Fah Jing and Kong jing

Tim's Discussion Board: Concepts : Fah Jing and Kong jing

   By Doctor X on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 08:30 pm: Edit Post

Hmmm cannot edit . . . will also note an absence of any reference to the study on the extremely "pro" prayer web page for the Tempteton Prize.

--J.D.


   By Will Tarken on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 09:54 pm: Edit Post

J.D. and the Book of Revelations:

"Incidentally, whilst hunting down a request from below:

http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/eisenberg.html "

Hee Hee. I talked to a couple of doctors I know that know him and they think he's a horse's ass. "Pride goeth before the fall," I allus say.

Well, I give up. I agree with your findings as per Looney Mooney and all I was trying to do was make sure you didn't leave yourself open for a later finger-pinch from being too final. You may well be, for all I know, but congratulations on the study that you did. And thanks for your input.


   By Mystic Master of Alabaster on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 11:10 pm: Edit Post

Dr. X,
Reference to the study was made on April 3( the archives hot links at the top of the page will take you there). I would certainly have to agree that Psychology Today is not a peer reviewed publication. However, I find it unlikely that they would fabricate the story, given that it contained a quote from a Stanford Phd. Considering that peer reviewed journals did publish the results of prior poorly designed prayer studies, I find it interesting that this study, being better in design, has not been reviewed. Surely this could not be due to the fact the conclusions that can be drawn from the results challenge the dearly held convictions of so many "objective" peers. Since I was so bold as to bring it up, I will also do my best to track down more information, for the sake of everyones edification.
Until Next Time, MMA


   By Doctor X on Friday, April 12, 2002 - 11:44 pm: Edit Post

Will:

Thank you very much. As any martial artist will tell you "That's 'GRAND Master Sifu Denny O'Halloran, Kyoshi-Soke' to you!!" sometimes "the authority of them that would teach would hinder then that would learn [Cicero and stolen from Draeger.--Ed.] Shhh!

It applies well with M.D.s. There is an ER physician who, with all due respect to the individual tested, makes him appear absolutely polite in his pursuit of UFOs.

Still a wonderful book is Martin Gardner's, _Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science_ after fifty years. Scientists fool themselves when they do not follow procedures. The "N-Ray" debacle has many similarities to "chi," particularly with so many physicists seeing things that did not exist.

Mystic Master of Alabaster:

[QUOTE]However, I find it unlikely that they would fabricate the story, given that it contained a quote from a Stanford Phd.[/QUOTE]

Will have to introduce you to Fleischman and Pons of "cold fusion" (in)fame. There is also the guy from Colorado (?) who claims unconvertable proof that John Edward and others talk to the dead . . . but will not show anyone it.

However, those who perform bad studies are not, necessarily, frauds. They just designed a bad study. Indeed, a rather interesting review of treatment for spinal cord injury is unfolding. Basically, evidence suggests the "stuff" does not work at all. The proponents of the "stuff" are, not surprisingly, unhappy. Are they frauds? No, they are just human.

[QUOTE]Considering that peer reviewed journals did publish the results of prior poorly designed prayer studies, . . .[/QUOTE]

Even peers "want" prayer to "work." Sometimes they blind themselves or simply just did not consider the flaws well enough.

[QUOTE]I find it interesting that this study, being better in design, has not been reviewed.[/QUOTE]

How do you know? How do you know it was ever submitted? How do you know it was not rejected?

[QUOTE]Surely this could not be due to the fact the conclusions that can be drawn from the results challenge the dearly held convictions of so many
"objective" peers.[/QUOTE]

Science journal publish challenging views all of the time. One very simple explanation is that one cannot draw the conclusions the authors want.

--J.D.


   By Bob on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 12:11 am: Edit Post

After reading through all this, I remember someone asking about Jesus demonstrating Kong Jin or something to that effect, and another saying something to the effect of "show me the money" and quit babbling.

So here it goes:

LUKE 4:28

28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong. 30 But passing through the midst of them he went his way.


No chi please, just throw money...


   By Mystic Master of Alabaster on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 01:22 am: Edit Post

Dr. X,
Sir, you will find the relevant article regarding the prayer study at this url. My apologies, my failing memory lead me to state that it was a Stanford University study; it was instead a Columbia University study which has apparently been published in at least one peer reviewed journal.
Warmest Regards, MMA


http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/01/09/in_vitro_prayer.html


   By Bob on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 03:18 am: Edit Post

Doctor X,

In the link you provided( http://www.mayo.edu/proceedings/2001/dec/7612a1.pdf), under the reference section, item 21 - have you reviewed this article?

This may be the same one that is spoken about by David Suzuki at:
http://cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/episode14_intuition_2002.htm

Have you looked into quantum holograms and twin photons?

Just curious...


   By Q on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 03:54 am: Edit Post

I have a question:

Who do you guys think would take home the cash if they competed on "Win Ben Stein's Money" Dr. X, Will, or MMA?


   By Doctor X on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 12:57 pm: Edit Post

Mystic Master of Alabaster:

I started writing a response last night to have the damn thing crash.

Not a lot exists on the study that I could find other than gushing reviews from the pro-prayer camp and some grousing from the "anti-"skeptical camp--who find it odd that a diety would intervene in these cases but not in, say, an infant with a tumor. Infant probably needs a better PR firm. Anyways neither really addressed the "nuts and bolts" of the test.

One thing struck me odd: why would the researchers be "surprised" of the results when they designed the test in the first place?

Then, I received an e-mail. . . .

Gary Posner, M.D. has spent a great deal of time following up on all sorts of quackery and even prayers studies--methinks I linked an article by him above.

Here is what he wrote in response to another questioner [He gave a reprint.--Ed.]:

[QUOTE]I am not trained in statistical analysis, so I can't help you there. I guess the bottom line is: IF the study was scrupulously done in accordance with strict scientific standards, and IF similar results can be obtained by researchers who are skeptical of the supernatural, then we may be on to something real.

I was struck, however, by the name of the paper's 2nd author -- Daniel P. Wirth. He authored one of the seminal papers on "Therapeutic Touch" -- the supernatural medical healing technique that does not even involve touch, but simply placing the hands near the patient. It was published in 1990 in Vol.1, No.1 of a journal called "Subtle Energies."

Skeptic Dale Beyerstein, a philosophy professor based in Vancouver, BC, later wrote an article about his unsuccessful efforts to track down Wirth and verify his amazing claims.[/QUOTE]

He also put me in touch with a Professor who is trying to hunt down the details of this study. Funny that he is finding such a hard time locating the details. I do not like to "attack the man" or the "source" but when one of the people conducting the test is Wirth, I have to have my doubts based on experience. Wirth is HARDLY an objective observer.

Chi-Meisters will be interested in "Therapeutic Touch," the "smoothing" of an invisible "aura" that the examiner can "feel." Emily Rosa--a cute, innocent, 13 year-old gutted this flim flam and published the results in the _Journal of the American Medical Association_, a rather prestigious peer-reviewed journal. It took a 13 year-old because examiners would not sit for such studies with an adult. Why?

Ms. Rosa demonstrated that "therapeutic touch" was all in the mind of the examiner--examiners "thought" they could feel auras. I can give more details to those interested. Anyways, it was a REPRODUCIBLE study that always comes up "snake-eyes" [Feeble attempt at witty reference to the game craps.--Ed.] for TT.

Wirth has not published in the peer-reviewed nor has he "debunked" the "debunking" of his work.

So . . . were does that leave us? [ZZZZZzzzzzzzz.--Ed.]

I will have to snoop some more on the details. The study has not been repeated--if it is valid it should be repeatable. The second author has a history of flim-flam and cannot be reached. The details are unknown with respect to data gathering--just because someone says it is "blind" and proper does not mean it is--something that goes for standard medical research, frankly.

Bob:

Not familiar with either quantum holograms or twin photons.

--J.D.


   By Mystic Master of Alabaster on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 02:33 pm: Edit Post

Dr. X,
Sir, personal invective, the introduction of elements intended to invoke bias( whats with Wirth? I see no mention of his name in the article; have you a link or direction I can follow to to verify that Mr. Wirth is indeed involved in the study? I also see no mention of any Dieties by any of the researchers, or, for that matter, by me in any of my comments. In fact it is you and the redoubtable Dr. Posner who introduce such labels in an apparent effort to perhaps poision the well). No offense chief, but methinks your prejudice is showing, indicating that you are not interested in the truth, but rather in the validation of your skeptical cynicism. The truth must be discovered through further research designed with the same features as the original research, in particular, the use of large groups of people praying for all of those in the study group, reinforced by people praying for the success of the first group doing the praying, and reinforced by another group praying for the success of all the groups. This appears to be the feature of this study that is different from the study done by the Mayo clinic.
" In science, yesterdays heresy often becomes tomorrows orthodoxy".
Warmest Regards, MMA


   By Doctor X on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 02:37 pm: Edit Post

Damn!!! Just obliterated my response.

Bob: Missed your question. I will attend to it next post--I obliterated my response by checking the link!

Anyways, I have talked with a few researchers trying to follow up on this study. The results are not at all very good for the study. We have a number of problems.

1. Authors: Wirth is a known proponent of flim-flam such as therapeutic touch. He cannot be reached. He is listed as an attorney though no one can prove it. He is practically impossible to track down. Apparently a book/expose is being written about his "work." He has published numerous papers in non-peer reviewed "touchy-feely" journals that do not stand muster.

Cha is a "holistic" physician in Korea.

Lobo is actually an OB/GYN who is an editor for the journal that published the study. It appears he did not see the data himself, cannot confirm that the study had actually been done.

Furthermore, attempts to confirm ANY of the details of the study has failed. As one put it, "Columbia University would like it to 'go away,'" with regards to the embarassment it has caused them.

These are some big, big problems. The sponsoring author has never seen the data and cannot confirm the details. Some suspect he was simply duped. Wirth will not or cannot confirm any of the details.

Thus, given these problems I cannot, unfortunately, take the study at all seriously. When researchers attempting to reproduce the results--a major part of research--cannot even confirm the study was done let alone that the conclusions are valid, it raises a lot of doubt.

Science is not that secret.

--J.D.


   By Doctor X on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 03:15 pm: Edit Post

Bob: Ah . . . yes, the Targ distant healing study. It has been debunked for its various flaws.

Mystic Master of Alabaster:

Dr. X,

[QUOTE]( whats with Wirth? I see no mention of his name in the article; . . .[/QUOTE]

He is the second-author of the study. I cannot pull down the entire article but you can find it through "Medline." Search under "Wirth" and "Lobo."

[QUOTE]I also see no mention of any Dieties by any of the researchers, or, for that matter, by me
in any of my comments.[/QUOTE]

To whom did they pray?

[QUOTE]In fact it is you and the redoubtable Dr. Posner who introduce such labels in an apparent effort to perhaps poision (sic) the well).[/QUOTE]

See details above.

[QUOTE]. . . but methinks your prejudice is showing, . . .[/QUOTE]

You have a right to that error.

[QUOTE]. . . indicating that you are not interested in the truth, . . .[/QUOTE]

and that one as well.

[QUOTE]. . . but rather in the validation of your skeptical cynicism.[/QUOTE]

And that one.

[QUOTE]The truth must be discovered through further research designed with the same features as the original research, . . .[/QUOTE]

See above. Proves difficult to fulfill such lofty goals when the authors cannot confirm the barest details of their own work, and the university of the one author with credentials finds it embarassing.

[QUOTE]" In science, yesterdays heresy often becomes tomorrows orthodoxy".[/QUOTE]

I prefer: "They laughed at Edison? They also laughed at Bozo!"--attributed to Carl Sagan.

"'In God We Trust.' All others must show data."

And, of course:

""No miracle in history is attested by a sufficient number of men of good sense and education, of unimpeachable integrity so as to preclude deceit, of such standing and reputation so that they would have a good deal to lose by lying, and in sufficiently public a manner."

--David Hume

Rather apt given the details above.

--J.D.


   By Mystic Master of Alabaster on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 06:17 pm: Edit Post

Dr. X,
Serious allegations indeed, diligent investigation into the veracity of your claims is called for. As to who or what the participants in the study prayed to, I have no idea. In that I am someone who could be accused of being a pagan enraptured by secular Taoism, I could only speculate based on what I have read. From my point of view, who or what is being prayed to should not be as important as the strength of the belief of those doing the praying.

" The Way that can be told is not the eternal Way.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name."
Until Next Time, MMA


   By Doctor X on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 06:55 pm: Edit Post

M.M.M:

[QUOTE]From my point of view, who or what is being prayed to should not be as important as the strength of the belief of those doing the praying.[/QUOTE]

Though that would imply that parents who could not save their daughter from the exquisitely slow and vile death provided by a pontine tumor did not have enough strength of belief.

--J.D.


   By Mystic Master of Alabaster on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 10:32 pm: Edit Post

" By the pricking of my thumb, something wicked this way comes".

And what, might I ask, do you suppose is implied in this regard by those of you that worship at the Altar of sceptical cynicism? That the parents are engaged in some deluded activity that serves only themselves? I'm a little hazy regarding the rules of logical argument, but I seem to recall that the use of personal invective and emotionaly manipulative statements("slow and vile death...";) is extremely bad form.
Until Next Time, MMA


   By Doctor X on Saturday, April 13, 2002 - 10:57 pm: Edit Post

"And what rough beast its hour come round at last
Slouches towards Bethleham to be born?"

[QUOTE]. . . but I seem to recall that the use of personal invective and emotionaly manipulative statements . . . is extremely bad form.[/QUOTE]

Such as:

[QUOTE]. . . worship at the Altar of sceptical cynicism?[/QUOTE]

Curious. . . .

[QUOTE]And what, might I ask, do you suppose is implied in this regard by those of you that worship at the Altar of sceptical cynicism?[/QUOTE]

I remain unaware of any such temple.

[QUOTE]That the parents are engaged in some deluded activity that serves only themselves?[/QUOTE]

Did it work? No. Did it serve them? Not well at all.

[QUOTE]. . . but I seem to recall that the use of personal invective and emotionaly manipulative statements("slow and vile death..." is extremely bad form.[/QUOTE]

The statement does not represent a personal invective, an [i]argumentum ad hominem[/i]. You could wonder if it represents an [i]argumentum ad misericordiam[/i]--appeal to pity--save for the fact it proves true. Thus, no fallacy.

You contended that:

[QUOTE]. . . who or what is being prayed to should not be as important as the strength of the belief of those doing the praying.[/QUOTE]

Since the parents and others did indeed pray and the child did indeed die in a most extreme manner--progressive loss of motor control with loss of the ability to control swallowing, ultimately requiring a tracheotomy and feeding tube whilst remaining conscious all the way down possibly merits the description--and it is the "strength of the belief" which proves "important," then the failure of the child to recover whilst others who pray for things succeeded demosntrates that they must have lacked this strength.

--J.D.


   By BOB #2 on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 03:01 am: Edit Post

why don't you goobers use
"quotation marks" [/QUESTION]

The two of you should echange
e-mail addresses [/EXCLAIMATION]
[/EXCLAIMATION][/EXCLAIMATION]


   By Doctor X on Sunday, April 14, 2002 - 04:39 am: Edit Post

[QUOTE]A tale told by an idiot
Full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.[/QUOTE]

--J."Macbeth!" D.


   By Udo Kohler on Wednesday, April 17, 2002 - 09:39 pm: Edit Post

That sure sums you up moron-ski.

Does your pedophile hero still play hide the salami with teenage boys?


   By Doctor X on Thursday, April 18, 2002 - 05:14 am: Edit Post

You know, I never thought of that: mo . . . ron . . . ski!

How singularly witty! I can only wonder if the individual developed the name play himself or did rely on his team of joke writers.

Would recommend a more competent team, at least one that proves funny . . . or original.

Now, anyone with strength of character and honesty of conviction can kindly wander over to www.randi.org or e-mail: randi@randi.org and discuss such charges with Mr. Randi directly, unless, of course, one cannot substantiate such libel and merely excretes it as a frustrated small child who finds himself in the company of better men and has not had his nap.

Unless of course he fears an old man.

For what reason? Will that Bad Old Nasty Mr. Randi expose the individual as blustering ignorant coward? Will he shatter his delusions?

Will he, Heavens to Betsy, demonstrate to the individual that there is no Easter Bunny?!!!

Yet what a great martial artist is this [b]Udo Kohler[/b]! An example to us all, is he, verily!

Unfortunately not exactly a positive example, for as a COWARD he spews hate anonymously, as an IGNORAMOUS, he cannot debate but can only gibber invective.

He proves not even original.

As such, he deserves no further regard.

--J.D.


   By Doctor X on Monday, April 29, 2002 - 03:50 pm: Edit Post

Will note that ten days have passed without a rebuttal. I must therefore recognize the charge for the attempt at character assassination hurled by a coward that it is.

Otherwise, I have enjoyed the discussion.

Farewell.

--J.D.


   By Bob #2 on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 12:37 am: Edit Post

here goes the media again- screwing with people's minds and making them question their beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdrzBL2dHMI


   By fart li (Unregistered Guest) on Wednesday, May 03, 2006 - 03:54 am: Edit Post

I find I can reproduce similar results after eating bean stew and drinking English beer.


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password: