The Power of Prayer.

[dlorde]

So ‘nullification’ is not what the ‘null’ in relation to ‘hypothesis’ means?

The null hypothesis is the default position that must be falsified to establish the hypothesis.

 

[Navigator]

The null hypothesis is the default position that must be falsified to establish the hypothesis.

Can you give me a simple example of this please?


In regard to the OP starting this thread, where do you see a hypothesis?

 

[dlorde]

Can you give me a simple example of this please?

In regard to the OP starting this thread, where do you see a hypothesis?

Never mind. I don't think there's much point dragging this out further.

If you want to learn the basics of the scientific method there is plenty of information online.

 

[Navigator]

In regard to the OP starting this thread, where do you see a hypothesis?

Never mind.

 

[JoeMorgue]

In regard to the OP starting this thread, where do you see a hypothesis?

That if you redefine words on the fly you can say anything you want and make it true.

 

[Navigator]

That if you redefine words on the fly you can say anything you want and make it true.

Redefining words has to occur due to language being something of a barrier. If there is genuine attempt at getting on the same page, definitions have to be conveyed and agreed upon.
I said that but I can’t ‘make it true’.

 

[xxjoelxxx]

prayer's great

 

[JaysonR]

Can you give me a simple example of this please?


In regard to the OP starting this thread, where do you see a hypothesis?

Let's say you wanted to test whether water is pouring into a cup.

The hypothesis would be that water is pouring into the cup and would describe the physical properties of what it would look like if water were pouring into a cup.

The null hypothesis would be a description of what it looks like if water was not pouring into the cup.

You then run a test of the conditions and compare the data against the null hypothesis to see if the data from the test correlates with the null hypothesis or contradicts the null hypothesis.

If your data contradicts the null hypothesis, and the data deviates less from your hypothesis than from the null hypothesis, then your hypothesis has reached its first empirical validation (needs independent validation by a second study replicating your test instructions to be fully validated).

There's gradients involved that aid in deciding how strong or weak of a conclusion you can make about your hypothesis, but this is the general idea.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

prayer's great

You've neglected the thread you started.

 

[Navigator]

Let's say you wanted to test whether water is pouring into a cup.

The hypothesis would be that water is pouring into the cup and would describe the physical properties of what it would look like if water were pouring into a cup.

The null hypothesis would be a description of what it looks like if water was not pouring into the cup.

You then run a test of the conditions and compare the data against the null hypothesis to see if the data from the test correlates with the null hypothesis or contradicts the null hypothesis.

If your data contradicts the null hypothesis, and the data deviates less from your hypothesis than from the null hypothesis, then your hypothesis has reached its first empirical validation (needs independent validation by a second study replicating your test instructions to be fully validated).

There's gradients involved that aid in deciding how strong or weak of a conclusion you can make about your hypothesis, but this is the general idea.

Well that helps as far as understanding null hypothesis. However, "In regard to the OP starting this thread, where do you see a hypothesis?"

 

[Pixel42]

Well that helps as far as understanding null hypothesis. However, "In regard to the OP starting this thread, where do you see a hypothesis?"

This

I have personally used it throughout the greater proportion of my life and have come to recognise the different ways it can be expressed – verbally, in the thoughts, through the emotions, and I have never been disappointed at the results although I can also say that the prayer may not have been answered in any specific way that I may have personally visualised, it does nonetheless show itself to be connected to my request and always shows itself to be a better – more well adjusted and useful – unfolding than any I may have imagined.

seems to be saying that subsequent events unfold differently, and better, if you make a request using prayer than if you don't, even though the request may not be specifically fulfilled. In that case your hypothesis is that events in your life are positively influenced by prayer.

The null hypothesis, which you therefore need to disprove in order to establish that your hypothesis is correct, is that events unfold in the same way whether you pray or not.

 

[Navigator]

That seems to be saying that subsequent events unfold differently, and better, if you make a request using prayer than if you don't, even though the request may not be specifically fulfilled.

Firstly Pixel, the ‘unfold differently and better’ has to do with the way I imagined things might have unfolded (in relation to the prayer.)
To clarify also, while I wrote this on the 10th July 2013 I was doing so in relation to the memory of that way I thought about prayer when I first started using it which was some 30+ years previous.

In that case your hypothesis is that events in your life are positively influenced by prayer.

My observation in relation to unfolding events and prayer is not hypothesis, any more than my experience hitting my thumb with a hammer could be considered hypothesis, as far as I can tell Pixel.
The difference being that you may understand what it is like to hit your thumb with a hammer if you experienced that, and equally not understand what it is like to have prayed and from that point on understood the events of your life unfolding to be connected to that prayer.
You would not conclude therefore that because your life unfolded without prayer, that your life would thus be an example of null hypothesis in relation to mine, would you? (I don’t know – that is why I ask.)

The null hypothesis, which you therefore need to disprove in order to establish that your hypothesis is correct, is that events unfold in the same way whether you pray or not.

This would require me to actually relive my life and this time NOT pray at all and see what the differences might be, and if there was no difference, then there is evidence that prayer had nothing to do with the process of the unfolding.

Since that is not possible to do, how can null hypothesis be asked for, and how can any part of my OP be regarded as hypothesis in the first place?

Please bear in mind I am not trying to be difficult, I am trying to understand.

The pouring of water into the cup – what water would look like pouring into a cup if water was not being poured into a cup.

The best answer I can think of is that it (the action of pouring water into a cup) would have to be mimed.

It would look like someone trying to suggest the action of pouring water into a cup when the cup, the jug and the water are not actually physically there.

 

[JaysonR]

Well that helps as far as understanding null hypothesis. However, "In regard to the OP starting this thread, where do you see a hypothesis?"

I would imagine it's something akin to what Pixel42 stated.

Though, to be fair (if the point is whether or not someone benefits from meditative and/or prayer type behaviors), that's a hypothesis that's already been investigated by Dr. Andrew Newberg in:
Effects of an 8-Week Meditation Program on Mood and Anxiety in Patients with Memory Loss

A Preliminary Study of the Acute Effects of Religious Ritual on Anxiety

(and other studies, but these two are probably enough)


Which conclude:

In this study, several neuropsychologic and neurophysiologic changes were observed, and the results suggest that the
intervention may be useful for some of the mood and quality-oflife issues that often are associated with cognitive decline. These
observations are consistent with a growing literature base of
other meditation practices such as mindfulness meditation,
which has been shown to reduce anxiety, depression, and
psychologic distress in a variety of populations
including those with chronic medical conditions.
Likewise, a pilot study of mantra meditation with veterans
found that a 5-week program significantly reduced symptoms
of stress and anxiety and improved feelings of spirituality and
well-being. Mantra meditation is similar to KK practice in that
it involves the repetition of certain words or phrases either out
loud or silently.5

Results: A significant reduction in anxiety was observed in subjects reciting the Rosary compared to the group of subjects watching the video.

If, on the other hand, the hypothesis is either:
A) that external events alter due to an individual's prayers
or
B) that the individual is able to solve problems through off-loading the worry through prayer or meditation and receive a solution through non-aware portions of problem solving in the brain

Then I don't think there's a case study of these ideas that proves them yet.
The first has been attempted quite a bit and never seen verification.
The second, to my knowledge, hasn't yet been tested, but really should be as it is entirely possible to test that hypothesis in a lab environment.

 

[Pixel42]

My observation in relation to unfolding events and prayer is not hypothesis, any more than my experience hitting my thumb with a hammer could be considered hypothesis, as far as I can tell Pixel.

Then you can't tell very far. It's very easy to interpret experiences incorrectly, as
a glance at the MDC subforum will soon tell you. People have interpreted their experiences as evidence of all sorts of paranormal phenomena, only to be proved wrong by careful testing. Your perception that events in your life have been influenced by prayer is just that - a perception. It might be right, it might be wrong. Your hypothesis is that it is right, but you have yet to test it.

You would not conclude therefore that because your life unfolded without prayer, that your life would thus be an example of null hypothesis in relation to mine, would you? (I don’t know – that is why I ask.)

No. The only way I could test your hypothesis would be to pray about some things and not others, and see if the ones I prayed about had better outcomes.

This would require me to actually relive my life and this time NOT pray at all and see what the differences might be, and if there was no difference, then there is evidence that prayer had nothing to do with the process of the unfolding.
Since that is not possible to do, how can null hypothesis be asked for, and how can any part of my OP be regarded as hypothesis in the first place?

Obviously you can't pray and not pray about the same thing, but you can pray and not pray about different things, having first noted what is the best outcome you can imagine, and see if the outcomes for ones you prayed about turn out even better than that. You could ask other people to do the same (perhaps some of the participants in this thread) in order to quickly get enough examples to see if prayer really did make a difference.

 

[Navigator]

Pixel – I am still not convinced that I have offered any sort of hypothesis, but I think it important that to test something one has to, as best as one is able – carry out tests which are as similar to the original description of events as possible. (Corresponding)

This would also include the period of time involved to ascertain that coincidence/chance has been removed from the process as an explanation.
In other words, the unfolding events would have to be recognisably in line with the ‘prayer request’ (or simple necessity) rather than doing a one hour experiment which might garner positive results which could be seen as an answer to prayer or could just as easily be explained away as mere coincidence/chance.

(30+ years is a long time.)

To do what you suggest –
“You could ask other people to do the same (perhaps some of the participants in this thread) in order to quickly get enough examples to see if prayer really did make a difference.”
- would not be near enough a corresponding test in which to come to any particular conclusion.


I did make the offer here in this thread, related to a specific period of time and involving a particular set of circumstances corresponding to my own:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9369125&postcount=311

If you read the whole thread you might be able to better understand what is being said in relation to ‘the power of prayer’ – and why I decided to create the thread...the information is therein. The last 3 paragraphs of the OP pretty much give the reason, and the last line is also 3 questions.

What is Prayer? My own answers on that are throughout the thread.
How come it works? Unknown – speculations but no hypothesis as yet.
Is it even necessarily 'wooish'? No. (unless you personally want to view it that way) my explanations on why it needn’t be regarded as wooish are also throughout the thread.

 

[Navigator]

People have interpreted their experiences as evidence of all sorts of paranormal phenomena, only to be proved wrong by careful testing.

I do not prescribe to the idea of the paranormal or supernatural as any kind of answer to why things happen, and say as much throughout the thread.

 

[Pixel42]

I do not prescribe to the idea of the paranormal or supernatural as any kind of answer to why things happen, and say as much throughout the thread.

I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to be fooled by our cognitive biases into believing something which isn't true. The evidence upon which you have based your conclusion that prayer works is no better than that which convinces dowsers that dowsing works, astrologers that astrology works and homeopaths that homeopathy works. The null hypothesis is that none of these things work, and it stands until objective evidence is produced to disprove it. Perceptions based on anecdotal evidence are wholly inadequate to demonstrate the reality of any of these phenomena.

Yes, producing objective evidence is challenging, but that's the challenge you have to accept if you want to prove to anyone - including yourself- that what you are claiming is true. Until you do, the likeliest explanation of your perception is that it is an artefact of your cognitive biases, as has been shown to be the case in every single case where a similar perception has been objectively tested.

 

[JaysonR]

I thought the cognative bias was the point of what Nav was saying makes it neurologically functional?

 

[Pixel42]

I thought the cognative bias was the point of what Nav was saying makes it neurologically functional?

I'm trying to cut through the waffle to identify a testable hypothesis. Either prayer makes a difference to how subsequent events unfold or it doesn't. Navigator seems to be claiming that it does (though I'm open to correction on that, as I find a lot of what he writes impenetrable) so that's his hypothesis. To test such an hypothesis is difficult, but not impossible.

 

[dlorde]

Though, to be fair (if the point is whether or not someone benefits from meditative and/or prayer type behaviors), that's a hypothesis that's already been investigated by Dr. Andrew Newberg in:
Effects of an 8-Week Meditation Program on Mood and Anxiety in Patients with Memory Loss

A Preliminary Study of the Acute Effects of Religious Ritual on Anxiety

I would be wary of confusing prayer with meditation. The study you quote was on mindfulness and mantra meditation, not prayer.