# Are alternatives considered? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [January 30, 2011, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560 "2011-01-30T22:12:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/81 "2011-02-04T02:00:42Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I disagree completely. How so? Can you be more specific? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/82 "2011-02-04T02:04:13Z")
> [@BunnyTVS](#): > > I would say that if prayer _is_ beneficial in patient recovery is more of a proof that Jesus **isn’t** love. If he was then it wouldn’t matter if you prayed for someone or not. He would heal everyone equally. If prayer did produce an effect\* then it would seem to suggest that Jesus loves worship. If you want something good to happen get on your knees boy! > > \*a paper mentioned in a recent issue of Fortean Times conducted a double blind test on prayer and healing. They split the test patients into 4 groups. > > 1a: Patients recovering from heart surgery and being prayed for. > > 1b: Patients recovering from heart surgery and not being prayed for. > > 2a: Patients who _had already recovered_ from heart surgery and were being prayed for. > > 2b: Patients who _had already recovered_ from heart surgery and were not being prayed for. > > The patients names were split into the prayed for/not groups at random. Surprisingly (or not) those being prayed for recovered more quickly than was statistically likely, \* even if they had already recovered before the test took place\*. This could suggest that the power of prayer can travel through time. Or it could mean that an external factor hasn’t been counted. That is the complete opposite of the result I recall, but it may not be the same experiment. Or, well, Fortean Times-warp 🙂 Either way, it seems to confirm you could at least do an experiment, which others seem skeptical of. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/83 "2011-02-04T02:04:15Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Of course it is relevant,… Because it is possible that Jesus loves you, but that the additional effects of that love proposed by some are not valid, then you can’t use it to test for the love. You get that right? In addition, the proposed effects could be valid BUT due to the mysterious nature of Jesus, they may not be consistent according to human’s. In other words, they may appear random. > [@](#): > > …and of course I think you don’t understand how real science is done. I’m pretty good at the fake stuff, but the real stuff, man, it’s so, um, I don’t know…real. > [@](#): > > So let me ask you to describe how you would decide if a particular therapy is effective for a specific problem such as “depression” in a population. Your answer will clarify for me your understanding… You are incorrectly connecting two things that can’t really be connected. Jesus’ love and some additional effects of that love proposed by some people. Your response may be: “but the people that propose them connect them” and my response to that is: I don’t care what other things they may talk about, the only thing we are talking about is one simple question: How do you test whether Jesus loves you? If you have indirect observations of something that pertains to Jesus’ love (as opposed to the entirely separate topic of Jesus’ healing powers) that is also testable, then you might be onto something, let me know if you come up with it. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/84 "2011-02-04T02:08:25Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > But you’re doing it anyway? > > CMC fnord! No, at this point in this thread, I am just answering questions to the best of my ability from a variety of folks, the topics increasingly far removed from the original topic. But the quote refers to the other thread, the one that was moved from GQ to GD, and it is not a debate, mostly it is me asking questions of others. Thanks for reading! ETA: this thread might be better in GD or wherever, but I probably wouldn’t follow, and I might not last much longer here before I unsubscribe. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/85 "2011-02-04T02:26:25Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Because it is possible that Jesus loves you, but that the additional effects of that love proposed by some are not valid, then you can’t use it to test for the love. > > You get that right?[ Honestly, no. I might be overcaffeinated right now. Are you saying that if there are multiple effects that statistics can’t sort them out? If you mean something else, could you give an example? > [@](#): > > In addition, the proposed effects could be valid BUT due to the mysterious nature of Jesus, they may not be consistent according to human’s. In other words, they may appear random. Oh I am sure they do appear in both frequency and magnitude according to some unknown random distribution. Like I said upthread, there is an entire field of statistics and experimental design devoted to just this issue. Not undergrad stuff, but not super difficult either if that is what you are into. > [@](#): > > I’m pretty good at the fake stuff, but the real stuff, man, it’s so, um, I don’t know…real. That’s what I tossed alchemy into that list 🙂 > [@](#): > > You are incorrectly connecting two things that can’t really be connected. Jesus’ love and some additional effects of that love proposed by some people. So say you. Care to share why you think there are no statistical ways to bridge that problem, and why they are not used in pretty much every study you read about in the news regarding efficacy of a new drug or therapy? Look, I agree with you on the likely truth of the hypothesis probably. I am just saying that you can design exdperiments to test the hypothesis, and then refine it and test again, and soon enough you have a model. There is nothing different here than saying testing CBT is efficacious treatment for depressed kids. The therapy is talk, the outcome is fuzzy, and there are other factors, sociological, medical, drugs, etc. that need to be sorted out. But otherwise, the prayer experiment is the same pretty much. > [@](#): > > Your response may be: “but the people that propose them connect them” > and my response to that is: I don’t care what other things they may talk about, the only thing we are talking about is one simple question: > How do you test whether Jesus loves you? I give you my summary. I do suggest you are asking for the details of graduate level experimental design and statistics, and while I could provide a lot of that, I don’t intend to. Wikipedia could probably give you a good start based on some terms I have used if you are interested though. > [@](#): > > If you have indirect observations of something that pertains to Jesus’ love (as opposed to the entirely separate topic of Jesus’ healing powers) that is also testable, then you might be onto something, let me know if you come up with it. Well, sports is one example where one could design an experiment and collect data and do the analysis. Pretty much any endeavor where people say Jesus makes a difference - some ministers say “wealth will come” I think, or stuff like that. Employment, hitting the lottery, marriageability, I don’t know, the list is endless probably. If some people say Jesus makes a difference, and clearly they do, and the outcome can be measured, I don’t see why well known experimental and statistical techniques couldn’t give a solid estimate of the “Jesus effect” (for lack of a better term) over a series of experiments (among other effects). Real science works with imprecision all the time, this doesn’t strike me as impossible at all. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/86 "2011-02-04T02:49:51Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Honestly, no. I might be overcaffeinated right now. Are you saying that if there are multiple effects that statistics can’t sort them out? If you mean something else, could you give an example? Read this ------\> Jesus could love you AND AT THE SAME TIME have no healing power whatsoever You don’t know in advance whether Jesus has healing power, but you are trying to use that to determine if Jesus loves you. If you detect that there is no healing power, have you really determined anything related to Jesus’ love? NO, BECAUSE JESUS MAY HAVE ZERO HEALING POWERS. Note: The caps aren’t yelling, but bold didn’t see sufficient. > [@](#): > > So say you. Care to share why you think there are no statistical ways to bridge that problem, Are there statistical ways to link Jesus height and the question of whether you can prove if Jesus loves you? What about his hair color? If you can’t link those, why do you think you can link some other attribute that we have zero knowledge as to whether it is related to Jesus love or not? > [@](#): > > I give you my summary. I do suggest you are asking for the details of graduate level experimental design and statistics, Oh, I think it’s beyond that level even. > [@](#): > > Well, sports is one example where one could design an experiment and collect data and do the analysis. Pretty much any endeavor where people say Jesus makes a difference - some ministers say “wealth will come” I think, or stuff like that. Employment, hitting the lottery, marriageability, I don’t know, the list is endless probably. > > If some people say Jesus makes a difference, and clearly they do, and the outcome can be measured, I don’t see why well known experimental and statistical techniques couldn’t give a solid estimate of the “Jesus effect” (for lack of a better term) over a series of experiments (among other effects). Great, go measure the “Jesus effect”. After you’ve done that, come back and see if you can test whether Jesus loves you. Are you seriously unable to separate the potential love of Jesus from other actions by Jesus like the “Jesus effect”? You can potentially have one without the other, they are not both required to exist at the same time. You keep talking about things other than testing whether Jesus loves you, which was your original claim. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/87 "2011-02-04T03:09:36Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Read this ------\> Jesus could love you AND AT THE SAME TIME have no healing power whatsoever > > You don’t know in advance whether Jesus has healing power, but you are trying to use that to determine if Jesus loves you. That is all correct, yes. You list possible effects, and some will be statistically significant and some won’t. That’s how it works. You could toss in “angle of the sun in the sky” and see what effect it has - likely none, then you have your answer if that was the question. Seriously, go read the literature. That’s how it works. It is not magic. > [@](#): > > If you detect that there is no healing power, have you really determined anything related to Jesus’ love? NO, BECAUSE JESUS MAY HAVE ZERO HEALING POWERS. > > Note: The caps aren’t yelling, but bold didn’t see sufficient. That is correct. The hypothesis is “Jesus has healing powers”. A possible out come of the test is that the hypothesis is false. Like I said, that’s how it works. Please GO SEE THE LITERATURE. That’s not yelling, but bold doesn’t seem sufficient 🙂 Are there statistical ways to link Jesus height and the question of whether you can prove if Jesus loves you? What about his hair color? If you can’t link those, why do you think you can link some other attribute that we have zero knowledge as to whether it is related to Jesus love or not? Oh, I think it’s beyond that level even. Great, go measure the “Jesus effect”. After you’ve done that, come back and see if you can test whether Jesus loves you. Are you seriously unable to separate the potential love of Jesus from other actions by Jesus like the “Jesus effect”? You can potentially have one without the other, they are not both required to exist at the same time. You keep talking about things other than testing whether Jesus loves you, which was your original claim. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/88 "2011-02-04T03:23:51Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > Are there statistical ways to link Jesus height and the question of whether you can prove if Jesus loves you? Sure, if you have the data on his height. Presumable being a constant, it would have no effect, but the statistical model allows for it. It’s not different than asking if the value of pi has an effect. > [@](#): > > What about his hair color? Again, it is persumably constant over the period of data collection, but if you have the data, nothing stops you from including it as a factor and seeing if it’s influence is statistically significant. I seem to recall reading a study long ago that indicated some sort of light green was the best calming color for a hospital to be painted, how to you think they did that? > [@](#): > > If you can’t link those, why do you think you can link some other attribute that we have zero knowledge as to whether it is related to Jesus love or not? dunno, because if you have the data, you can link them. Doesn’t make much sense a priori if they are constant across the time of the data collection, but you could put them in the model only to see them spit out at the first step and not significant if you really wanted to. > [@](#): > > Are you seriously unable to separate the potential love of Jesus from other actions by Jesus like the “Jesus effect”? You can potentially have one without the other, they are not both required to exist at the same time. Maybe this would be easier if you shared a bit about your background in statistics, particularly related to factor analysis or regressions. Are you open to learning that you CAN design experiments that return the related level of effects, each of which if they exist at all, have some sort of unknown random distribution across the trials, and that the outcome measures themselves have a random distribution? > [@](#): > > You keep talking about things other than testing whether Jesus loves you, which was your original claim. No, I am talking about a hypothetical experiment or series of experiments that would measure just that. That you don’t understand how such experiments are constructed and analyzed is not my fault. Go look it up instead of insisting it is not there. If you make an effort, I’d rather help you refine your search instead of this tit for tat. I am guessing you would prefer that too, because repeating yourself is not going to make you right. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/89 "2011-02-04T03:53:14Z")
> [@](#): > > That is correct. The hypothesis is “Jesus has healing powers”. A possible out come of the test is that the hypothesis is false. Like I said, that’s how it works. No. That’s not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is “Jesus loves you” (that’s the thing you insisted is testable) and you tried to prove/disprove based on whether prayer heals people. I don’t like analogies, but I think I’m forced to illustrate with this hypothetical yet equivalent scenario: not\_alice: I can prove you do not have an apple in your hand raftpeople: ok, try not-alice: My banana detector shows conclusively you do not have a banana in your hand, which proves you do not have an apple in your hand. raftpeople (in stunned silence): ? Note: in this scenario the “prove you do not have an apple” is synonymous with disprove “Jesus loves you”, and “prove you do not have a banana” is synonymous with disprove that “prayer has healing power, or score touchdowns, etc. etc.” ---
**Author:** ![TubaDiva](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tubadiva/32/507_2.png) [@TubaDiva](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TubaDiva)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2011, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560/90 "2011-02-04T04:03:19Z")
Since this is not Great Debates, I’m closing this thread. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-alternatives-considered/569560.md?page=4)