(August 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 13, 2014 at 3:28 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: No, you must first make an observation (eye witness), and from there you form your hypothesis and test it, and eventually come to your conclusion. that's how the scientific method works.

The initial observation is the evidence needed to form a question.

get it?

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine. Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical. YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude. That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Wrong, for instance, the discovery of Neptune occurred in the 1821 when gravitational perturbation in the orbit of Uranus was observed and seen as evidence of an undiscovered planet. The actual planet wasn't observed till 1846.

(August 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims. Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation. Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

How many scientific articles do I have to post defining the "Placebo effect" as healing through faith?

(August 13, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Belief and faith are two different things. Now there isn't any point addressing the rest of what you said.

Now people can clearly see what it is I'm dealing with. Humor me though, how are they different?

(August 13, 2014 at 4:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine. Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical. YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude. That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Wrong, for instance, the discovery of Neptune occurred when gravitational perturbation in the orbit of Uranus was observed and seen as evidence of an undiscovered planet.

(August 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims. Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation. Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

How many scientific articles do I have to post defining the "Placebo effect" as healing through faith?

(August 13, 2014 at 2:31 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Belief and faith are two different things. Now there isn't any point addressing the rest of what you said.

Now people can clearly see what it is I'm dealing with. Humor me though, how are they different?

You have the order of things here very messed up. The observation was not "There is an undiscovered planet", the observation was the gravitational disturbance in the first place. The disturbance is the observation, not the evidence. The claim (or hypothesis) would then be that another planet exists, and further investigation reveals that yes, the disturbance is indeed caused by Neptune.

They didn't see the gravitational disturbance and suddenly have it revealed that it was Neptune that was causing it. The disturbance is an observation that was investigated, and until there was a hypothesis to test, it wasn't considered evidence for anything besides itself as a phenomenon.

And to your second point, your understanding of the placebo effect is about as flawed as your apparent understanding of the scientific method. Yes, the placebo effect exists. It's been tested and examined and measured in your-God-knows how many experiments. We know it happens. What we don't know is WHY it happens, or why it happens to some people and not others, why effects different people in different magnitudes. The placebo effect is no more "Faith" healing than it is "homeopathic" healing or "water cystal" healing. You don't get to slap on your ill-defined pseudoscientific 'faith' label bullshit on an unconcluded scientific question.

And again I quote from the Scientific American article Placebo Effect: A Cure in the Mind

http://web.as.uky.edu/statistics/users/r...oStudy.pdf

Quote: a patient’s expectations and beliefs can greatly affect the
course of an illness.

(August 13, 2014 at 4:27 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

---

(August 13, 2014 at 3:39 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You ask for the link to be repeated:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7BQKu0YP8Y

---

And again I quote from the Scientific American article Placebo Effect: A Cure in the Mind

http://web.as.uky.edu/statistics/users/r...oStudy.pdf

Quote: a patient’s expectations and beliefs can greatly affect the
course of an illness.

Aand again, that's an observation. Investigation is needed to determine why it happens, and that's what a lot of neuroscientists are doing.

And if you want to treat faith healing and placebos as one and the same, fine. But you can remove any trace of a god claim at the same time, because there's sure as fuck no evidence for any form of divine existence or intervention in that.

(August 13, 2014 at 4:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote: And if you want to treat faith healing and placebos as one and the same, fine. But you can remove any trace of a god claim at the same time, because there's sure as fuck no evidence for any form of divine existence or intervention in that.

Yup. He doesn't seem to get the difference between observing that the placebo effect exists, and then trying to figure out why it exists.

So even your cited article says that the cure is in the mind. I repeat my question: where is "God" in this picture?

(August 12, 2014 at 6:57 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 7, 2014 at 3:32 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Also doesn't hold any weight in scientific inquiry too. Recorded observations repeated over a given time period > one eyewitness testimony.

I was giving Thumpalumpacus time to provide a rebuttal, it's apparant that after almost a week he's got nothing.

Thumpalumpacus clearly asserted that faith healing doesn't exist. I posted an article from the Scientific American which would disagree.

Err, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood what the placebo effect actually is.

Evidence of a placebo in the absence of a physical effect from stimuli/treatment/drug x is actually fundamental evidence that there is no effect.

If you can replicate that placebo by giving someone saline, or a yellow pill (both of which have also been scientifically proven to induce a placebo) then what does that say for 'faith healing'?

Double blind testing in scientific trials is designed purely to factor out (or in) the placebo effect for this very reason.

How well do you think that faith healing would do when submitted to a double blind trial to determine its actual physical effect?

Or, if you object to that, how well do you think faith healing would do when done in tandem with another trial that offers a yellow pill or a saline injection into the patient that promises the same effect as the faith healing trial? You can even say that the injection or the pill has been blessed by god.

Care to hazard a guess?

---

(August 13, 2014 at 2:13 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I see you have conveniently ignored the definitions of the "placebo effect" being attributed to ones belief (faith). That would make "faith healing" (one being healed by their faith) and the "placebo effect" (one being healed by their faith) one and the same.

If God was doing the healing, then healing would be instantaneous, and that would be called a miracle, not faith healing.

The bolded is a lie and results for your misunderstanding of what a placebo actually is. As above, anyone can replicate a placebo with any given treatment if the patient believes that it will help them. You can call it 'faith healing' of fuzzyfakewumba. The result is the same. This is evidence against there being an actual effect from the treatment.

Also, to reverse your logic on you, please see this:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo

I'm sure I don't have to explain how this proves that you're wrong, do I? Or will it be countered with special pleading?

(August 13, 2014 at 4:26 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(August 13, 2014 at 4:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Wrong, for instance, the discovery of Neptune occurred when gravitational perturbation in the orbit of Uranus was observed and seen as evidence of an undiscovered planet.


How many scientific articles do I have to post defining the "Placebo effect" as healing through faith?


Now people can clearly see what it is I'm dealing with. Humor me though, how are they different?

You have the order of things here very messed up. The observation was not "There is an undiscovered planet", the observation was the gravitational disturbance in the first place. The disturbance is the observation, not the evidence. The claim (or hypothesis) would then be that another planet exists, and further investigation reveals that yes, the disturbance is indeed caused by Neptune.

They didn't see the gravitational disturbance and suddenly have it revealed that it was Neptune that was causing it. The disturbance is an observation that was investigated, and until there was a hypothesis to test, it wasn't considered evidence for anything besides itself as a phenomenon.

Evidence doesn't mean proof, it means that something is likely.

So therefore the gravitational disturbance in the orbit of Uranus would be the evidence of an undiscovered planet, not the proof. The hypothesis of there being an unknown planet, was made from the gravitational disturbances alone.

(August 13, 2014 at 4:26 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The placebo effect is no more "Faith" healing than it is "homeopathic" healing or "water cystal" healing. You don't get to slap on your ill-defined pseudoscientific 'faith' label bullshit on an unconcluded scientific question.

Again, not my definition. that is how science defines it.

from the first page in a google search
pla·ce·bo ef·fect
noun
a beneficial effect, produced by a placebo drug or treatment, that cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment

Still not seeing a god in there.