Christians. Could you be wrong?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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

So someone who doesn't believe in a god but rather, say, the power of their own mind is given drug 'x' which results in a placebo and the resolution of their given ailment.

Your conclusion, please?

[FatAndFaithless]

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.

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

Like the others, I still see no god or supernatural shit that definition. Again, you're assuming an explanation instead of investigating the effect (which is what scientists are doing). As I said before, we know the placebo effect is a phenomenon that happens, you don't get to toss in a god as an explanation.

[Bad Wolf]

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

How are they similar?

[Huggy Bear]

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?

How does this prove I'm wrong? It makes my point actually. If you believe the placebo with help you, the you get positive results, if you believe it will harm you, then you get negative results.

Not all that hard to figure out.

[FatAndFaithless]

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?

How does this prove I'm wrong? It makes my point actually. If you believe the placebo with help you, the you get positive results, if you believe it will harm you, then you get negative results.

Not all that hard to figure out.

None of that has anything to do with a god or faith or any other nebulous term you want to throw in. It's a scientific question that's being investigated. The placebo effect most certainly isn't "Faith healing" any more than the nocebo effect is "Faith harming".



EDIT: On that note, I'm out. Worktime. Have fun y'all.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

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?

How does this prove I'm wrong? It makes my point actually. If you believe the placebo with help you, the you get positive results, if you believe it will harm you, then you get negative results.

Not all that hard to figure out.

Now respond to the rest of my post in the context to which the above was posted or face the consequences of quoting me out of said context.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Looks like he tied his theory to an anchor.

[Huggy Bear]

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.

Like the others, I still see no god or supernatural shit that definition. Again, you're assuming an explanation instead of investigating the effect (which is what scientists are doing). As I said before, we know the placebo effect is a phenomenon that happens, you don't get to toss in a god as an explanation.

So someone who doesn't believe in a god but rather, say, the power of their own mind is given drug 'x' which results in a placebo and the resolution of their given ailment.

Your conclusion, please?

Maybe you guys should pay more attention, because way back on page 3 of this thread I stated, and I quote:

Also as a side note, faith has nothing to do with religion, anyone is capable of having faith, as documented by the "placebo effect".

[Cyberman]

So what exactly is your point here? We appear to be on the same page that the placebo effect, whatever the cause, is some kind of psycho-physiological response originating in the brain. Your article even says as much. And?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So what exactly is your point here? We appear to be on the same page that the placebo effect, whatever the cause, is some kind of psycho-physiological response originating in the brain. Your article even says as much. And?

He's talking about 'faith' in a god doing the healing being proven by placebo.

Which is of course a point made utterly redundant by the very definition of placebo.