Hate Mail

Michael Miller, Page 6

March 22, 2001:

[Editor's note: He followed up his previous message with an attempt to prove to me that prayer has the power to heal, by giving me a link to a news article which breathlessly quoted the conclusions of a massively flawed study without bothering to even consult any of the study's critics. This doesn't really surprise me, since the media has rarely been even remotely responsible when reporting on news of a scientific nature]

Here is a link to an article about the heart patients and prayer that I mentioned. Take it as you will. I know that this is not a technical article but I am sure it is available somewhere.

http://www.heartinfo.org/reutersnews/t99102612f.htm

[Editor's note: I suggest you examine the link as a test of your critical thinking abilities. Can you see the missing pieces in the article? Let's list them:

  1. The researchers selected about half of a 1,000-patient group as the test group, and the other half as the control group. Do we know how the patient group was selected? Was it completely random? Did the researchers know anything about the severity of the patients' conditions when they selected them for inclusion in either the control group or the test group, or was it completely random? The article doesn't say.

  2. The researchers gave a meaningless figure for the improvement: 11%, for the vague term: "medical complications or the need for surgery or medication while in hospital." What kind of complications were specifically affected? How broadly inclusive were those terms? Were the types of complications selected for analysis decided upon before the study was conducted, or were they carefully selected afterwards, in order to maximize the results?

  3. While subtly acknowledging that others in the medical community might take exception to Harris' conclusions, the reporter who wrote the article didn't bother to interview any such people or ask for their interpretations of Harris' work. This indicates severe journalistic bias. News reports are not essays or editorials, and ethical reporters are expected to interview representatives from both sides of a contentious issue.

  4. The reporter who wrote the article specifically mentioned a 1988 study which "found results remarkably similar to those of the current study", without specifically mentioning any of the studies which contradicted it. Moreover, the reporter "forgets" to mention that the 1988 study in question was conducted in a highly questionable manner (there is actually an article at The Straight Dope which addresses both the 1988 study and the Harris study).

There have been numerous attempts to "prove" that prayer has a real, physical effect. However, general population statistics show that there is no such effect. While targeted, carefully designed studies may be designed in order to make it seem as if there is such a connection, the fact remains that in the general population, there is no discernible difference between incidence of disease, life expectancy, mortality rates from life-threatening injuries or diseases, and religious beliefs, even though it's quite obvious that church members are far more likely to pray and be prayed for than atheists]

Continue to Michael Miller, Page 7

Jump to sub-page:

Jump to: