I call BS on that. You are misusing the maxim, to dodge the fact that you source doesn’t cut it.
No-no-no, it isn’t compelling, my little arthropod.
Except “in your opinion”. stress “opinion”.
And there aren’t more studies, because the idea don’t stand up.
After all, if prayer/meditation/magik worked, we’d be noticing skewed results in insurance actuary tables, now wouldn’t we my little 3/8 inch bolt retainer?
OK, let’s get one thing straight. I am neither an arthropod nor a bit of hardware and I am most decidedly not from Slobovia. OK, that’s more than one thing. I am a tropical fruit with a flame-retardant peel.
Also, if the idea don’t hold water, surely, there are studies out there that would find just that. Aren’t there? Hmmm?
Also, I didn’t claim that meditation was proven to work, I claimed that I had read some articles that cited studies that found that groups of meditators had a mellowing effect on the community at large, and managed to dig one up (actually, the one at the top of my cerebral cortex concerned a group of meditators on a university camus, but I couldn’t find that one. It does exist, though, really.)
Proof positive, no. Suggests that the matter bears further investigation, yes. That hey, maybe this is worth a try? Heck yeah.
And if a significantly reduced rate of people blowing themselves and each other up over which of the Big Three Middle Eastern Religions gets to own the real estate isn’t compelling, I don’t know what is.
So, are you going to help me with the search-engine thing or not?
Your fudging your statments, my little hot air engine regulatory commission member!
And no. I really really don’t think this is worth it. Sorry.
Seeing as I’m not making a lot of headway in convincing anyone here to keep their minds open, I will leave it at one parting thought:
Why should we adhere to the idea that everything is “false until proven true”? Why not: “we don’t know, and until we have some proof one way of another, we have no scientifically based opinion.”
Doesn’t that make more sense?
Not really. I still find it to be unreasonable to think of prayer as something that can be rigorously and adequately tested that will produce any verifiable evidence. Because of that, I cannot very well make the statement you have suggested.
How can there be proof for or against it, if it stands outside the realm of measurable evidence? I could say that I have no scientifically based opinion, but that would suggest that there could ever be scientific proof for or against prayer. That would be lending false connotations, something that should be avoided in any case.
Not really. The number of things that might be true is infinite. Maybe voodoo rituals really would make that town’s drug problem better! Maybe satanic rituals would! Maybe adjusting the the aura of everyone is town would do the trick.
Our time and our resources are finite. We can’t try every possible random solution to every problem. So we should concentrate our efforts on doing things we know will probably work.
Lots of people pray every day. If prayer really worked as people claim it would be easy to prove on an actuarial basis. Atheists would have a higher rate of automobile accidents, for example. Or maybe there would be a clear difference in infant mortality rates between different Christian denominations.
The fact that no one has come forward with such obvious actuarial data strongly suggests that prayer doesn’t work. Or if it does, it does in such rare cases as to be discounted as a useful tool for public policy.
I’m not sure why this particular position qualifies as being “close minded” … . :rolleyes:
So why does unknowable = false? That appears to be the statement you are making.
If I say there’s alien life on a small earth-size planet 432 billion miles from here, is that automatically “false” because you aren’t able to verify it? No, obviously not. It’s unknowable to us at this moment in time, and therefore we can’t make any claims about the veracity of the statement. How is this prayer issue different? Taking it further, it’s possible that we may never be able to verify whether there is life on that distant planet I speak of. Then again we might. It’s kinda hard to say at this stage, isn’t it? But irrespective of whether we’ll ever know, you cannot say my claim is false, since you really have no idea.
Just like that, right now we might not be able to tell whether prayer works. But it’s certainly possible that at some future date we will be able to. Just because no one on the Straight Dope message board in the year 2005 can think of a way to do it doesn’t mean it’s not possible. Just think historically about all the things that people thought were impossible (often it took major shifts in perspective for the pieces to come together). I don’t see why it’s such a stretch here either.
This may be true, but don’t confuse the practical with the abstract. I realize that this may be a subtle point I’m making, but not having the time and resources to check every possible avenue of action is not the same thing as saying that one of those particular ideas won’t work.
Because most of the things you can imagine that seem impossible … ACTUALLY ARE. It’s impossible to fly to the moon on the back of a swan. It’s impossible to swim in molten lava. It’s impossible to hold your breath for 24 hours.
The fact that the universe occasionally surprises us with amazing and unknown properties doesn’t mean that we should go around entertaining the possibility that any damn-fool thing that pops in our heads might be true. If someone proposes something that runs counter to both common sense and scientific knowledge the only reasonable position to take is: “Yeah, right. PROVE IT.” And until that proof is forthcoming, its perfectly reasonable to assume that the proposition is false.
But, as I’ve already pointed out, there’s plenty evidence that prayer doesn’t work. Insurance companies charge smokers higher rates. Why don’t they charge atheists higher rates?
The only reason that the case against prayer isn’t conclusive is that what constitutes “working” is ill-defined, making it impossible to construct a decent experiment. The supernaturalists have learned since the Enlightenment not to put forward their claims as empirically testable propositions lest some atheistic crank actually take them up on it … .
No.
Unknowable = Useless.
If you can’t know & quantify something, then you can’t do anything with it!
Nothing of importance, anyway.
I’m not religious or anything, but that seems like a sad way to go through life. I like to think there are lots of things out there that defy explanation. IMO, it’s naive to think that in this universe and whatever other universes are out there that humans on this planet could possibly be able to prove everything that they believe to be true.
As for the prayer thing, I don’t do it, but if anyone offers to pray for me I don’t tell them no. I can use whatever help I can get, and if their prayer somehow helps, then who am I to tell them no thanks?
I just had major surgery with complications, and survived it. I don’t think it was just my doctor who had a hand in making sure I came out ok. Maybe it takes seeing your life sort of flash before your eyes before you can see there’s something more. And no, I don’t have a cite for that.
They may defy explaination, they may exist.
But you still can’t do anything with them.
Uh, dude, look in the upper right hand corner of this post. See the location?
OK, now, if you don’t lay off the name calling, I’m gonna seriously start messin’ with your blood sugar levels.
But I am the friendliest of Og’s creatures, Oh Mango-ed One!
And the location conveys nothing. 
Hint: what cells are necessary to control your blood sugar level?
Wow, Bosda, I actually used to have a rather good opinion of your debating/informative styles. Now? I’m ready to vomit from all the false sweetness that is oozing from your posts in this thread. I’ve yet to read ANYTHING useful from you in here. Condescending is the term that springs to mind.
Chocolate, your post is reasonable.
However–
I’ve heard this argument before, many many times. Somebody makes an extraordinary claim, be it about UFOs, Bigfoot, God, or 9/11. We all chime in, pointing out that you need extraordinary proof to back extraordinary claims, & the claimant has merely provided whimsy. The claimant then always begins special pleading, coming up with excuses as to why their rubbish deserves special treatment, when nobody should get it. Their silly replies to discrediting facts always boil down to “Yeah, but what if it were true?” Just like a little kid, who won’t give up their make-belive games.
And it gets old!
Plan E: Sell musical instruments and uniforms to sell to start up a marching band in a small town in I-owa. Teach them to play by the “Think” System.
Very well said, Bosda. Let’s leave the onus on the tinfoil hat folks to rationally prove their points.
I’ve found some compelling evidence that prayer works! Perhaps the people of Ottawa should ask Eileen Hyde and Lynda Morgan for some advice on how to pray successfully.
Link (their experiment can be found about half way down the page)
Moving this from IMHO to Great Debates.