The powerlessness of prayer

[Radrook]

Since when has the reaching of justifiable logical inferences based on what is read become unacceptable?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Since when was it ever acceptable ?

 

[six7s]

Since it was written, of course!

Meh! These sceptics today... I ask ya!

 

[RandFan]

" Biblically those children were merely temporarily put to sleep until the resurrection. " Radrook - ( The slaying of the firstborn of Egypt in the Exodus myth. )

I'm guessing Radrook doesn't want to be put to sleep or have any of his loved ones put to sleep.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's an interesting case, regardless of the possible mechanism. It's not normal enough to be considered "understood." So this still leaves open the possibility that something we don't understand is going on. The age of donor and recipient is frequently young, so don't use that as your simplistic argument. I can find plenty of statistics to shoot that down.

This case interests me enough to do some additional research. Let's agree to disagree for now, because while anything can be explained as purely biological, the mind/body mechanism is itself very poorly understood, and prayer might help tilt the mechanism in favor of healing. It certainly can't hurt, and to suggest as much is to discount the mind/body mechanism, that we know exists and performs some function in healing.

The placebo effect is not quite the miracle you seem to think it is. We know people do better under certain circumstances than under others, such as cancer support groups improve cancer survival rates. We know a placebo can have an effect on pain perception.

None of these contributions to health and well being are on the level of miraculous, nor is prayer specifically unique in its benefits. In fact, prayer only works when the person being prayed for knows about it, suggesting there is nothing supernatural going on.

 

[fls]

The placebo effect is not quite the miracle you seem to think it is. We know people do better under certain circumstances than under others, such as cancer support groups improve cancer survival rates.

I'm not sure that's the case. Randomized, controlled studies designed to look at mortality have shown no difference:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/345/24/1719
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9885092?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10607980?dopt=Abstract

Heterogenous groups with a high mortality rate seem to show divergence in mortality rates fairly easily, independent of any differences in treatment. This issue came up in a homeopathy thread previously, where Badly Shaved Monkey created a spreadsheet that modelled the problem and found that statistically significant differences were returned about 50% of the time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3226857#post3226857

I mention this because, if it were a real effect (i.e. state of mind can prevent death to the extent reported by Spiegel (18 months)), it would be considered quite notable.

Linda

 

[Nick227]

Well, to be honest I don't know what your understanding of materialism is and I'm not sure what you mean by prior understanding of "placebo effect" so I don't know how to evaluate those two premises.

As for materialism and the placebo effect the way materialists understand it there is no opposition.

Please to tell us what your understanding of materialism is, what you believe is (was) our prior understanding of placebo why those would be in opposition.

OK, so you haven't been around the new-age scene much. Fair enough. The placebo effect was a term used to describe ameliorative reactions (either self-reported or independently reported) accredited to non-active substances, usually pills that looked like they contained something but didn't.

It usually, though not always, had a derisory undertone to it. To my mind the general inference was that the apparent benefit had been accrued from some "power of the mind" or "power of belief," and that this was not as good as an actual drug-effected change. This is my interpretation of the term and its general usage.

The problem, as I see it, is that in ascribing change to a mental interaction and infering that it is of a different quality from a physical interaction tends to reinforce dualism. It tends to imply that mental events are different from physical events. This problem with notions like "the placebo effect" has been noted by philosophers previously. Certainly John Searle has picked up on it, and how it infers dualism, in the past.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

No.

The mind is what the brain does. The placebo effect is understood from a an evolutionary and materialistic POV. The effect itself is viewed from an anthropological POV as simply an adaptation that can benefit people.

Please forgive my presumption and let me explain what the placebo effect is.

Humans evolved to be in one state during fighting (killing game, defending against invaders, etc) and another state when one is not fighting (this is a rough explanation).

Fight or Flight State: In this fight state the body focuses most of or all of the body's resources to being alert and to fight. The brain floods the body with chemicals like adreniline that are conducive to alertness, aggression and, well, fighting or running.

Non Fight or Flight State: Once the threat is gone the body changes the state to calm and relaxed and begins healing. Resources are diverted to injured areas and the chemical mix is changed to include powerful opiates that mitigate pain and increase a feeling of well being.

When a person is scared or worried he or she is in the Fight or Flight state and the body does not heal as rapidly. The chemicals that are in the body are not conducive to healing. When a person takes medicine it gives the person a reason to switch from a heightened worried state to a healing one directing the body to release endorphins and calming chemicals.

That's why it works. The only reason it is used in a derogatory fashion toward nonsense like homeopathic medicine is that it is obvious that homeopathic medicines work no better than sugar pills and those who sell such nonsense are lying and exploiting the placebo effect for financial gain.

No contradiction with materialism.

Randfan,

It would be great if you could actually sit down and read what I write prior to reacting to it rather like someone suffering one of the reactions you describe above.

I did not say the placebo effect was an absolute contradiction of materialism. I said there were problems with it.

This is I think the third time in one thread (maybe one page of a thread) where you do not actually read what is written. You seem to me so keen to respond you don't bother to actually get it clear what the writer is trying to say first. I am by no means perfect with things like this myself but it is a drag trying to communicate with someone who behaves like this.

Nick

 

[psy kick]

I can testify that prayer doesn't work. I prayed a lot, and someone sent me some money so we could live (we can't very well) and it didn't come.

 

[RandFan]

I mention this because, if it were a real effect (i.e. state of mind can prevent death to the extent reported by Spiegel (18 months)), it would be considered quite notable.

Linda

Linda,

I can't thank you enough for your corrections and I mean that with all sincerity. I had the same understanding as skeptigirl so I appreciate being corrected and it reminds me that I've got to tone down the authoritative tone in my posts as it simply isn't called for.

That said, I've a question for you. I'm a computer consultant for a non-profit cancer support group. One of the things they concentrate on is reducing stress to promote healing. Is that bunk? I ask because the administrator prides herself in avoiding psudeo-science and other bunk. That of course doesn't obviate her from falling into a trap though.

My thanks in advance and please forgive me if I'm simply failing to understand your point.

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

It usually, though not always, had a derisory undertone to it. To my mind the general inference was that the apparent benefit had been accrued from some "power of the mind" or "power of belief," and that this was not as good as an actual drug-effected change. This is my interpretation of the term and its general usage.

I'm not sure how much placebos, if at all, can effect underlying causes. Placebos are mostly, AIU, associated with reducing symptoms including mitigating pain and suffering. That is fls (Linda's point about healing).

Take for instance an open wound or infection. A placebo might make you feel better but not necessarily reduce the time it takes for the wound to heal or the infection to be eradicated from the body.

The problem, as I see it, is that in ascribing change to a mental interaction and infering that it is of a different quality from a physical interaction tends to reinforce dualism.

No.

It tends to imply that mental events are different from physical events.

No. Again, the mind is what the brain does. Placebo's don't require dualism to be explainable for the reasons I've outlined.

This problem with notions like "the placebo effect" has been noted by philosophers previously. Certainly John Searle has picked up on it, and how it infers dualism, in the past.

Please to provide evidence.

That said, if Searle has said it then Searle is wrong. Dead wrong.

Nothing in materialism obviates brain events (mind). The brain can be changed by chemicals (drugs). The brain has the capacity to release chemicals (including endorphin, an opioid).

That's it. That's all. Admittedly it's overly simplistic but it demonstrates clearly that no dualism is required.

Nick, I apologize for being rude but you really need to get a better handle on materialism vs dualism. You've got some misconceptions about mental events.

 

[RandFan]

This is I think the third time in one thread (maybe one page of a thread) where you do not actually read what is written. You seem to me so keen to respond you don't bother to actually get it clear what the writer is trying to say first. I am by no means perfect with things like this myself but it is a drag trying to communicate with someone who behaves like this.

Nick, like you I can come off sounding far more authoritative than I have a right to. For that I appologize. However, there is no conflict between placebo and materialism regardless of what you have written. I did read it BTW. It doesn't change the facts. I'm sorry. Placebo is understood from a materialist POV. There is no controversy here. If some dualists, ala Freindly's bannana, have tried to create some then that is their problem.

If you want to post some arguments I'll of course consider them.

 

[fls]

That said, I've a question for you. I'm a computer consultant for a non-profit cancer support group. One of the things they concentrate on is reducing stress to promote healing. Is that bunk? I ask because the administrator prides herself in avoiding psudeo-science and other bunk. That of course doesn't obviate her from falling into a trap though.

RandFan

I don't think it's psuedoscience and bunk. We have been able to show that state of mind and personality can have physiological effects, including effects on the immune system. However, the immune system is flexible and redundant, so effects may not translate into clinical differences. And there is evidence that there has to be something wrong with the system - such as age-related changes or diseases that affect regulation (e.g. auto-immune diseases) - in order for those effects to be seen. Also, the extent to which state of mind can be changed and the extent to which those changes can influence the overall picture would have to be known (I think research in this area is sparse and not promising, although I could be wrong because it's not an area I'm familiar with).

Without a measurable survival effect, one suspects that interventions may not be useful. However, I don't think the possibility of some useful clinical effects has been ruled-out, there is a solid theoretical basis from which to build, and other benefits can be obtained (well-being, change in behaviours) which justify making the attempt. At least, until we discover that stress actually improves clinical outcomes.

This paper gives an overview of the effects of stress on the immune system. It doesn't really address the issue of interventions, but it's still useful.
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bul1304601.pdf

Linda

 

[Nick227]

Nick, like you I can come off sounding far more authoritative than I have a right to. For that I appologize. However, there is no conflict between placebo and materialism regardless of what you have written. I did read it BTW. It doesn't change the facts. I'm sorry. Placebo is understood from a materialist POV. There is no controversy here. If some dualists, ala Freindly's bannana, have tried to create some then that is their problem.

If you want to post some arguments I'll of course consider them.

Randfan,

I have never claimed that materialism and the "placebo effect" were in total opposition, that one contradicted the other. I have merely stated, on numerous occasions, that one has to be careful with these things. If one should start to deride a reported healing because of the "placebo effect", and I'm not suggesting for a moment that you personally would do this, then one is most definitely edging towards dualism imo. Healing through drugs or healing through belief or healing through delusion - these are all physical processes.

Nick

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm not sure that's the case. Randomized, controlled studies designed to look at mortality have shown no difference:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/345/24/1719
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9885092?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10607980?dopt=Abstract

Heterogenous groups with a high mortality rate seem to show divergence in mortality rates fairly easily, independent of any differences in treatment. This issue came up in a homeopathy thread previously, where Badly Shaved Monkey created a spreadsheet that modelled the problem and found that statistically significant differences were returned about 50% of the time.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3226857#post3226857

I mention this because, if it were a real effect (i.e. state of mind can prevent death to the extent reported by Spiegel (18 months)), it would be considered quite notable.

Linda

Looks like I'll have to re-examine this issue.

 

[RandFan]

If one should start to deride a reported healing because of the "placebo effect" ... then one is most definitely edging towards dualism imo.

I have no basis for which to understand or agree with this but that's fine. I can let it go. If you can think of a way to explain why you believe this I would entertain it.

RandFan

 

[RandFan]

I don't think it's psuedoscience and bunk. We have been able to show that state of mind and personality can have physiological effects, including effects on the immune system. However, the immune system is flexible and redundant, so effects may not translate into clinical differences. And there is evidence that there has to be something wrong with the system - such as age-related changes or diseases that affect regulation (e.g. auto-immune diseases) - in order for those effects to be seen. Also, the extent to which state of mind can be changed and the extent to which those changes can influence the overall picture would have to be known (I think research in this area is sparse and not promising, although I could be wrong because it's not an area I'm familiar with).

Without a measurable survival effect, one suspects that interventions may not be useful. However, I don't think the possibility of some useful clinical effects has been ruled-out, there is a solid theoretical basis from which to build, and other benefits can be obtained (well-being, change in behaviours) which justify making the attempt. At least, until we discover that stress actually improves clinical outcomes.

This paper gives an overview of the effects of stress on the immune system. It doesn't really address the issue of interventions, but it's still useful.
http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/bul1304601.pdf

Linda

Thank you. I second skeptigirl's sentiments.

 

[Nick227]

I have no basis for which to understand or agree with this but that's fine. I can let it go. If you can think of a way to explain why you believe this I would entertain it.

RandFan

For me it seems as clear-cut as these kinds of things can be. I appreciate that it does not appear the same to you.

My recollection from a decade or so ago was that it was fairly common in some circles to demean the apparent ameliorative effects of placebo drugs, affirmations and similar as being "all in the mind." To me, this insinuates dualism, as it is implying that mental events and physical events are not the same. It is not definitely stating dualism, as we both agree, but to me it does infer it.

Nick

 

[SirPhilip]

This paper gives an overview of the effects of stress on the immune system. It doesn't really address the issue of interventions, but it's still useful.

A lucid response. Another factor, or directly related, is pollyannaism. Given that a positive or magical expectation reduces stress, it wouldn't surprise me it has a physiological function. Surprisingly, 'optimism without justification' is very healthy, if unrealistic.

 

[Senex]

OK, I'll admit I haven't read evey post in this thread yet I am posting. My point is that the Jews or any group who had no chance and died during the holocaust or during any other BS period who prayed fell under the people who pray demographic. No one who prayed harder than anyone else was saved.

Fast forward to what goes on today. People who have screwed up and drank or did drugs and now are in recovery think that god has answered their prayers. god evidently picks and chooses a demographic of wealthy alcohol/drug users to save over people who were being shoved in the ovens.

god is one sick mother...