| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/09/2009 11:56:25 PM · #901 |
Originally posted by chalice:
What I was expecting was a straight-up response as to what (other than a supernatural explanation) could cause a fracture to heal in three days, or why separate X-rays might not be accurate, or some such explanation. |
A very plausible explanation.
Message edited by author 2009-12-09 23:57:56. |
|
|
|
12/10/2009 01:29:34 AM · #902 |
Originally posted by chalice:
On its face, an X-ray on Friday that shows 4 fractures, followed by an X-ray on Monday that only shows three of them suggests to me that one of the fractures has been healed. Since my doctor acquaintance says medicine and science don't acknowledge such a speedy healing, I am at a loss as to what other explanations there could be. |
As the link in Shannon's post indicates, fractures often don't show up on xrays; it's quite possible for the fourth (unhealed) fracture to still be present but not visualized on the second xray. Often in the case of a suspected fracture with negative xray, an MRI would be obtained -- in this case of the miraculous "disappearance" of a fracture, I'm a little surprised further confirmatory methods were not employed. |
|
|
|
12/10/2009 03:28:10 AM · #903 |
Originally posted by Louis:
As yanko mentioned, one wonders why you brought this to an avowed group of atheists/agnostics in the first place. |
Day UM. Doc is an atheist?????
Or he just likes hanging out with them.... maybe.
You trying to convert someone in here Doc? |
|
|
|
12/10/2009 10:57:21 AM · #904 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I agree with Louis that anecdotal evidence is the weakest category for proving something in a scientific sense. However, one cannot just dismiss such evidence out of hand merely because it is anecdotal. |
You are a medical doctor, correct? Supposedly with a PhD or similar qualification which would indicate you've got a excellent understanding of human biology, conditions, treatments etc.
Given your background, how on earth can you give any credence to 'the power of prayer' such as the anecdote described above? - Time and time again we read about religious fanatics putting themselves or their families in medically dangerous situations by placing their faith in god instead of in the medical profession.
On a professional level, would you ever prescribe or encourage a patient to pray to cure their condition? |
I really don't think that's a fair statement. DrAchoo seems, to me, like a very professionnal doctor, one that know that there is an appropriate time for each thing (use appropriate science to help and cure his patients when he is in his office, and don his templar knight armor to slay us heretics when he is browsing DPC's forums)
You think what you want about prayer, but very few physicians would deny the power of the mind and the need of a strong will in any therapy or cure. Any doctor who suggest to a patient to stop their medication and get on a prayer-only cure should get his liscense revoked. But, in addition with the right treatment, I'm pretty sure that, for a theist, prayer is a very effective way to deal with a very serious illness. Even if a person is not cured, at least it would have helped him keep a peace of mind.
I'm not saying that someone who prayed and died did not pray the right way or someone who didn't pray and died should have prayed... I'm just saying that the body is piece of art and is capable of things inimaginable. If prayer is a way for someone to verbalize his will to fight his illness (one way among many many others), then by all mean he should pray.
I'm an atheist, but if a theist friend of mine ask me to pray with him because he feels that will help him go throught a cancer or a serious health problem, I sure will do it as best as I can (even if I don't know who I will be talking to).
|
|
|
|
12/10/2009 10:28:24 PM · #905 |
| And on a lighter note, holy batshit crazy. |
|
|
|
12/10/2009 10:36:12 PM · #906 |
Yep, the last to words he says are a true reflection of his expectations of the audience.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/10/2009 11:07:52 PM · #907 |
Does anyone else feel awkward when they watch people preach like this? Like you're being punked or something because it's so hard to believe that anyone buys into this crap. Sadly though Aston Kutcher never shows up, which is scary that you wish he would:-) |
|
|
|
12/10/2009 11:20:11 PM · #908 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Does anyone else feel awkward when they watch people preach like this? Like you're being punked or something because it's so hard to believe that anyone buys into this crap. Sadly though Aston Kutcher never shows up, which is scary that you wish he would:-) |
Hoo, yeah. :-0 |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 03:23:16 AM · #909 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Does anyone else feel awkward when they watch people preach like this? Like you're being punked or something because it's so hard to believe that anyone buys into this crap. Sadly though Aston Kutcher never shows up, which is scary that you wish he would:-) |
Hoo, yeah. :-0 |
Heh - that's got to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, yes? He sells holy thongs on his webpage...
OK, totally tongue-in-cheek, I see. Had me worried for a minute.
Message edited by author 2009-12-11 03:27:27. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 11:22:20 AM · #910 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
I certainly do toss such anecdotes as worthless, and I could never in all conscience consider this type of thing evidence. |
So would a court. Hearsay is not evidence of anything. |
Hate to get all lawyer-ly (and I think this debate has pretty much already run its course, so I am decidedly late to the party), but Shannon is not strictly correct here.
Hearsay statements in a court of law cannot be used as evidence of the truth of the statement. However, hearsay is used in courts all the time under various exceptions to the general rule against their inclusion, and it is a (somewhat overstated) truism that if you can't figure out a way to introduce the hearsay evidence you aren't trying hard enough. For example, one of the biggest exceptions is the introduction of hearsay to show "state of mind." That is, the hearsay is allowed in to show what the person felt or believed, but not to show that the feeling or belief was necessarily true.
I think my atheist/skeptic cred is pretty sufficiently established on this board, but I must say that I find myself often frustrated with skeptics that automatically discount anecdotal evidence. Similar to hearsay, I would say that while anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to show that some event or phenomenon actually happened it might be sufficient to justify further research or investigation. The problem is that much of the "supernatural" phenomenon that is often attempted to be justified with anecdotal evidence, has been investigated - sometimes quite extensively - and has either been actively disproved or all controlled investigation has failed to provide any evidence beyond the merely anecdotal. Faith healing most definitely falls into this category.
The appropriate response, I think, is not to say "your story is worthless," but to say "your story, without more, is unpersuasive." We would need to examine the evidence before we could know if there was anything interesting potentially going on: talk with the doctor, review the x-rays or even have another doctor review them, talk with your friend, etc. Since this forum does not allow for that type of investigation, the reasonable approach is to fall back on what we know about the claimed phenomenon from other, verifiable sources. Unfortunately for claims of faith healing, that means discounting the story, as there are no credible studies showing any positive effect from intercessory prayer.
Message edited by author 2009-12-11 13:03:20. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 11:39:31 AM · #911 |
| That's a very lawyerly way of restating exactly what I said. :) Or at least, exactly what I meant. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 12:02:38 PM · #912 |
Nicely put SP.
I was rolling my eyes at the posts above. Partly out of complete embarassment. Partly out of annoyance that people paint with broad strokes only when it suits them. Anyway, it got me wondering if there were any atheist nutters floating about. I thought about Scientologists and that they may qualify. They may also qualify as per the conversation way above (or even in another thread, I forget), as "atheists who are not materialists". I can't find any reference to a Supreme Being in at least the wiki. I guess it depends exactly on how they view the "thetan" as to whether they are materialists.
But I'll keep the group in my back pocket to pull out when those broad brushes get used... ;)
Message edited by author 2009-12-11 12:02:52. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 12:55:07 PM · #913 |
Scientologists aren't atheists. Their beliefs have all the hallmarks of religion: unquestioned faith in unprovable tenets, a charismatic leader with rites of succession and inheritance of gnostic knowledge, belief in God, etc. From their official website:
"Central to the Scientology religion is the Creed of the Church of Scientology. It was authored by L. Ron Hubbard shortly after founding Scientology, and is a document that not only includes our fundamental beliefs, but the God-given rights of every human being which Scientologists strive to uphold." |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:00:31 PM · #914 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Anyway, it got me wondering if there were any atheist nutters floating about. I thought about Scientologists and that they may qualify. They may also qualify as per the conversation way above (or even in another thread, I forget), as "atheists who are not materialists". I can't find any reference to a Supreme Being in at least the wiki. I guess it depends exactly on how they view the "thetan" as to whether they are materialists. |
I guess they might qualify if you defined atheist as a non-belief in God, but I don't think that you can lump them in when you take the - more accurate - definition of a lack of belief in (little g) god or gods. Scientology, as I understand it, resembles most the type of old poly-theistic religions with a plethora of gods, demi-gods and various supernatural entities. It looks most weird when placed against the major mono-theistic religions, but not that dissimilar to some of the more obscure flavors of religious/supernatural belief.
Scientology - like the Christian Scientists - just prove that just putting the word "science" in your name doesn't mean that you are a scientist.
That said - I'm pretty sure that there are loads of atheist "nutters" in the world, likely proportionate to the level of "nutters" found in the general population. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:02:58 PM · #915 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
I certainly do toss such anecdotes as worthless, and I could never in all conscience consider this type of thing evidence. |
So would a court. Hearsay is not evidence of anything. |
Hate to get all lawyer-ly (and I think this debate has pretty much already run its course, so I am decidedly late to the party), but Shannon is not strictly correct here.
For example, one of the biggest exceptions is the introduction of hearsay to show "state of mind." That is, the hearsay is allowed in to show what the person felt or believe, but not to show that the feeling or belief was necessarily true. |
This is true, but only as it relates to "Mens Rea" cases, and would most certainly not apply in "Actus Reus" cases.
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
The appropriate response, I think, is not to say "your story is worthless," but to say "your story, without more, is unpersuasive." We would need to examine the evidence before we could know if there was anything interesting potentially going on: talk with the doctor, review the x-rays or even have another doctor review them, talk with your friend, etc. Since this forum does not allow for that type of investigation, the reasonable approach is to fall back on what we know about the claimed phenomenon from other, verifiable sources. Unfortunately for claims of faith healing, that means discounting the story, as there are no credible studies showing any positive effect from intercessory prayer. |
... and the lack of such studies renders the story..."Worthless" The onus in providing veracity rests solely with the person making the claim.
Ray
|
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:04:12 PM · #916 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
...while anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to show that some event or phenomenon actually happened it might be sufficient to justify further research or investigation. The problem is that much of the "supernatural" phenomenon that is often attempted to be justified with anecdotal evidence, has been investigated - sometimes quite extensively - and has either been actively disproved or all controlled investigation has failed to provide any evidence beyond the merely anecdotal. |
Exactly. The story alone holds no weight unless we can at least verify that such an event actually occurred. It's just an assertion. If we could call the doctor and verify the details or review the x-rays to rule out false positive or false negative results, THEN we might have something to discuss. Until then, it's silly to speculate on a possible cause for a "miracle" that may not have even happened.
BTW- I had jury duty last Monday, and the judge spent a full 5 minutes explaining to everyone that hearsay is generally not accepted as evidence. There are exceptions of course, but this wouldn't be one of them. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:05:28 PM · #917 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
This is true, but only as it relates to "Mens Rea" cases, and would most certainly not apply in "Actus Reus" cases. |
Man, and here I thought I was being pedantically lawyerly. ;)
Message edited by author 2009-12-11 13:05:36. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:25:45 PM · #918 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
This is true, but only as it relates to "Mens Rea" cases, and would most certainly not apply in "Actus Reus" cases. |
Man, and here I thought I was being pedantically lawyerly. ;) |
To make it worse, I don't even think Ray is a lawyer! |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:27:41 PM · #919 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
This is true, but only as it relates to "Mens Rea" cases, and would most certainly not apply in "Actus Reus" cases. |
Man, and here I thought I was being pedantically lawyerly. ;) |
To make it worse, I don't even think Ray is a lawyer! |
TRUE, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn :O)
Ray
... but I do have a degree in Law.
Message edited by author 2009-12-11 13:28:14. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:28:47 PM · #920 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and the lack of such studies renders the story..."Worthless" The onus in providing veracity rests solely with the person making the claim.
Ray |
Yah, but "worthless" is a loaded value judgment of a statement, and stifles meaningful debate. "Unpersuasive", on the other hand, preserves at least a modicum of dignity for the one who made the statement. It's not a trivial distinction, inasmuch as those making such claims *do* have a belief system that is worthy of a respectful nod. IMO, anyway.
There's a world of difference between saying "your assertion is worthless" and "your assertion fails to persuade me"...
R. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:35:58 PM · #921 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
... and the lack of such studies renders the story..."Worthless" The onus in providing veracity rests solely with the person making the claim.
Ray |
Yah, but "worthless" is a loaded value judgment of a statement, and stifles meaningful debate. "Unpersuasive", on the other hand, preserves at least a modicum of dignity for the one who made the statement. It's not a trivial distinction, inasmuch as those making such claims *do* have a belief system that is worthy of a respectful nod. IMO, anyway.
There's a world of difference between saying "your assertion is worthless" and "your assertion fails to persuade me"...
R. |
Again, you are positively right my friend.
It could be that the distinction between our perspective rests in the fact that you might lend credence to an open and unsubstantiated commments whereas I do not. I have no problems in discussing and debating an issue, but to do so I must first be presented with views, opinions, perspectives and facts, all of which are seemingly not present when dealing with anecdotal arguments. One cannot discuss or argue in a vacuum.
Ray |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 01:44:55 PM · #922 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
One cannot discuss or argue in a vacuum. |
Are you new here? |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 02:00:09 PM · #923 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
One cannot should not discuss or argue in a vacuum. |
Are you new here? |
Sorry, I makes a mistook
Ray |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 02:02:23 PM · #924 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
It could be that the distinction between our perspective rests in the fact that you might lend credence to an open and unsubstantiated commments whereas I do not. I have no problems in discussing and debating an issue, but to do so I must first be presented with views, opinions, perspectives and facts, all of which are seemingly not present when dealing with anecdotal arguments. One cannot discuss or argue in a vacuum.
Ray |
I don't think so, actually. I'm a pretty facts-oriented guy, basically. It's just that my position tends to be that most heartfelt viewpoints are "sincere", and there ought to be dignity appended to any responses to same, even if we don't agree with them. I wouldn't extend this presumed dignity to a debate on, say, rational justifications for genocide, but all-in-all I try my best not to be utterly in-your-face in responding to positions with which I'm in vehement disagreement.
Let me put it this way, cartoonishly:
If someone came to you and started a discussion based on the assertion "Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so!", would you look him in the eye and say, "Ah, you're full of crap!"? I sure wouldn't, and I doubt you would either. But telling him his opinion is "worthless" is pretty close to exactly that...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-12-11 14:16:38. |
|
|
|
12/11/2009 02:02:33 PM · #925 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
One cannot discuss or argue in a vacuum. |
Are you new here? |
Perhaps he was referring to the fact that sound waves cannot propagate in a vacuum -- you'd need to talk over your space-suit radios or by touching helmets. |
|
