On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 08:02:32 +0100 (BST) Chris Stoddart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I read some time ago that there were made emperical tests with > > groups that were compared. One group of patients got the prayers > > of a group of people, the other not. All that for a certain time. > > And the result was that the recovery was better in the first > > group. > > Well as someone who did postdoctoral work in a university > pharmaceutical dept, I can assure you that there are loads of > pitfalls for the unwary researcher into matters of health and > 'cures'. Repeatability is a keyword, otherwise it's not a lot of > use to the human race in general no matter how it works. If it just > worked for one group on one day - well maybe they just got lucky > and put most of the naturally quick healers in one group and the > poor healers in the other? Not being in medical- or pharmaceutical research, the principles apply across the board for any kind of scientific research. Hence, my original inquery as to what exactly was implied by "scienticically proven". > > You might like to subscribe to the Skeptical Enquirer for a year or > so :-) > > http://www.csicop.org/si/ > > The only downside is that after having results such as yours > carefully tested and explained (debunked!) you'll have trouble > having faith in anything for a while. Working with science of any sort, not having faith in anything (least of all ones own results) is a very good attribute to acquire :) Makes a carefull researcher.... --thomas
