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

Holmes,Just to be clear, how does MN deal with electrons?Stephen

Holmes,You are way too afraid of gullibility, my friend! Love believes all things, for the sake of testing anyway. Give any idea a break; the science will sort it all out.Now, I'm not sure how many of my posts on observable scientific and personal consequences of the Orthodox Theology hypothesis you have read, but even Gould thought (Rocks of Ages) that the scriptural story of Thomas (didn't want to be gullible), being allowed to experiment with the risen Yeshua, was pertinent. Then there is Malachi 3:10. "Prove me now in this." says the Lord. I was really hoping to get out of this theological "nonsense" (to me at the time--I was hoping to show up some Jesus-freak types who were harassing my evolution class) by doing the tithing experiment. That was 30 years ago. I did the experiment, and it worked. For the first time in my life, I had more dollars than I knew what to do with, and also enough of most everything else. To stop tithing and go back to the incessant hassle of enough money, and "the devourer" eating up my productivity, would just be crazy, to me. It was many months before I became convinced that it was Jehovah, not "the force" that was working, making this happen. But, I'm too cheap to stop tithing. It works to well.Anyway, the supernatural beings do manifest themselves, just as electrons. But, they are persons, not things, so the science is more psychology than physics. Not a big deal to H-D science. Does it matter so much to MN?Stephen

Holmes,How do you explain widespread religious belief?

Holmes,My answer is, "We are not alone. There are biological beings more intelligent than we are, operating in a part of the universe that we cannot sense much about, that have senses appropriate to where they live. We develope religions to cope with them."Given this reasonable, simple hypothesis, developed by analogy with every other biological species with which we are familiar, shouldn't we accept it purely on the basis of Occham's razor? We don't have to postulate the existence of any wierd psychological stuff driving people to the dramatic behavioral extremes that we see in religion. We pray when frightened for the same reasons earthworms extend their setae when their head is pinched. Or a bird alarm-screams when grabbed by a sharp-shinned hawk (a closer analogy--the alarm scream is probably to attract a bigger, unseen predator, to interrupt the sharpies kill.)What do you think?The varieties of religious experience is a puzzle. Maybe there is great species diversity in the spiritual world. Or maybe, it's because the spiritual parasites and we, the hosts, both have free will.I know that you have not experienced any evidence supporting the existence of such beings, but I have, and see an abundance of such data in the scientific literature. I see general confirmation in testing, despite flaws in the studies, little "running afoul" as you put it, and "close encounters" at a frequency and specificity just about what I would expect and see as reasonable. Earthworms have few encounters with Robins, for example. Until it's too late to make much of a report, usually. But not always. As long as one does science in the Kuhnian truth-mode, instead of the conventional paradigm conservation mode, science confirms this simple explanation.Go on, start tithing and see what happens. That's the test our symbiotic Partner in this truth search has set out.Stephen

Holmes,Well, since you tried tithing to "prove" God, according to Malachi 3:10, and got no response from God you are certainly free to consider it unlikely that the God, Jehovah is out there. It was His test, you did what He said to do in His materials and methods, and got a negative response. If it was me, and others reported success, I might check carefully to see that I followed the protocols well. But, until there is some way to make doing and reporting that experiment a public affair, it remains private science.I should note that, although I slip from time to time, I don't like the term "supernatural" since dark matter, for example, appears to be "natural," just invisible to us. Ditto with zero-point or vacuum energy. Darwin contrasted natural with artificial, random with willful, as in "natural selection" and "artificial selection." In this sense, creatures with free will would be "supernatural." Imposing free will over nature.Now, I see no reason so far that natural dark matter, weighty stuff that is beyond our senses, could not be inhabited by living beings, and some at least could have free will as we do. They would be "supernatural" in the above sense, but also "natural" enough in terms of what they are made of. Such beings could also use dark energy in their living processes. Thus, these higher beings are what others call "supernatural." But, they may be no more "supernatural" to us, than a bird is to an earthworm.I find the analogy of such beings contrasted with humans, and birds contrasted to earthworms quite apt. Suppose we genetically engineered earthworms so that they were able to do philosophy, and communicate with one another. But they retained all their other worm-like characteristics. Then they could have a forum like this one, discussing whether birds existed. One worm would argue that things like light and vision, and ears and sound might exist, and that there were creatures "out there" (out of and above the ground) that lived and moved with these senses. The other would argue that, since we worms can only taste and touch, the only things we can know, do science, about, would be tasted, touched entities. "Do you believe in birds?" one would ask. "Science cannot deal with the existence of birds!" And so on.But, I don't want to be "eaten" by the birds, be "devil's food" in human terms. And here is H-D science, telling me that I can study things I cannot sense with my senses, that are smarter than I, to even learn the natural history if devils, so I can better avoid them.Wanting to live, a lot, I learn the methods, practise them, find they work, and use them to get lots of grandchildren, health, scientific success, love, good food, sanity, adventure.Not to try to persuade you that you should do likewise. Only want you to know that the choice is available, and understanding of consequences and protocols, if you are interested.Stephen[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 01-14-2004]

Holmes,Methinks you protest too much!But, to reply as I have time tonight, Because successful science as attested by history never has definitive results. Or conclusions. That's what makes it better. It's a process. Just keep moving, testing, looking, re-searching. You'll get to the truth. Standard problem in scientific controversies. We go over together the protocols we used, to see why we got different results. In many cases, scientists visit in each other's labs, and do the experiments together. Really? You know of a published study, with protocols, on titheing? Name calling (pseudoscience? Give me a break!), as I judge debates, usually means that the debater knows they have lost their case, and is starting to react and whine. Physicists seem to have a few ideas. Plenty of that, through gravity, universe expansion, the fact that electrons don't fall into atomic nuclei, the Casimir effect.As for the inhabitants of dm/de, there are prayer studies, the PEAR studies, NDE's, theomatics (have you read his stuff yet? Why not?). They appear quite busy influencing our world. If MN is willing to hypothesize about the parts of the world that are beyond our senses, I'm all for it. But, the rules of H-D seem to work better, according to Bayes Theorem. Gods, as anyone knows, are very unpredictable, and the placating or calling forth of gods, very chancy. But birds only eat worms that stay out too late (the early bird, etc. etc.), and who hang around to close to the surface. I suppose some worm could notice this, and set up "moral" behavior accordingly. And there would be many the worm who would risk feeding above ground past sunrise, and get away with it for a while.But, to make the analogy complete, now we need a Dr. Dolittle, who can talk to the worms, who needs them to do His compost heap. He could do a mini-course in ornithology, and give the worms a radio transmitter, to call him when his compost heap worms were threatened by a bird wanting to feed there. He would then, of course, run out and scare off the birds. Worms that did not want to serve him, of course, were on their own. And maybe worms that insisted on staying on the surface past sunrise, in spite of the good Dr.'s warnings. Thus, even deaf and blind worms might behave pretty shrewdly with regard to birds. The worm-human analogy generates many predictions that have been tested and confirmed. But what do you mean by "accept ... over"? The Orthodox Theology hypothesis, as explained by the man-bird-worm analogy, has many confirmations, and is probably a better bet culturally than the other, there still is plenty of room for making predictions from the other and testing them. I do realize that I never gave the ultimate test for whether one scientific method was better than another. That is, are the ideas it approves of are successful in practise, in engineering or medicine?
Any scientific method which produces theories that do not work in practise is basically bad. By work, we mean that people put the idea to use, expecting certain outcomes, and those are the outcomes they get.But, I take it that getting eaten by demons would not be regarded by you as a bad thing, and that science that prevented that outcome would not therefore be good science. So, what makes science good for you?Stephen

Holmes,You say, confusing you and I. I want to include research into what you call "supernatural" causes, while retaining research into natural causese. You want to end research into causes that come from parts of the universe that you cannot sense (non-materialistic parts) where other intelligent beings might reside. I think dark matter, energy biology might be interesting and useful to explore. So, I choose a scientific method that lets me explore it, the H-D philosophy. H-D science was of course developed from NN science, and retains as many of its fruits as could be found. But, "compelling conclusions" smacks too much of dogmatic opinionation, scientific enemy #1. Meanwhile, the question of protocols and diligent adherence to them must always remain open. "I tried that." (without a materials and methods section to the report) is a very good reason to not publish a paper. No. My own personal experience is that where and how one tithes makes a huge difference in the result. It is a mystery why someone, either from an evangelical perspective, or a scientific perspective, hasn't tried to set up a tithing experiment, to "prove" God as He offers to be proven. According to Kuhn, the accepted methods of modern and historical science are a fraud, "defense of the faith" instead of "searching for the truth." Truth Seekers in science are few and far between. So, Yeshua was right once again. "Narrow is the gate (to truth), and few are they who find it." It is for this reason that we have a history satuarated with horror. "In my haste, I said that all men are liars" said the Psalmist. Nor could Diogenes find an honest man. Yes. Normally they say something to the effect that "We (physicists) are not ready to deal with these questions. One commented that dm/de were not necessary to the existence of a spiritual world inhabited by intelligent beings. A few have written books on the subject, though. Few seem to be reading the PEAR or other studies. I gave up on finding personal debates on the matter some time back, or I would have the names of the books handy. If you want me to do your research for you, to find this body of literature, let me know. I could probably get (back) there faster than you. It's not all that useful, actually. The physicists seem to have an inkling of what might be happening, but they are a long way from prayer experiments or tithing, basically psychology experiments. I addressed this back at the beginning of the thread. But, at this point, H-D science allows us to assess the plausibility of spiritual hypotheses, which, I guess, MN will not even attempt to consider. Also, H-D science appears to allow us to proceed with baby steps, and allows us to dissect out whatever truth there is to any hypothesis, as we work with it. Also, by putting all under Bayesian analysis, the whole process is quantified, normally a sign of progress in science. Also, in H-D science, there is a clear separation between understanding an idea and agreeing that it is plausible. Your consternation would never even be felt, if you were doing H-D science.
I was only saying that, as normally hypothesized, gods have certain properties. This does not defend the idea that they exist, only prepares one for the H-D testing of the hypothesis. The evidence that people are weird, which I accept, when used as an explanation that they have weird religious behaviors, is a circular argument. The question is, why are they weird? When we search for an animal model for weird behavior, what we find are things like "mad" dogs, which are "mad" because they are afflicted by another living beingsmaking them do weird things. Or, we find animals in zoos or cages, which are weird for that reason. (Hence, Desmond Morris' The Human Zoo). One of my Doctoral students, a parasitologist, said that there are other examples. A multi-host parasite with a catepillar-bird life cycle. The parasite makes the catepillar adopt weird behaviors so that it gets eater by the bird, that is the final host of the parasite.All these natural models would explain human weirdness as infections or imprisonment, by another malign living being. That the weirdness is so diverse only suggests a lot of different malign living beings with different agendas, or a very creative malign living being, who chooses to express its free will by varying its affect.That this behavior can be modelled in the nature we see is, I think, what Occham's razor is all about. We don't have to come up with very much new to explain the behavior.Note, by the way that the Sociobiologists explained religiosity by noting that humans had a fairly unusual, for mammals, passion for fathering, which in these modern times was frustrated by wars, economics, and drugs, that removed effective fathering from their lives. Hence, they invented God, the perfect father, to satisfy as a fantasy, this urge. They found, I believe, that for all the weird variations in religions, this common thread. Interesting hypothesis, don't you think? One I understand, but think is implausible, but still find useful. Demonstrating the power of H-D thinking. This is a dogmatic opinionation statement. H-D would say, "I personally ascribe a low plausibility to the theory presently offered by many to explain acupuncture, and will not be surprized if other predictions from that theory fail. Still, it is the best we have for now, so let's test it. Then we will see how it can be improved." Demon A spiritual (or dark matter) living being, with personality and free will, at war with other spiritual beings having a symbiotic relationship to humans. Hence, demons are malignant to humans. They are able to communicate with humans at conscious and subconscious levels, move electro-magnetic things (using either zero-point energy, or taking energy from surrounding air, making it colder.) They normally work by modifying human behavior, causing people to "go crazy", by creating fears, lies, deceptions, and other unrealistic mental states and emotions, leading to behaviors that are destructive, self-destructive. Being more powerful than humans, they cannot be studied scientifically by human without help from the symbiotic spiritual beings with whom they are at war (prayer). Read CS Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, and Pigs in the Parlor (forgot author) for an introduction to their natural history. No. No tigers in Kansas. But lots of crazy people, whose behavior is most easily explained by demons. But, I already have what is needed to keep myself more or less able to keep demons from doing much harm, to me, and to anyone who chooses to let me help them keep demon damage minimized.Did you bring up the physics stuff to excuse your staying ignorant of the references I pointed you too?Stephen

Hey, guys,this for Holmes.Abshalom notes, regarding demons as an explanation for madness, This sounds to me like I win the Occham's razor debate!But "escapist?" Putting people away sounds escapist to me. Healing them at great cost seems like integrity. And wrestling with demons to drive them out is no fun, in my experience. But it does work.Cheers.

Abshalom,You comment, passionately, I turned the corner on all this praying experimentally over my daughter who was slipping deeper and deeper into some sort of dysfunctional behavior patterns, deeply grievous to me. Up to that point, my prayer researches were fairly academic. But, in response to my prayers following as closely as possible the Biblical materials and methods (I was a newly trained, self-conscious scientist, remember), she was instantly and permanently healed, before my eyes. My bawling eyes, I might add. I got the first hug from her in a year, and the first enthusiastic hug in several years.I would be very, very surprized if a study comparing deliverance from demons by Biblically astute (which excludes most Christians, by the way) and authorized practitioners would not generate a much higher "cure" rate of willing afflicted subjects than your medical solutions. Some day such a study may be done. According to "Pigs in the Parlor" children would be the best subjects.Here's my rant. Most "scientists" are just using science as a hidey-hole from having to deal with God, and will block any effort to do or report such a study. They are the ones who don't care how much the afflicted suffer. Just don't take away their scientific blanket, under which they are hiding from the truth about the spiritual world!Appreciate your passion. I hate evil, too.Stephen

Moose and others,Here's a brief summary of H-D scientific methodology.The name is hypothetico-deductive.1. Something is observed that raises a question.2. The question is answered with a speculation, that is formed into an hypothesis, stated in terms (a mathematical model is best) that it may be used as the basis for logical deduction. ("If H is true, then we might predict P.")3. The hypothesis, combined normally with other reasonable assumptions, is used to generate a prediction, P, about something we can measure.4. The prediction is tested. If confirmed, there is some increase in the plausibility of the hypothesis. If rejected, there is a decrease in the plausibility of the hypothesis, and a new hypothesis is called for, that explains not only the original observation but the new data.5. This new hypothesis is used to deduce new predictions, which can be tested.Now, imbedded in all this is the Bayesian equation, applied to the plausibilities of a prediction, given the hypothesis is true, and to the plausibility of a hypothesis, given the prediction is true. This is thought to be a mathematical statement of common sense. Thus, if a hypothesis makes a prediction about an implausible event, it is strongly valided by confirmation of the prediction.The best method for getting implausible predictions is to use strong inference, where plausible alternative hypotheses are used to generate predictions about the same measurables. When these predictions contradict each other (Hyp A predicts x less than y, and Hyp B predicts y less than x), the predictions are both relatively implausible.An underlying assumption is that all hypotheses and predictions have plausibility greater than zero, and less than one. It can be proved that the plausibility of the hypothesis, continually modified as we deal with failure to confirm, will converge on one. Then it becomes useful, according to the law of succession. It may look quite different from the original hypothesis, of course. Normally, something of all hypotheses thought reasonable by someone ends up in the final product. The process is thus one of filtering out the truth from all thinking, all ideas.My favorite model use of H-D methodology was shown during the Velikovsky controversy. He wondered why Jupiter, a smallish celestial light, was assigned to the greatest of the Greek Gods, while Diana, a minor Goddess was assigned to the much brighter moon. He hypothesized that Jupiter was not a planet, but a captured minor sun existing now as a binary to our sun. He hypothesized that the capturing process took place several thousand years ago, while the Greeks were naming their gods, and Jupiter in those days was for a while a very big deal because it got very close to the earth. (Causing, amoung other things, the plagues that Moses brought on the Egyptians). Since, in greek mythology, Venus was born of Jupiter, Velikovsky predicted that venus was a new planet, unlike the older planets of our sun, and would be hot as new planets are supposed to be. He sent out questionaires to astronomers, asking them for the plausibility of this prediction (it was the fifties, before space probes), and they uniformly gave values below one chance in a thousand that Venus would be hot. The "Venus is a planet of our solar system" hypothesis predicted a slightly warmer than earth value.Velikovsky's original hypothesis is far-fetched, implausible a priori. But, after the Venus probes confirmed that it successfully predicted the hot temperatures found there, that plausibility was substantially increased. AAAS even held a symposium to discuss it in the late sixties. By Kuhn's rule, of course, it will be another 20 to 50 years before the old paragidm will fall, but Velikovsky hypothesis enjoyed many other spectacular predictive successes before being suppressed.Stephen[This message has been edited by Stephen ben Yeshua, 01-19-2004]

Holmes,Just to re-affirm my agenda here, I personally am convinced that the world is haunted, and that you are in danger. I am also convinced that I can not help you, unless you choose to be helped. I am supposing that you are in this forum because you want information that you may not already have (the various books I mentioned may have been unfamiliar to you), or my personal experience may provide a useful example, or my efforts to explain something complicated you are not understanding.Now, I find it interesting that we seem in general agreement that we have two methods, both of which might be profitably used. We agree that we must tie our science to measurable, "natural" phenomena. We agree that, in dealing with unmeasurable entities, we can form models in our minds about how we think these entities might be working, and deduce from those models measurable predictions. You insist on something called rigor, and understanding mechanisms, which I see as end products of the search, and not limitations to the process.You view the commonplace religious thinking as delusion of some sort, making delusion a very common part of the human experience. This delusion involves mis-interpreting sensory data. I agree with both tenets, but we seem to disagree about where such delusion comes from. I say pathogens, including in this term a pathogen that modifies behavior, keeping the host otherwise healthy. And, I am willing to entertain the hypothesis that these pathogens are made of "spiritual" stuff, or some sort of "dark matter." You see this as a retreat from simplicity, "un-necessary." You say, Now, H-D science has no such restrictions, and strong inference absolutely forbids this sort of limitation. Occham's razor is, as I was taught it, an "other things being equal." sort of rule. Given the great heap of data that imply a connection between dark matter and energy and human behavior, that are unexplained by any materialistic (electro-magnetic) hypotheses, not to mention the widespread interest in spiritual matters, it would be socially irresponsible to not consider these hypotheses. Arrogant, really, to call the vast majority of the human species deluded, while the few "materialists" have got it right. Case closed.But, I agree on another point. There's no point in continuing this if you aren't interested enough to explore, say, the journal of Scientific Exploration, or the PEAR work at Princeton. Since you seem to remain ignorant of these data, what are you here for? We have to explain the anomalous results presented there, and MN can't do it. Not according to the guys publishing the research, anyhow.But, it's been stimulating!Stephen

Percy,You ask, Replicate any of the published prayer experiments, with groups using "the Lord's prayer" with and without the last phrase "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one." Also, with "lead us into temptation, and deliver us into the hands of the evil one." Best start with the plant growth experiments, but it may not work unless the demons are already involved, as in sickness. I can't imagine them cooperating by destroying unprayed for plants, even though invited to do so. They still have free will, and are shrewd enough not to expose themselves more than they have to. The first two protocols could be used over nursery schools, measuring contentions, crying, etc. My first experiments were with children fighting or not, as I prayed.But, remember, I was a scientist. I carefully studied what was needed to "pray aright." Tried to follow biblical protocols carefully. Brought in baptism authority, keeping of commandments, getting faith (asking and working for it), other authority issues, fasting. Anything I could find in the Bible that indicated an increase in power or right-ness in getting good angels to drive out bad angels. The persons involved in the studies do not appear to be lying, have a measure of authority and oversight in their programs, and have produced statistically significant results that are so far impractical. Their results must be accounted for by any good ontological model of the world. They confirm, actually, the biblical notion of timelessness, eternity, in the spiritual realm. And, that the soul seems to work in dark matter and energy, since all efforts to block electromagnetic involvement in the transmissions fail.But they neglect the idea that this part of the universe might be inhabited by "haunts" and Gods. They ought to be doing studies comparing results that are pure humanism, with those that deal with spiritual beings.Epistemologically, the failure to find a practical application is not a strong reason to question validity, nor are "feelings." But, I agree that by themselves, we are left scratching our heads and shrugging our shoulders. You have to put these into the broad array of other studies, Panin, Washburn's Theomatics, Bible Codes, prayer studies, studies on historical patterns, collections of anecdotes, impact of art, anthropology, quantum physics, Bell inequality, dark matter and energy. Plus, of course, humility. We all should be saying, "Somebody's wrong here. Let me not exclude the possibility that it might be me. What will it take to get me to change my mind?"Stephen

Percy,You note, which validates them as paradigm shifting research, according to Kuhn, and the rest of the history of science. Less than one scientist in 1000 is honestly looking for the truth, and since they control the power, they suppress anything that they don't like. You have to go with the data, not popular opinion. Not so. If I hypothesized that quetzal's exist in a land called Quatemala, and then showed that that land actually existed, we would have some more hope of confirming the idea that quetzal's actually exist as well. Demons are supposed to live in the same sort of place that our souls go to, or operate in. When we see evidence (and we do, plenty!)that our souls actually operate in this kind of place, it raises the likelihood that demons will be found as well. Over 50% of medical schools now have classes teaching doctors how to ask their patients if they want prayer included in their treatment. The stupidity of insurance companies baffles me. The data on nutrition and vitamins are so compelling, and that on cholesterol so ambiguous, yet insurance companies continue to base policies on the one and ignore the other. Proof that the world is haunted? Huh? If you pray, rightly, with "deliver us from the evil one." and also without that statement, and get an 8% reduction in illness from the first prayer, but only a 3% reduction with the second, this confirms that demons exist. If demons ("the evil one") are/is not out there, the prayer would be meaningless and would make no difference. If they are, and God responds (as He promises to do if we pray aright) by driving them away, the group who got that petition will recover much faster. Different outcomes, depending on whether or not demons exist. Yeah, I keep imagining I am addressing an audience that cares about trustworthy authority. I should know better, given the casual, non-professional way evidence is thrown around here. You must be talking about the PEAR studies. And, your expression "religious beliefs" puzzles me. My religious beliefs are that I must care for widows and orphans when I find them troubled, and must keep myself unstained by the stuff in the world that makes people do the bad things they do. But we are talking about the most scientifically plausible ontological view of the world, whether it contains demons, Gods, heaven, hell, etc. PEAR studies indicate that there is dark matter and energy out there, full of information, that organic living beings can relate to this somehow. This place is timeless, spaceless, according to their results. Great habitat for demons and angels, don't you think? But, to go looking for them, well, there's a different expedition. Of course, I have gone looking, as a scientist, fully trained, authorized and committed to resisting the natural human condition of self-delusion, denial, rationalization, and wishful thinking. You don't have to take advantage of my report that they are out there. But, you and yours did pay for my education, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. So, just want to give you as much of a break as you want to have.Stephen

Holmes,In response to, I checked into MrHambres' discussion of MN, and see that H-D science is a subset of HN, with a particular set of methods. Whoever taught you to talk or think this way was not your friend. Remember Yeshua's experience with the pigs and the demons, where they drove the pigs into the sea and drowned them. No, actually. Fill me in. "narrow is the gate, and few there are that find it." Jehovah has a habit of narrowing things down considerably, before expanding again. Very "evolutionary." Adam, Noah, Abraham, Yeshua. Yes. Every entry of data into the system must be accompanied by a materials and methods section. Mine's the Bible. What's yours? Not me. You must be hearing voices. Could it be Satan? Actually, these guys are mainstream scientists extremely nervous about what they are discovering, and bending over backwards to be sure that their science is as good as it gets.You know what to do to validate my experience. If you choose not to do it, you'll find all sorts of reasons, rationalizations, for your choice. That's original sin. It doesn't matter. It's the choice that matters. What am I supposed to do? I have gotten 7 natural and 6 adopted grandchildren from this philosophy. I get 3-400 citations a year from research I did 20 years ago. I've watched miracle after miracle take place, wonderful things. My students are international successes. I have friends who are laying their lives down for me. One of my biggest sources of discomfort is from eating too much, because the food set before me is soooo good. I pay no taxes. Lots of people thank me for helping them find richer lives. All from receiving, learning, the love of the truth. From paying the price to get the truth, by choice. I'm a living, intelligent being whose senses are well adapted to see things as they are, so I can be more biologically fit. I have way more of such fitness than I have any right to expect, given the outcome of the "controls" in my life experiment. That you or others throw out that you "tried that and it didn't work." What? Tried what? How? What was your method? Hey, things are good, but I can learn more, and make things better!Stephen

Percy,I take it that you have no professional training as a scientist. Or maybe those who trained you botched the job up. At least, both these hypotheses are amply confirmed by your curious response.But you ask, Same reasons doctors put their diploma on the wall of their consulting room, and lawyers bring their license into the courtroom. All checkable. Professional last name is Fretwell. Currently cited several hundred times a year on research published 25 years ago, two, maybe three "citation classics." How I understand science to work has been tested and confirmed, validated. Those looking for the truth will want to know this. They ask, "Oh yeah, Who says?" Authority does not contribute arguments to the discovery of the truth. It does contribute counsel, advice on important ideas to consider, and important information to look up. You say that there is no scientific evidence for spiritual beings, I say that you are wrong, and give references. All those who choose to love the truth will, if they have any reason to regard me as a trustworthy authority, will check out the references. All those who choose to defend their opinions will ignore and remain ignorant of this information. Yes. Like Diogenes, I look diligently for honest men and women, using certain criteria for making judgments. But even the crooks are useful. () remarks added, with quotes.Kuhn supports with historical data his disagreement with this statement, which you do not do. So, I'm going with Kuhn. These are ignorant remarks, below you, Percy. Do your homework! Of course it does, especially if, as was the case, it was suspected and hypothesized that, if germs were the problem, hand-washing would cure it. Like I say, you are only proving that your science education is sorely lacking. No wonder you believe in evolution. Now, 100 years later, they can. And only because those who put aside their skepticism on the matter researched it instead of discounting it out of hand. Prayer studies. You can do them yourself, and will if you love the truth. But won't if you love your opinions. Do them right, that is. I do not regard anything as religious beliefs unless the person holding them so identifies them. Hand washing is a religious duty to orthodox Jews, and a sound health practise to scientists studying microbes and disease. Baptism is a religious practise to Christians, and a part of the materials and methods in a prayer experiment to me.I hope this makes this issue more understandable.Stephen