# Mike Shermer's SciAm Column = Skeptics' Glurge **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 2, 2006, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980 "2006-08-02T05:22:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/21 "2006-08-02T17:09:58Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines] Yes, incidentally, Sherm misrepresented the study. From the [Harvard Gazette](http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/04.06/05-prayer.html):So, there was, contrary to Sherm’s specific words, a “statistically significant difference.” Prayer made people do worse, and the researchers ended up struggling to find an explanation for _that_. [/quote] No there wasn’t. I don’t think you know what “statistically significant” means. There was a difference but the difference was not greater than what could be expected by random chance. That’s what “statistically significant” means. It doesn’t mean just any difference at all. The study itself used claimed the difference was not statistically significant, so you’re full of shit when you say that he misrepresented the study. He stated their exact conclusion. He was actually more gentle than he could have been. He could have made a big deal about the statistically _insignificant_ fact that in terms of raw numbers, those who knew they were prayed for did worse (as many religionists would have certainly done if the numbers were inverted…as you are trying to do yourself, for that matter) but Schermer chose to be fair and objective instead. The study yielded no statistically significant difference. That is a fact. ---
**Author:** ![spazattak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8e8cbc/32.png) [@spazattak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spazattak)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/22 "2006-08-02T17:15:05Z")
Compared to what our bodies are capable of surviving unassisted, yes. Consider we need to augment our bodies or climates to even survive a temperature change of 20-30 degrees F. “Substantial differences” are relative to our fragility, which is significant. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/23 "2006-08-02T17:18:56Z")
[QUOTE=Apos] Sorry Aeschines, but you’re wrong. [/quote] No, I’m not. The article was awful. Has anyone here yet stated s/he thought it was good? To repeat, I don’t disagree with everything Shermer is saying (or rather, trying to say). I believe in evolution. I don’t believe in ID. I think the scientific method is the way to go. But Shermer’s tone, his skeptic agitprop, and his self-satisfied stylings are disgusting. SciAm should be ashamed to have such sklurge in its pages. [quote] The distinction between knowledge before the modern scientific method and what we have today is decent enough to draw a telling distinction. Sure, our scientific understanding today vs. that of 1930 (including our sophistication in implementing the scientific method) is enough to draw a telling distinction. But that has everything to do with scientific progress and nothing to do with escaping an evolutionary tendency to err systematically. I agree that a mismatch between our evolved biology and modern living can cause problems (e.g., abundant food makes us fat), but Shermer never demonstrates a connection between our evolved biology and _false_ belief. > [@](#): > > While it’s true that people were capable of figuring stuff out prior to a scientific method being formally defined and widely accepted, and even many times getting things right, that doesn’t mean that the modern scientific method wasn’t necessary and didn’t radically change anything. No doubt, but it’s been an evolution of thought. And that evolution has had nothing to do with biological evolution. > [@](#): > > It’s nice that someone figured out that the earth was round and even about HOW round (though, of course, they did it by applying something very akin to the scientific method), but the idea didn’t spread or survive or continue to be confirmed so that it was widely understood or appreciated. There was no large and persistent body of checks and counter-checks: just some guys who wrote some books that some other people read, maybe. Some ideas certainly did spread; by the Middle Ages, most people in literate societies understood the earth is round. And the problem you cite seems to be one more of resources and technology than the scientific method per se. Until printing was invented, books were expensive, etc. > [@](#): > > And the fact is, Shermer is right, and you basically have to be in pure denial about history to doubt it: all sorts of beliefs with very little support or meaning at all survived and were even the basis for entire societies, all because there was little sense that all testible truth claims should be tested. “All testable truth claims should be tested”–is that what you meant to write? To your point, yeah, there are beliefs various people have held now for a long time that are false. Shermer provides no adequate examples that such beliefs come from a mismatch of evolved biology and the modern world. My personal view is that we evolved, eventually became conscious, and just started making up a bunch of shit to fill in the blanks. Some of those beliefs clashed wildly with Reality and were soon enough eliminated, some were correct and helped us along, and others may have been stupid but provided some type of benefit (religions aiding in social cohesion). > [@](#): > > All the examples he gives of this are perfectly valid. No, they sucked, as previously noted. > [@](#): > > Again, it’s nice that some people figured out that the earth wasn’t flat with a dome. But the reality is that this is what most people believed for a long long time, unimpeded, in part because there wasn’t commonly any sense in which it made sense to anyone to test or question recieved thinking. Cite? The Wikipedia sources say otherwise. > [@](#): > > That’s all different now. And while that doesn’t prevent us from being wrong, at least most of time we’re at least wrong for the right reasons (i.e. we figured things out as best we could, as opposed to simply taking mostly everything on faith). The ancient philosophers valued the principle of Reason, and this got them quite far sometimes. The modern scientific method is much more than a system of reasoning; it’s also a sociological system for scientists around the world to say, “Yes, we believe this,” to prevent fraud and accomplish other purposes not strictly related to reason and experiment. > [@](#): > > Trial and error works as a sort of proto-scientific method. Again, it wasn’t just trial and error; it was also Reason. > [@](#): > > But it’s not good enough, and pure trial and error without a large community of checks and challenges often ends up with all sorts of superstitious connections and elaborately wrong conclusions. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/24 "2006-08-02T18:03:15Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines] My take is this: Intentions _do_ make a difference, as the study showed. Further, it’s clear that someone involved with the experiment had to inform the patients of their status (or not, for 1/3 of the group). It’s quite possible that these people (whether they were atheists or overhopeful theists) could have twisted the intentionality of the prayers to affect the subjects negatively. [/quote] Are you seriously suggesting that the people doing the study might have told the patients that people were praying for them to do _worse_? Or am I misundnerstanding your use of the phrase “twisted the intentionality of the prayers”? > [@](#): > > I find the “raise in stress level” explanation to be a little _just so_ unless they were really bugging these people about how they were being prayed for. Well, clearly the patients _did_ have an increased stress level; they had higher levels of adrenaline in their blood. One suggestion I heard was that the stress came from the pressure they felt to recover, knowing people are praying for them. I don’t know about that, but it’s clear that they were stressed for _some_ reason. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/25 "2006-08-02T18:24:00Z")
One other possible explanation I saw was that those who were told they were being prayed for might have had an increased level of anxiety about how serious their condition was. “They’re praying for me? I must be in bad shape.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the difference only in whether they were _told_ about it? In other words, those who prayed for without knowing it did _not_ fare any worse than those who weren’t prayed for at all? If that’s the case than even the marginal difference which was found says nothing about prayer _per se_, but only how people respond to being _told_ about it. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/26 "2006-08-02T18:30:43Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] One other possible explanation I saw was that those who were told they were being prayed for might have had an increased level of anxiety about how serious their condition was. “They’re praying for me? I must be in bad shape.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the difference only in whether they were _told_ about it? In other words, those who prayed for without knowing it did _not_ fare any worse than those who weren’t prayed for at all? If that’s the case than even the marginal difference which was found says nothing about prayer _per se_, but only how people respond to being _told_ about it. [/QUOTE] You’re correct, that was the difference: whether they were told about it or not. Well, and of course there was a group that wasn’t prayed for (at least not in an organized way as part of the study). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/27 "2006-08-02T20:25:39Z")
I gather it’s generally agreed that this article of Shermer’s is simplified and not original or groundbreaking. It’s also vague enough that the OP feels this (among others) is a valid interpretation: > [@Aeschines](#): > > > [@Shermer](#): > > > > Folk astronomy, for example, told us that the world is flat, celestial bodies revolve around the earth, and the planets are wandering gods who determine our future. > > The flat earth canard!? According to Wikipedia, “The Earth’s circumference was measured around 240 BC by Eratosthenes,” who got very close to the correct figure. I suppose Columbus’s crew were afraid of falling over the edge–right, Mike? The impression I get is Shermer invoked a belief of the ancients, talking about it in the past tense. The OP then cites the first time the matter was addressed with inductive reasoning and assuming Shermer believes the ancient belief was still common over 1700 years later. I admit, it’s _possible_ to interpret the essay in this manner, simply because Shermer mentions flat-earth beliefs but didn’t go into extensive detail about exactly who held them and exactly when they were held. And since it is _possible_ (which should not be confused with reasonable), there isn’t really much of a debate here. Valid criticisms of the essay can be made; how these lead to personal attacks on Shermer is less clear. I suggest the OP try another deconstruction and pretend he’d never heard of Shermer before, analyzing the essay solely on its own merits. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/28 "2006-08-02T20:29:38Z")
Aeschines, I don’t really see that you’re saying much of anything. You concede nearly everything of substance, and whine that the article was oversimplified and not very good. Well, okay. It was a short article, and not everything everyone writes has to be the most exciting piece of literature ever. But the basic thrust is all pretty much dead on correct: there is a unified system of checking beliefs that is widely recognized in human societies today that didn’t really exist before. It’s radically changed how we understand facts about the world around us: the degree to which they are certain, the degree to which we are simply willing to accept people’s word about things. Wikipedia doesn’t “say otherwise.” Some people and some socities knew the world was round and eventually it became mostly common knowledge. And yet, quite a lot of people still didn’t know much about anything because they couldn’t read and didn’t go to school and if they could read or be educated about anything, it was the Bible, which plainly implies that the world is flat. THOSE pre-Greek societies most certainly thought it was flat, and that’s sort of the point. Virtually all of your argument is based on trying to call suprious attention to the straw man that there was no moment when we went from societies that recieved wisdom from authorities to societies that test and are highly critical of claims. But that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a transition, and that it wasn’t important and revolutionary. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/29 "2006-08-02T23:05:13Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines] No, I’m not. The article was awful. Has anyone here yet stated s/he thought it was good? [/quote] Well, for the record I’ll say it, because I mean it. It was a good article. My only literary criticism would be that the line about living in small groups with no understanding of a free market, etc. should have appeared elsewhere in the piece. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2006, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/30 "2006-08-02T23:37:08Z")
While I think the column rises a little above mere glurge, there are valid criticisms that can be made of it. Specifically, [QUOTE=Michael Shermer] before the rise of modern science we had only our folk intuitions to guide us. Folk astronomy, for example, told us that the world is flat, celestial bodies revolve around the earth, and the planets are wandering gods who determine our future. [/QUOTE] This way overstates the case. It, and the column as a whole, smacks of the old “The ancients were so ignorant and deluded, and we know so much more than they did, thanks to _Science_” attitude of **Aeschines** ’ “knowitallism of the kneejerk skeptic.” “Before the rise of modern science we had **only** our folk intuitions to guide us”? Galileo and Newton were the first ever to use logic, mathematics, or observation? As the OP points out, not everyone back then was as ignorant or accepting of “folk intuition” as the picture Shermer paints: it’s an established fact that there were people who did know that the world is round. > [@](#): > > Folk science gets it wrong because we evolved in a radically different environment. Maybe this has something to do with it, but I would have said that the reason folk science gets so much wrong is simply because it’s just the way things are that not everything is obvious, and what looks like the obvious explanation isn’t always the correct one. If this weren’t the case, the mystery novel would be a dead genre. I don’t think we necessarily need to drag evolution or different environments into it. > [@](#): > > Results showed that prayer itself had no statistically significant effect on recovery. Case closed. The OP is right to criticize the “case closed” wording! Shermer makes it look like he believes that, if a particular experiment finds no statistically significant effect, this proves that there is no effect. If he really believes that, his grasp of statistics is awfully shaky. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/31 "2006-08-03T00:05:48Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] The OP is right to criticize the “case closed” wording! [/QUOTE] Well, maybe, if we take Shermer’s flippancy as seriously as the OP. It’s a convenient avenue of attack and I’ve seen clearly sarcastic or ironic remarks misinterpreted (willfully on occasion, I expect) a lot around here. It gets to the point where any use of idioms risks gives someone already determined to be hostile more ammunition. And, no, I don’t _literally_ mean bullets or artillery shells or ordnance of any kind. Can’t be too careful. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/32 "2006-08-03T00:07:42Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines] Theoretical scientific work was done by all the ancient and medieval philosophers: Lucretius and atomic theory, etc. [/QUOTE] Greek atomic theory was philosophical, not scientific. It was one of several proposed explanations for the structure of matter. What is telling is that the Greeks had no way of distinguishing which of the explanations was correct except through philosophical argument. Greek atomic theory had no impact at all on modern atomic theory. When we look back, we notice that someone more or less got it right, and remark upon this, but they got it right for the wrong reasons. It is actually a great example of how a pre-scientific society operates, and why progress was slow. The measurment of the size of the earth, by the way, was as much a geometry problem as a scientific experiment. While the Greeks well knew the earth was round, it’s not clear that the writers of the NT knew. By the middle ages, though, everyone knew - the world is clearly round in Dante’s cosmology, for example, with the mountain of purgatory directly opposite from Jerusalem. Finally - unless you’ve ever written a monthly column, I’d advise you not to be so quick to criticize. They can’t all be gems. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/33 "2006-08-03T00:21:25Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Well, maybe, if we take Shermer’s flippancy as seriously as the OP. [/QUOTE] But I think the OP’s point is that such flippancy is characteristic of glurge. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/34 "2006-08-03T00:43:43Z")
[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink] But I think the OP’s point is that such flippancy is characteristic of glurge. [/QUOTE] Then shouldn’t he have made the effort to keep his reply relatively free of flippancy, particularly in light of: > [@Aeschines](#): > > Maybe I’m being picky, maybe I value accurate and truthful expression. I really would to see Aeschines take another whack at it and not try to be funny in the process. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/35 "2006-08-03T04:58:28Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I really would to see Aeschines take another whack at it and not try to be funny in the process. [/QUOTE] I’m always serious when I whack it. More tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/36 "2006-08-03T05:21:16Z")
[QUOTE=Aeschines] More tomorrow. [/QUOTE] If I may hazard a guess, a _serious_ deconstruction of Shermer’s essay will simply reveal some oversimplifications and perhaps inelegant turns of phrase. I’ve read it carefully and I don’t see any glaringly huge factual errors, so all that’s left are nitpicking and personal attacks. I’m hoping you can surprise me, though. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/37 "2006-08-03T18:26:51Z")
> [@Michael Shermer](#): > > Folk science leads us to trust anecdotes as data, such as illnesses being cured by assorted nostrums based solely on single-case examples. Equally powerful are anecdotes involving preternatural beings, compelling us to make causal inferences linking these nonmaterial entities to all manner of material events, illness being the most personal. Because people often re-cover from sickness naturally, whatever was done just before recovery receives the -credit, prayer being the most common. > > In this latter case, we have a recent scientific analysis of this ancient folk science supposition. The April issue of the American Heart Journal published a comprehensive study directed by Harvard Medical School cardiologist Herbert Benson on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery. The 1,802 patients were divided into three groups, two of which were prayed for by members of three religious congregations. Prayers began the night before the surgery and continued daily for two weeks after. Half the prayer recipients were told that they were being prayed for, whereas the other half were told that they might or might not receive prayers. Results showed that prayer itself had no statistically significant effect on recovery. Case closed. Let’s look at this in detail. When Shermer says “Case closed”, by all appearances he’s claiming that all possibility of prayer has been debunked. Yet the study was not a broad survey of all types of prayer, or at least I see no evidence that it was. From the Harvard Gazette articl, we know only that a group of strangers (unrelated to the patients) was praying for the patients. That’s a very vague descriptions, and the flawed methodology leaves open a number of questions. 1. We don’t know which deity they prayed to. Most deities worshiped by humans are somehwat self-centered, and thus wouldn’t listen to prayers directed at rival deities. Thus, if the praying strangers in the study prayed only to Jesus, it proves nothing about the prayer-granting capacities of Allah, Zeus, the Hindu pantheon, Inca monkey-gods, etc… etc… If they were offering a generic prayers, a jealous God might have ignored it on the grounds that it wasn’t specific enough. Imagine if researchers gave tylenol to one group of cancer patients and a placebo to another group. After some months, they observe no difference in recovery rates, and conclude that all drgus are useless against cancer. That’s analagous to what’s going on with this study. 2. The study neglects the emotional aspects of prayers. From the Harvard Gazette: [quote] HARVARD GAZETTE ARCHIVES Benson Herbert Benson led a study to determine if prayers by congregations who did not know heart bypass patients would reduce the complications of surgery. They didn’t. In fact, some prayed-for patients fared worse than those who did not receive prayers. (Staff file photo Jon Chase/Harvard News Office) Prayers don’t help heart surgery patients Some fare worse when prayed for By William J. Cromie Harvard News Office Many - if not most - people believe that prayer will help you through a medical crisis such as heart bypass surgery. If a large group of people outside yourself, your family, and your friends add their prayers, that should be even more helpful, or so such reasoning goes. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/38 "2006-08-03T18:41:14Z")
I didn’t intend to make that last post without the following discussion: The attitude expressed in that final paragraph shows a serious misunderstanding of prayer. Most believers do not intend a one-for-one exchange of prayers for units of healing. Rather, they’re asking for a favor. Most religious folks presumably believe that prayers work only if the praying party genuinely believes in the deity in question, has a legitimate reason for making the request, and has a genuine and deep emotional attachment. Thus, prayers from family members would be expected greatly outweigh prayers from total strangers. Indeed, prayers from strangers might prove totally worthless even while prayers from family members completely changed the course of the recovery for the better. When I first read _Why People Believe Weird Things_, I though Shermer was a very intelligent man, but I was already sopmewhat put off by his sneering tone. Since then, I’ve come to realize that Shermer and his ilk are as much wrapped up in dogmatism as the folks they criticize, and this article is a fine example. Shermer clearly supports capitalism, a system based on this-for-that exchanges. That idea is so deeply ingrained in his head that he assumes prayers must also be based on such direct exchanges. Yet most people easily see that prayer wouldn’t work that way. Likewise since he’s convinced himself that reasoning based on emotions is bad, he fails to see how the emotions can affect issues such as prayer. Reasoning without emotions works fine in cases such as drug testing, because drugs are just bundles of chemical without feelings or desires. There’s no such thing as a jealous aspirin. But the issue of prayer involves the possibility of conscious actors making decisions, so you can’t assume that it will proceed by pure logic. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/39 "2006-08-03T18:43:05Z")
If you mean by emotional power of prayer someone praying to recover and thus having a better chance of recovering, yes, the study did not consider this - but there is nothing particulary controversial about it either, and even I, as an atheist, would not be suprised if such a study showed that prayer in this context helped. I suspect the study was attempting to determine if knowledge that others were praying for you had an impact. It did, but not in the expected way. Shermer is correct that this result says nothing about the supernatural aspects of prayer, but could explain some of the effects of prayer as seen in the world. As for your first point, perhaps similar studies could be used for deity detection experiments - though it might be rather tricky rounding up enough believers in Odin. However the particular hypothesis was that prayer to God is efficacious, as claimed by believers. I doubt your average believer would get much solace in finding that prayer might work after all, but that their God doesn’t actually exist. As for the case being closed here, that is the claim that scientific study shows that prayer works. That study was dubious in itself, but now it has not been reproduced and in fact evidence against collected. Yeah, this is hyperbole, but this is a column, not a scientific paper. The case is closed in the sense that there is no point in doing another experiment unless someone who believes prayer works comes up with some solid evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980/40 "2006-08-03T19:07:27Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] I didn’t intend to make that last post without the following discussion: The attitude expressed in that final paragraph shows a serious misunderstanding of prayer. Most believers do not intend a one-for-one exchange of prayers for units of healing. Rather, they’re asking for a favor. Most religious folks presumably believe that prayers work only if the praying party genuinely believes in the deity in question, has a legitimate reason for making the request, and has a genuine and deep emotional attachment. Thus, prayers from family members would be expected greatly outweigh prayers from total strangers. Indeed, prayers from strangers might prove totally worthless even while prayers from family members completely changed the course of the recovery for the better. [/quote] The actions of the religious people I have observed don’t bear this out. Certainly many think that any prayers help. The study supposedly showing the power of prayer used strangers also. I believe those praying in this study were believers, right? I’d assume that an Episcopelian could pray for a Methodist without reaching the wrong god number. I also don’t understand why a stranger praying for someone in good faith wouldn’t count as much as a family member. The stranger is spending time and effort selflessly - the family member would get the loved one back if things went well. Is there any theological justification for your opinion, or is it just an excuse? > [@](#): > > When I first read _Why People Believe Weird Things_, I though Shermer was a very intelligent man, but I was already sopmewhat put off by his sneering tone. Since then, I’ve come to realize that Shermer and his ilk are as much wrapped up in dogmatism as the folks they criticize, and this article is a fine example. Shermer clearly supports capitalism, a system based on this-for-that exchanges. That idea is so deeply ingrained in his head that he assumes prayers must also be based on such direct exchanges. Yet most people easily see that prayer wouldn’t work that way. Likewise since he’s convinced himself that reasoning based on emotions is bad, he fails to see how the emotions can affect issues such as prayer. Reasoning without emotions works fine in cases such as drug testing, because drugs are just bundles of chemical without feelings or desires. There’s no such thing as a jealous aspirin. But the issue of prayer involves the possibility of conscious actors making decisions, so you can’t assume that it will proceed by pure logic. Since Shermer did not set up the experiment, you can hardly criticize its design because of his beliefs. Why prayer could possibly affect anything is itself confusing (I’m not talking about support demonstrated by prayer which is purely natural.) If god has a plan, praying won’t affect it, right? But that’s a problem for theists who claim prayer has some effect. I don’t understand your point about emotion. Emotion obviously has an impact in itself, but if you want to see if prayer has an impact, you must separate the results of prayer from this. The study was not to determine if a person surrounded by caring friends and family would get better than one not so surrounded. The person probably would - no surprise there. I don’t think it is feasible to try to forbid a loving family from praying - few if any families are 100% atheist. BTW, I’d expect recovery rates in different countries can be fully explained by the state of medicine in those countries. If Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, and Americans all get well at about the same rate when praying to different gods (if praying at all) this either shows God doesn’t care about your religion, or prayer has no supernatural impact. This would seem to roughly control for your concerns about emotion and family. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mike-shermers-sciam-column-skeptics-glurge/366980.md?page=3)