God Help Us: Rita

[moeur]

100 people is a large sample? You're joking right? 100 people is nowhere near enough for an accurate result.

As I stated above, 100 samples is very large for narrow distributions. You have suggested (and I agree) that the cancer distribution is probably very broad and requires a larger sample.

No point doing this kind of study? Definitely not.
Imagine the situation. A doctor informs his cancer patient that they are currently undertaking a study to see if prayer is effective in cancer treatment. To gain an unbiased result has to be taken off ALL scientific remedies (chemotherapy, drugs, surgery etc) and rely only on prayer. How many do you think would take up that study? None, because they know that modern science is the best chance they have of survival.

OK, let's not choose cancer but another disease for which there is no treatment. Also don't inform the patients of the study.

[yrwyddfa]

I don't understand however, how a rational logically thinking person could actually hold, what appears to me to be superstitious beliefs.

I have to presume, as it's an anthropological phenemenon, that you too hold beliefs that you have little or no evidence.

The obvious (but cliche, and obvious) example is evolution. Now, evolution is a good (very good) description of how to describe gradual complexity of life through mutation/crossover of the genepool - as sort-of observed in the fossil record.

But is it provable? If you understand the scientific method as that proof is the observation of a theory (very very succinct) then you can see that not one person who apparently sees evolution has actually observed it. Not one person has been alive to witness enough events to conclude the theory must be true.

Also, Heisenburg's uncertainty principle clearly show that what ever you observe you also change. This cross-correlated with . . . .

But hey - this is going too far, perhaps a need for new thread. This has nothing to do with Rita, whatsoever.

[yrwyddfa]

But hey - this is going too far, perhaps a need for new thread. This has nothing to do with Rita, whatsoever.

What I really mean is that why oh-why do always end up debating from this particular corner

[Valleysboy1978]

OK, let's not choose cancer but another disease for which there is no treatment. Also don't inform the patients of the study.

Such as AIDS?
So the researchers wouldn't inform the patients? Well they couldn't guarantee the patient is praying on a regular basis. Also it would be highly unethical, not to mention illegal, to inform a patient they are receiving treatment when they are not. The doctor would effectively be killing his patient in the name of research, which would be going against their hypocratic oath.

[moeur]

Actually, the patient is not the one praying.
There is no treatment so that they patient would not be expecting any treatment.

[yrwyddfa]

Actually, the patient is not the one praying.
There is no treatment so that they patient would not be expecting any treatment.

In this context, is it not praying for one's own salvation that we are talking about?

[Valleysboy1978]

Actually there IS treatment for AIDS. There isn't a cure, but there are many drugs that slow the disease to a point where they have many years of normal life. I'm sure that the person suffering from AIDS wouldn't stop the treatments so as to see if prayer is effective, they would stick with the drugs that may extend their life expectancy by 10 years.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Evolution is provable.

The Theory of Evolution is not.

The two are not the same.

[yrwyddfa]

Evolution is provable.

The Theory of Evolution is not.

The two are not the same.

What's the difference? Is it:
(i) Evolution is the mechanics of cellular mutation
(ii) The Theory of Evolution is the idea that (i) gradually increases suitability to the environment.

??

[Wally Pipp]

the difference between how and why methinks.

[yrwyddfa]

Well, 'how' is about genetics, and cell biology. I wouldn't call that evolution which is why I'm surprised that a distinction has been identified.

[CVMichael]

Not related to previous posts, but related to the title:

I find really stupid that US news did not mention the name of that island Rita passed by...

I was in Cuba on vacation when Rita passed right above Cuba (That nameless island!).

While I was there, I was watching the news, CNN (I think), and they did not mention Cuba at all, and while showing the map the island was not labeled at all... it was showing just a green piece of earth.

I admit that the eye of Rita did not pass through Cuba, but it passed a little above Cuba, and being there I can tell you, it was pretty bad...

I wonder, if US hides Cuba for everything (news, schools...), I wonder how many of the US people can name that island ?

But from my experience, some US people don't even know where Canada is... so I think I already know the anser to that question.

I am really dissapointed in US... they can do better... really...

Well, I am not dissapointed in the US people perse... but in the goverment system (or whoever is in charge to make those stupid choices, on what to tell the world and not...)

[moeur]

Well... One lesson about the US: The government does not tell the News what to tell the world. Just the opposite if the media sees the government trying to tell them what to say, they will purposely refuse to say it.

As far as the people knowing where Canada and Cuba are, you might be right. Most school children cannot find any country on a map.

Of course most adults know where Mexico is, that is where all the illegal aliens are coming from, and some even know Canada because that is where we have to go to get cheap prescription drugs and Cuban cigars!