From an AP story on cnn.com:
In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications. Researchers emphasized their work does not address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said. They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them. The work, which followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers, was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into science and religion. It will appear in the American Heart Journal. Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School and other scientists tested the effect of having three Christian groups pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for "a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" for specific patients, for whom they were given the first name and first initial of the last name.
James 5:16 says that "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective." Also, I've never felt too comfortable/motivated praying for someone that I didn't know at all, someone I had no connection to. I guess I have to generally agree with the perspective of the dude from Duke:
Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who did not take part in the study, said the results did not surprise him. "There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said. Science, he said, "is not designed to study the supernatural."
Update: April 2, 2006 10:24 PM:
Of all coincidences and all places, the power of prayer to heal was quoted to Tony Soprano tonight...
Encyclopaedia Britannica finally responded to Nature's claim that the encyclopedia and wikipedia had comparable levels of inaccuracy. From an AP story by David Carpenter on abcnews.com:
Encyclopaedia Britannica has completed an exhaustive research article on an unlikely new topic questions about its accuracy. The publisher's verdict: It was wronged. Firing back at an article in the science journal Nature that likened its accuracy to that of Wikipedia, the Internet site that lets anyone contribute, Britannica said in a 20-page statement this week that "almost everything about the journal's investigation … was wrong and misleading." It demanded a retraction. The venerable encyclopedia publisher, which has enjoyed an almost unassailed reputation for reliability since the 18th century, called Nature's research invalid, its study poorly carried out and its findings "so error-laden that it was completely without merit." "The entire undertaking from the study's methodology to the misleading way Nature 'spun' the story was misconceived," Britannica said.
The original Nature news story has been updated with links to Britannica's analysis and Nature's response. Regardless, I love wikipedia.
An article by Kurt Kleiner in the Toronto Star titled "How to spot a baby conservative" describes a recent study published in the Journal of Research Into Personality.
In the 1960s Jack Block and his wife and fellow professor Jeanne Block (now deceased) began tracking more than 100 nursery school kids as part of a general study of personality. The kids' personalities were rated at the time by teachers and assistants who had known them for months. There's no reason to think political bias skewed the ratings - the investigators were not looking at political orientation back then. Even if they had been, it's unlikely that 3- and 4-year-olds would have had much idea about their political leanings. A few decades later, Block followed up with more surveys, looking again at personality, and this time at politics, too. The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective. Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold. He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.
Surely the study by a liberal Berkeley whacko will draw conservative's ire, but it's the last part of this article that I found most interesting...something to think about.
Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact? It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.
Travis Stanley had a interesting blog posting recently about Cardinal Roger Mahoney's recent comments about imigration. Read it here. I have to agree..
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer