designing a convincing prayer experiment

I'm sorry, Manfree, but I'm unable to determine the point behind what you're doing, if there is one. Your posting privileges are suspended. They can be restored by email to Admin explaining why you're doing what your doing, and if it makes sense I'll restore your posting privileges. Or you can send email saying that you'll at least try to improve the readability of your messages.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

In Message #5, RaSBeY says, "[I] hope we get some ideas and projects started."I do too, Stephen. How can I be of assistance before this thread goes down the tubes.I have a big collection of wildflower seeds I plan to reintroduce to the wetland behind our house this spring. I'll be starting seed beds inside over the next couple of months.What do you say I include at least one control group of Prairie Sunflowers over which we chant Native American prayer songs?Peace.

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]

Faith in God is not based on a total lack of evidence. On the other hand, it is based on a whole bunch of evidence, although none of this can really be proven. Sorta like evolution, lotsa things point to it, but no one can go back and time and witness it happening. Therefore, people have reason to doubt it happened. In the like manner, people doubt that God exists. But not because there is not evidence, but because they choose not to believe.

How will prayers be directed at the prayer group plants? Will the people praying be in close physical proximaty to the plants or remote like in some other prayer experiments? Do they have to know the "labels" of the plants or not?I'm interested in this because I think it is possible to have no one know which plants are in which group. The results can be spit out by a program without anyone breaking the grouping until after it is all finished and analysed.If people do not have to be in proximatity to the plants (like in the fertilization experiments) then the plants can be left mixed up. Numbered individually, grouped randomly by the computer into prayer and nonprayer groups. After the plants are evaluated the 'scores' are entered by number into the computer and the results are calculated. By protecting the computer's assignment the results don't have anyone to tamper with them. Tricky but possible.If they do have to be physically prayed over. Then the plants can be grouped, the numbers of a group entered into the computer, then numbers of the plants hidden and the prayer non-prayer assignment made by the computer. One group is labeled A and one B. The one chosen by the computer is prayed over.The plants are then mixed, evaluated the scores for each assigned by someone who doesn't know the number of the plant or which group it was in. Then, by someone else who doesn't know what the scores mean or the number mean, the scores and numbers are entered into the computer. The results are calculated.

---

Common sense isn't

Trixie,One of my trials with this proceeded this way.My skeptical friends took an egg carton, filled the pockets with potting soil, numbered them 1-12, and planted 6 seeds in each. I randomly chose six numbers from a random number table, from the 12 available, put copies of those numbers in a sealed envelope and sent it to them. They watered the seeds, while I prayed for the six random numbered pockets. When the seeds sprouted, they were to measure the results, for percentage sprouting, and growth rate, keeping the data by pocket separately. Then, we would come together, open the envelope, and analyze the data by the numbers there-in.In the event, as the time to come together drew near, my friend called and said something was all messed up, some pockets sprouted seeds and others didn't at all. So, he decided to throw it all out. I asked whether there was any association between the pockets that sprouted, and the numbers in the envelope, but he said that he lost the envelope. Nor was he interested in redoing the experiment. I enjoyed his company greatly in other matters, so I didn't push it.Loehr, if memory serves, took two jugs of water into a prayer meeting, where one was passed around and prayed for, the other set aside. They were labelled by those praying, A or B, at random, and the two jugs given to a third party. That person watered some trays of sprouting seeds with one jug, other trays with the other, not knowing which had been prayed for. Yet a fourth party came in to measure the trays of seedlings, not knowing which had been watered by which jug. (Hence, what I call double blind). The data were then analyzed by the third party grouping the tray figures by jug, and seeing if there was a difference. Those who had prayed then revealed which jug had been prayed for. I'm really not sure whether Loehr had any controls to keep fraud out of the picture--whether the third party had to tell which trays were to be watered by which jug in some sealed written statement before there was any watering, or data analysis. But, that ought to be done in any replication. And, of course, assigning trays to jugs ought to be random.Your point about negative data seems valid, so the experiment does not really threaten anyone's faith. A failed result simply does not refute the null hypothesis, but that could be because God didn't want to be tested. But, a statistically significant result, consistently achieved, (as seemed to be the case in Loehr's report) confirms God's presence, power, and willingness to be tested this way. I tend to think that prophecy ought to be brought in, so that experiments where some prophet says that they heard God say that He would honor experiment A, but not experiment B, would be good.In praying over why the Mantra II studies at Duke did not confirm earlier result (Mantra I) or those already published, I believe I heard Jehovah say that "Mantras are the devil's business, not Mine. Koenig is on record saying that prayer experiments are not about prayer, meaning that as he conducts them, they confirm nothing about Me. So, why should I answer the prayers in such an experiment?" Made sense to me.I tend to agree, that doing the experiment thinking about eating the sprouts, or not, would be interesting. There are lots of ways of varying the prayer, to see what sorts of prayers get answered more dramatically.I tend to be very careful separating faith from dogmatic opinionation, by the way. Faith, to me, comes from hearing, and is always based on some experience. To "only believe" seems to me to put too much on me. I am responsible for choosing to believe, and working to believe. But, my own belief always comes from some sort of action of God, an asked for gift, in some cases, or a consequence of some sort of experience. I seem functionally unable to make myself believe anything. Of course, by belief I mean a state of mind that makes astonishing things happen. I love the prayer, "I believe, help thou my unbelief." When I only say, "I believe, I believe!" nothing happens.Your thoughts?Stephen

Abshalom,You wonder, I would mostly pray that God would deliver us from evil as we do the experiment, keeping the devil out of the picture. But, clearly, we might learn something by praying that way, or not, and seeing if we get a different sort of result. The problem, of course, would be to keep the design blinded from the devil. Many think that this is possible, that with God's help, we can trick the devil into showing his hand. Others say that curses can be studied, that the devil can be made by God to do stuff that he might not want to do.But, if allowed to mess with the experiments, the devil might try to enhance the growth of the controls, so that it looks like prayer did nothing.We just have to pretend that we are counter-espionage agents, in figuring all this out.Stephen

Percy,In my reply to Trixie, I explain why I regarded Loehr's trials as double-blind, but I concede that I may not be using the term in the usual way. In any case, althought the studies were done in a kitchen, he did do his best to insure that he wasn't fooling himself. So can we.Stephen

Replication is required if you're being scientific. Loehr's experiments were never published in any peer-reviewed journal, so the possibility of replication doesn't even exist.Why can't such a great scientist as yourself use the term "double-blind" correctly, and why do you drop all scientific requirements for evidence and experimental results to instead accept anecdotal data?--Percy

Percy,You claim, without support, that .But, I and others who look at prayer studies, and honestly at the Bible, can easily demonstrate that this isn't true. If Jehovah is out there, and says that it isn't true, and shows how to blend the two, who are you to argue? As the creator of both faith and science, shouldn't He know what He did? As soon as He said,"prove Me now in this," He put the two together. So, either the faith realm doesn't exist at all, or it blends with science. And science can tell you whether it exists at all. So far, there is a lot of evidence that it does.You can accuse me of "bollixing" the discussion all you like. It only confirms one of the predictions Jehovah gave us in the Bible. That all those who love the truth and want to approach righteous living through Yeshua, will be persecuted, by having others say, unjustly, all manner of evil against them.And you haven't convinced me that I was wrong in my assessment, that something is seriously missing from your understanding of science.StephenBut do a google on hypothetico-deductive.

So given your statement:

quote:

---

I believe I heard Jehovah say that "Mantras are the devil's business, not Mine. Koenig is on record saying that prayer experiments are not about prayer, meaning that as he conducts them, they confirm nothing about Me. So, why should I answer the prayers in such an experiment?" Made sense to me.

---

it seems that you do not eccept the result of either MANTRA experiment as valid.Since the fertility experiment has also been brought into question due to lack of replication and unexplained oddities in the reported data it seems that you are rather short of useful results in scientific prayer studies - as opposed to anecdotes.

Stephen:Again, in Message #21, you give evidence that an advantage to growth is automatically built into the Loehr "kitchen table" experiments."Loehr, if memory serves, took two jugs of water into a prayer meeting, where one was passed around and prayed for, the other set aside."How many warm hands held the Jug "A" of water?How long did each person hold Jug "A" while praying?How much body heat was transferred into Jug "A" by the hands?Where was Jug "B" stored during all this praying?What were the individual water temps from each jug when the seeds were initially watered?Do you know that soil and water temps affect germination rates and growth rates, Stephen?If we structure an experiment, I sure hope it's better structured than Loehr's appears to have been structured.Peace.

Trixie,You say, Actually, that's pretty much where I'm at. Except that I currently believe that evolition is more plausible than evolution, that God, the devil, and man, as free-will beings, have artificially selected and genetically engineered organic living species, so that they are, in some sense, designed.I don't do, for myself, experiments with God anymore. Don't "test" Him. It is like getting married. Before the ceremony, I try to find out things about the gal, that will influence my decision to get hitched. Somebody comes around with a story that discredits them, I will hear and explore. But, once I make that decision, and make the commitment, I don't listen to anyone bad-talk my woman. What I need to know, she'll tell me.But, once upon a time, such experiments really helped me.Stephen

Abshalom,Re Loehr's study. I believe the jugs were prayed for a day or more before the watering. But, you are right. I also hope that we have people praying, doing mantra's, with and without the laying on of hands.Stephen

Paulk,I have a request into Koenig, asking if he has tried separating the Mantra data into subgroups based on what sort of prayer was prayed. We'll see.I also asked God why the unprayed for group in the fertility study were lower than normal. He said that when He heard that the study was going to be conducted, He fiddled with the randomization proceedure, so that couples that already had His favor got into the to-be-prayed-for group, to get more prayer, and a higher chance of success. He said, "While you guys think it's important to get this data, I'm more interested in couples getting babies that they know I sent, that they feel more responsible to raise the way I said to raise them. Everyone who knows about this study has the scriptures. If they want to believe, they can deal righteously with the law. Remember what My Son said. 'Even if one were to rise from the dead, they won't believe.'"(Rough translation.)So, there you have it.Stephen