Using the scientific method to recognize the spirit

[mfbukowski]

On 3/3/2018 at 8:05 AM, CA Steve said:

Some interesting thoughts Sam, but the scientific measurements you are trying to take here, that of 'happiness or some other non-material blessing' are very subjective and can be influenced by  a lot a factors besides being blessed by specific answers from prayers. You don't really have a way to control for those other factors and therefore your results would be highly questionable. If you are really interested in measuring spiritual things you need to find something we commonly do involving the spirit, like maybe praying for the sick, and apply a double blind sort of test to the results of those prayers.

If you were really interested in showing atheist how wrong they are, a study like this might work, depending on the results of course.

Take a large population of patients being admitted to hospitals for the same reason. Something like strokes in men age 50-60. Split them up into at least 4 balanced groups. Submit the names for group #1 to the temple prayer rolls and let the patients know their names have been so submitted. Submit the names for group #2 to the temple prayer rolls but do not tell them. Don't submit the names of group #3, but tell them their names were submitted. And group #4 is the control group.

After all patients treatment courses have ended, have an independent medical professional(s) who do not know anything about your study, evaluate the results of all the patients in the test to see if there is any discernible difference in outcomes. The more times such a test was done and the larger the pool of participants the more reliable the results would be. 

 

And in fact, this is a good proof for faith healing. It has kind of been done if I am understanding you.  But to work the "spirit" has to be exercised by the person needing the healing- perhaps.

Science cannot explain it and so they call it the "placebo effect" and make up all kinds of silly explanations which are circular.

The facts are, if the patient BELIEVES that he will be healed, he can actually be healed by the belief itself

This is precisely also the way all religion works- the belief itself is actually , in a scientifically measurable way, producing positive result in the patient's life

Again- this is pure Alma 32.  "Exercise the belief, and it will bear sweet fruit in our lives"

This is also why historicity is irrelevant to the effects of belief in the BOM. 

No I am not saying that the BOM is "fake and only works in the mind if you believe in it"   What I AM saying is that THAT is the way atheistic science EXPLAINS, in their own atheistic paradigm, what is "real"

What IS real is that the spirit has power to heal and transform matter but science is not ready to use those words yet

It cracks me up to see the way they put this explanation:  "What Placebos REALLY Are" when in fact scientists by definition cannot discover what iit is really because by definition science does not examine such phenomena.

Quote

 

What Placebos Really Are

The placebo effect is related to the perceptions and expectations of the patient; if the substance is viewed as helpful, it can heal, but, if it is viewed as harmful, it can cause negative effects, which is known as the nocebo effect. In 1985, Irving Kirschhypothesized that placebo effects are produced by the self-fulfilling effects of response expectancies, in which the belief that one will feel different leads a person to actually feel different.[40] According to this theory, the belief that one has received an active treatment can produce the subjective changes thought to be produced by the real treatment. Placebos can act similarly through classical conditioning, wherein a placebo and an actual stimulus are used simultaneously until the placebo is associated with the effect from the actual stimulus.[41] Both conditioning and expectations play a role in placebo effect,[42] and make different kinds of contribution. Conditioning has a longer-lasting effect,[43] and can affect earlier stages of information processing.[44] Those that think that a treatment will work display a stronger placebo effect than those that do not, as evidenced by a study of acupuncture.[45][46]

A placebo presented as a stimulant will have this effect on heart rhythm and blood pressure, but when administered as a depressant, the opposite effect.[47] Perceived ergogenic aids can increase endurance,[48] speed[49] and weight-lifting ability,[50]leading to the question of whether placebos should be allowed in sport competition.[51] In addition, there are ethical and moral concerns related to their use and we must be cautious of policies and practices that exploit placebos to the detriment of athletes’ health and well-being.[52]

Because placebos are dependent upon perception and expectation, various factors that change the perception can increase the magnitude of the placebo response. For example, studies have found that the color and size of the placebo pill makes a difference, with "hot-colored" pills working better as stimulants while "cool-colored" pills work better as depressants. Capsules rather than tablets seem to be more effective, and size can make a difference.[53]One researcher has found that big pills increase the effect[54] while another has argued that the effect is dependent upon cultural background.[55]

Motivation may contribute to the placebo effect. The active goals of an individual changes their somatic experience by altering the detection and interpretation of expectation-congruent symptoms, and by changing the behavioral strategies a person pursues.[56][57] Motivation may link to the meaning through which people experience illness and treatment. Such meaning is derived from the culture in which they live and which informs them about the nature of illness and how it responds to treatment. Research into the placebo treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers shows that this varies widely with society.[24] The placebo effect in treating gastric ulcers is low in Brazil, higher in northern Europe (Denmark, Netherlands), and extremely high in Germany. However, the placebo effect in treating hypertension is lower in Germany than elsewhere.[58]

Though the placebo effect is typically associated with deception in order to invoke positive expectations, studies carried out by Harvard Medical School have suggested that placebos can work even without deception. In an attempt to implement placebos honestly, 80 patients suffering from IBS were divided into two groups, one of which receiving no treatment, while the other were provided with placebo pills. Though it was made clear the pills had no active ingredient, patients still reported adequate symptom relief.[59] Another similar study, in which patients suffering from migraines were given pills clearly labeled placebo, but still reported improvements of their symptoms.[60]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

The way one proves these phenomena is by finding what science CANNOT explain because science is intentionally atheistic.

And still we keep putting the cart before the horse looking to an atheistic methodology  to prove the existence of God.

Best wishes on that strategy. 

Yes, that is as ridiculous as it sounds but I see it every silly day of the silly week on this board.

Why no one seems to get it remains a major mystery to me.

It's the same as using Biblical archaeology to prove that our sins are forgiven.   Totally absurd.

And yet we still keep digging for Zarahemla.

Go figure.

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I  understand what you are saying and I agree that the realm of religion and faith can coexist with science as long as the two stay separate.  But that is not what SamTheLam is saying.  He wants to prove religion through science.  And as George Castanza would say, those are worlds colliding.

Oh yeah, agreed- see above.  It ain't gonna happen his way.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I  understand what you are saying and I agree that the realm of religion and faith can coexist with science as long as the two stay separate.  But that is not what SamTheLam is saying.  He wants to prove religion through science.  And as George Castanza would say, those are worlds colliding.

Actually they are paradigms or language games colliding but that oddly is a pretty good LDS usage to think of them as "worlds" since we often use that word to describe a particular context.  Understanding that God has created "worlds without end", D&C talks about truth being in "spheres" which I see as "worlds " as well as physical worlds if we want to think that way- of course what we know about physical worlds is one sphere of knowledge in itself, so both could be the case simultaneously. 

But I don't think you think that way usually

[pogi]

On 3/2/2018 at 11:36 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 Always keep trying and never giving up is the key for success.

First, that is a lot to ask someone.  Why should someone commit to a lifetime of testing and devotion to a hypothesis that might not be true (from their perspective)?  Think of how many different dieties and religions people believe in, should a person be expected to test each and every one, or just the Mormon version?

Also, how are you going to illiminate the potential for bias?  Are you going to include control groups in your study?

I appreciate your zeal, but a misguided zeal can cause more damage then good for the cause of faith.  Don’t “fight” atheism!  It won’t convert anyone.  You can’t convert anyone with science - that is simply a misguided understanding of both science and spirit.  Be a good Christian and love and serve your atheist neighbors.  Live the gospel and pray for your enemies and do good to those who despitefully use you.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Also, how are you going to illiminate the potential for bias?

I am not understanding your question. Could you give me one example please

[pogi]

14 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I am not understanding your question. Could you give me one example please

You always have to consider the potential influence of bias in any study.  For example, a person born into a Christian family with Christian neighbors, friends and community is more likely  to be biased and influenced towards the Christian God and less likely to devote their life to the study of Allah and the Muslim faith.  Those who devote their life to the study, observance, and practice of any religion are more likely to profess belief in that religion and deity of worship.  Likewise, those born into an atheist family with atheist neighbors and community who devote their life to the study and practice of secularism are more likely to deny the existence of God.  Do you see the many potential variables which can influence belief and bias?  Your study sounds biased from the onset and will not hold up to scrutiny - especially with a sample size of 1.  That is a terribly weak scientific study.  Ideally, you would want a large sample size randomly selected with a group assigned to each deity or religion to devote their life to the observance, study, practice of that religion (a completely unrealistic expectation, by the way).  Then you would compare the results - which group professed the most believers at the end of their life.  After all of that, you still haven't proven anything scientifically, other than the fact that so-and-so religion is the most effective at instilling a belief in deity - but that doesn't actually prove the deity exists.  Because, I can guarantee you that you will have a sample from each group that would profess a testimony in each and every group.  Does testimony prove the existence of God?  If so, then every religion and deity has been proven true.