(no subject)

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Was found on this page, though it seems to be gone now.

Comments

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

'This is not a scientific poll'.
Well, that's all right then. Polls are so wonderful: they expose the limitations of the democratic process, and render us all Canute, en masse.
In 1897 the General Assembly of Indiana defined Pi as being 4, with interesting results: however it didn't actually make Pi 4 even in Indiana.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I have to 'call' myself on this one, as they say in snooker. For the first time in ages I didn't check all my facts first....time to face the music.

Indiana didn't in the end pass the bill, and they never gave the value 4 to Pi.

For the real story on Indiana Pi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Damn.

[glenniebun.livejournal.com]

however it didn't actually make Pi 4 even in Indiana.

Indeed. Always with that messy reality, interfering with our laws...

[edgar-suit.livejournal.com]

Actually... the numbers are probably correct.

If you pray for rain, you probably have a 50/50 chance of rain happening. x.x

[desidono.livejournal.com]

I <3 your icon.

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

Unless someone else is praying against it.

[tubaboy81.livejournal.com]

Over-analysis: Are they asking whether you think praying for rain guarantees rain, or whether it has a non-trivial effect on the odds? Surely no one actually believes the former.

/over-analysis

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Apparently remote prayer does have a non-trivial effect on the odds, but the universe exhibits various 'strong-anthropic principle' tendancies. After all, we're here. Weird that....

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Apparently remote prayer does have a non-trivial effect on the odds

Cite the evidence?

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7327/1450

Now, I wonder how much this has to do with religion or how much it has to do with how strongly anthropic is the probablistic universe in which we live. But something seems to happen.

Perhaps we should get a 'secular remote prayer' experiment together: if it works for the credulous, there's no reason why it can't work for the rational.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

But something seems to happen.

That conclusion is a wishful leap (I dunno):

"There was no significant difference between the two groups with regards to the most clinically important outcome (mortality), and the median values varied little between prayer and non-prayer on both length of stay (7 and 8 days) and fever duration (2 days each)"

Doesn't look like much to me. Here's another study (http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/amhj/abstract.00000406-200604000-00041.htm;jsessionid=HCTHyQhNjDM2JqvLQHThxjq2MtJ09nJDj1lHQKwgm8XCWRRyrQw2!1600246195!181195629!8091!-1):

"Results: In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.



Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."


I'd say its horsepucky myself.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Your first quote doesn't appear in the BMJ article at all: I copy to here, and have italicised the relevant data:

BMJ 2001;323:1450-1451 ( 22-29 December )

Beyond science?
Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial
Leonard Leibovici, professor.

Department of Medicine, Beilinson Campus, Rabin Medical Center, Petah-Tiqva 49100, Israel

leibovic@post.tau.ac.il


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
References

Objective: To determine whether remote, retroactive intercessory prayer, said for a group of patients with a bloodstream infection, has an effect on outcomes.
Design: Double blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trial of a retroactive intervention.
Setting: University hospital.
Subjects: All 3393 adult patients whose bloodstream infection was detected at the hospital in 1990-6.
Intervention: In July 2000 patients were randomised to a control group and an intervention group. A remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was said for the well being and full recovery of the intervention group.
Main outcome measures: Mortality in hospital, length of stay in hospital, and duration of fever.
Results: Mortality was 28.1% (475/1691) in the intervention group and 30.2% (514/1702) in the control group (P for difference=0.4). Length of stay in hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively).
Conclusions: Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice.

This is just one study, and admittedly pretty much on the lunatic fringe, but unlike Einstein I'm sure you adopt the probablistic model of the universe as being the best we have at the moment: evidently this needs investigating further.

I'd prefer to be able to disbelieve it out of hand, but until disproven, I'll try to find rational explanations for the possibility of such madness being true.

My basic contention is however that it is not due to the direct intervention of 'God'; and I'm sure that is a position with which you would not disagree.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't be so sure.