Random interesting link
You might have heard about the recent study showing that prayer ISN'T effective in healing (at least for coronary artery bypass surgery). I had, but I didn't hear the bit where the patients who knew they were being prayed for had MORE complications than patients who didn't know, or who weren't prayed for. Commentary on the American Heart Journal paper raises the very important point that we can't assume that prayer won't cause harm just because it's a non-traditional therapy; after all, any normal therapy would be tested for side effects. Read the editorial here: http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006484/fulltext?browse_volume=151&issue_key=TOC%40%40JOURNALSNOSUPP%40YMHJ%400151%400004&issue_preview=no&select1=no&select1=no&vol=
(American Heart Journal Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764.)
I've been thinking lately about 'what is science', due mainly to some conversations in the unitarian_jihad community (via whence this link comes). I think that it is science to test things like 'can prayer really heal', but only if done properly. That means large sample, double-blind clinical tests like this one, with the usual ethical considerations: not just finding out whether this therapy has benefits, but also whether it causes harm. If there are effects (either way), it IS science to try to find the reasons why there are effects. If there are no reasons within our current framework of theory and assumptions, it IS science to look for a new framework. Even if that means we eventually find that something we didn't want to believe (like, say, the existence of a higher power, or telepathy, or...) is actually the simplest explanation.
Some people are apparently annoyed at the entire existence of studies on prayer. While it is an ethical concern that time and money and patients not be wasted trialling interventions with little effect, I don't think that means that certain potential areas of research should be off-limits because they don't fit the currently accepted frameworks. People are going to pray for their loved ones anyway - it might be useful to know what effects this is likely to have, so the medical staff can deal with them!
This turned out a lot longer than I expected :o) Thoughts?
(American Heart Journal Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764.)
I've been thinking lately about 'what is science', due mainly to some conversations in the unitarian_jihad community (via whence this link comes). I think that it is science to test things like 'can prayer really heal', but only if done properly. That means large sample, double-blind clinical tests like this one, with the usual ethical considerations: not just finding out whether this therapy has benefits, but also whether it causes harm. If there are effects (either way), it IS science to try to find the reasons why there are effects. If there are no reasons within our current framework of theory and assumptions, it IS science to look for a new framework. Even if that means we eventually find that something we didn't want to believe (like, say, the existence of a higher power, or telepathy, or...) is actually the simplest explanation.
Some people are apparently annoyed at the entire existence of studies on prayer. While it is an ethical concern that time and money and patients not be wasted trialling interventions with little effect, I don't think that means that certain potential areas of research should be off-limits because they don't fit the currently accepted frameworks. People are going to pray for their loved ones anyway - it might be useful to know what effects this is likely to have, so the medical staff can deal with them!
This turned out a lot longer than I expected :o) Thoughts?