter isn't true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by nator, posted 02-05-2007 9:07 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 02-06-2007 12:19 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 227 by iceage, posted 02-06-2007 12:56 PM truthlover has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024