The Science of Distant Healing
There is much written about how our good intentions help others. But can your good intentions really reach someone who is not physically present, and how do we know this? In this column, I will present the current evidence that discusses this phenomenon and provide some explanations as to why distant healing has a place in modern scientific thinking.
A well-designed study done in 2008 examined 36 couples. In 22 of these couples, one of the two people was a cancer patient. Three groups were created: In the first group consisting of twelve couples, the healthy person was trained to direct intention toward the patient and was asked to practice this for three months prior to the experiment. This was referred to as the "trained" group. In the other 10 couples where one partner had cancer, the pair was tested before the partner was trained. They were called the "wait" group. Fourteen healthy couples received no training at all. They were called the "control" group. But what was the training?
Skin conductance was measured in both members of the couple, both of whom were asked to feel the presence of the other. Skin conductance is a measure of the ability of sweat to conduct electricity. It indicates that the autonomic nervous system has been activated. The autonomic nervous system is a part of your nervous system that maintains balance of the body and controls heart rate, respiration and many other vital functions. This is done unconsciously. So, when skin conductance was measured, the researchers were measuring whether this important part of our bodies was activated. However, rather than being next to each other while they were sending intentions, partners were relaxed in a distant shielded room for 30 minutes. The sender of intention sent intention for 10-second periods followed by breaks. Skin conductance was then measured during the periods when partners sent their intentions and during the breaks. The researchers believed that if there were a different skin conductance when partners sent their intentions, then this would prove that intention was actually impacting the nervous system.
In research, if there is a less than a 5% probability that something is due to chance, it is regarded as being probably true and not due to chance. Even a 10% probability that something is due to chance is a trend toward the fact that chance is probably not a factor. In this experiment, when people used intention to reach their partners who were in a shielded room, every time intention was sent, it created changes in the skin conductance that were very significant compared to the breaks, when these changes would not be present. The probability that these findings were due to chance was 0.09%, well below 5%. This occurred in all three groups. However, the peak changes were greatest in the trained group, intermediate in the wait group and least in the control group.
This experiment showed that intention can affect a partner's body across distance outside of consciousness and that if one is trained in compassionate intention, the effect is greatest. In fact, other studies have also shown that distant healing can heal small sized tumors.
However, the effects of distant healing have not been uniform. Studies have failed to show that distant healing can improve chronic fatigue syndrome or clinical outcome in HIV positive patients. In fact, two studies have also shown that distant healing can have adverse effects.
Within the scientific community, there are a group of people who believe in distant healing and a group of people who do not. Those who believe in distant healing do not believe that it is just some "spooky" phenomenon. There are four principles of physics underlying intention that have been described in the literature: (1) that intention is transmitted by an as yet unknown energy signal; (2) that intention warps space-time much like gravity, creating pathways for connection; (3) that people, like particles are described in quantum physics, have instantaneous correlations across distance; (4) that intention is much like measurement in quantum physics. It organizes random possibilities much like how wave functions can be collapsed into a single function.
So, as of now, it appears that distant healing works in some situations but not in others. But what does this mean? I believe that the healing is not always effective for several reasons: (1) the quality of the intention is not high enough; (2) different intenders have different capacities; (3) different illnesses may require higher levels of intention; (4) there may be other intentions coming from elsewhere that disrupt the intention being measured. I am less inclined to believe that "distant healing" is all nonsense, because the data we have so far illustrates that there is definitely the possibility that the effect can be felt. It is just not ubiquitous or uniform.
I would caution against believing that all people are equally able to perform distant healing, but where there is expectation and faith, the chances of success are higher. In fact, in the study that showed that distant healing had no effect on chronic fatigue, the expectation that one would get better did have an effect. I wonder if this implies that intention works best when we believe in our own capacities to get better.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't understand why people keep saying there wasn't a control group when there was. Its fair enough to say the effect wasn't strong enough or that the study needs to be replicated, but to say there was no control group is simply not true.
If you follow this link to the study:
http://www
At the end of the design part, it states clearly that there was a control group.
Dean Radin confirms that there was a control group in the comments to this study at his blog, which can be found by following this link:
https://ww
Then scrolling to near the bottom of the comments
Cheers
Hi Srini
There's a very widespread - and commonplace - misconception in your interesting posting, which you and others reading these postings might like to be aware of. It lies in the following statement, taken from your piece:
"In research, if there is a less than a 5% probability that something is due to chance, it is regarded as being probably true and not due to chance.... The probability that these findings were due to chance was 0.09%, well below 5%".
What you're trying to describe here is technically known as a p-value, but (in common, I hasten to add, with many if not most researchers), your definition is based on a fundamental error. The precise definition of a p-value is as follows:
"The probability of getting results at least as impressive as those observed, calculated _on_the_assumption_ that random chance is the real explanation for the results".
That's NOT the same as your account of p-values as being the chances that random chance REALLY WAS the explanation. Put simply, you can't calculate something on the basis of an assumption, and then go on to claim that the assumption is thereby supported by the calculation.
Statisticians have been trying to get scientists to recognise the difference between what they THINK p-values are and what they really give for over 40 years, with very little result. But perhaps we can at least make a start via your postings on the Huffington Post !
This really is an excellent point. I recall studying for my physics degree and learning how to analyze the data from experiments. It always baffled me as to what exactly we were talking about when we found/used p-values (which was actually rare in physics). It wasn't until I took a course in the "design of experiments" that I found out what was actually going on here.
Now, well trained scientists "get it", but there are a multitude of others, often those that conduct human subject based studies, that just don't. They also have a tendency to rely on t-tests and z-tests where they are not appropriate, but that's a whole other complicated problem that can't possibly be addressed in a bunch of loosely connected comments.
Mr. Pillay, I am curious about a short documentary by either the Discovery or National Geographic I forgot which one that I happened to watched. While filming abou the Nepal boy who sat under a tree in Nepal meditating and had not eaten or drinking anything for months they received a call from India about a holy man who had not eaten or drinking for decades. The film crew actually went there where the Indians were conducting tests on the holy man. The Indian reseachers had isolated him for ten days and weighted the amount of water before and after he had taken bath to make sure he did not consume the water. They researchers observed that the man did not drink anything but at certain time his blaader would swell and empty by itself. The holy man also describe that in the morning he would gaze at the sun and a thin whitetish substance would form around his mouth which he wil consume. If you had come across this documentary I hope you can enlighten us a bit on this story. It is beyond human understanding and believe.
Srinivasan:
I have now read the full study and I don’t think it shows what you think it shows.
There’s really more than I can include in the comments here.
http://ske
I read it. Skeptico flattens this study. Blam.
What stood out to me was that Radin admits in the paper that they eliminated data that contradicted the hypothesis. Called it "artifacts". An artifact is "any perceived distortion or other data error caused by the instrument of observation" not data you didn't expect. If there was an artifact it should apply to all the data (they were using the same instruments for all parts of the study). Not just the inconvenient stuff.
He admits it! That like saying, "p.s. this is the bunk ".
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
hi skeptico
thanks for your time in deconstructing the findings. i posted my comments on your site above.
take care.
srini
Oh snap and a half !!!
Just read Skeptico's article linked above. No control group? Without a control group, this study isn't worth using in the smallest room of my house.
Thanks to Skeptico for pointing out why this study is no longer worth wasting any time on. I'm surprised that no one caught it before, but then again, I wasn't able to find the actual study.
Most super-awesome part of the study: “we did not test for distant healing.” ==> Comedy Gold!
(Part C2): So I request, Dr. Pillay, that you contact the tech support people and ask them to investigate these missing comments (you'll get more traction than I would, as I have been ignored by the tech people here before).
When you do so, please also ask them if they could adjust the board's software settings such that when the user selects "expand all", it really does "expand all". I find it extremely vexing that even though that option is selected, it never actually does what it says it does: i.e., there's all those "click here to see more comments" messages. This is terribly frustrating, because when you click that message, OTHER comments disappear and are hidden behind the "click here" message!
Because of that flaw, one cannot always see both the original comment and the response at the same time, and that's inconvenient to say the least.
Thanks.
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
i have contacted tech support and will let you know if i hear anything. sorry about the inconvenience. thanks...
Dr P, thanks. Thank you for posting so many dissenting comments. That's way cool. Some bloggers edit most of their critics out. Deepak Chokra I'm looking at you.
(Part C1): I, too, heartily echo "someloser's" expression of gratitude and respect for the intellectual integrity you demonstrate by refusing to discard critical comments. It speaks extremely well of you!
However, I have noticed that a few of my comments were never published. There was only a single instance of a submission that might -- only might -- have arguably been deemed to run up against THP's comment policy (it was strongly critical of Ms. Huffington's decision to mix politics with vicious attacks against medical science; for example, David Kirby's morally criminal pseudo-scientific anti-vaccination rantings).
Of course, the omissions of some of my comments may well have been the result of technical glitches. One glaring example is seen by the fact that "part 2" of one comment was posted http://www
(continued in C2)
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
thank you again for the discussion. i feel we all stand to gain from being engaged. i will look into this and let you know if i hear anything. sorry about these technical glitches..
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
sure thing...th
Srini:
Do you have a direct link to the full study? not the abstract - I've seen that. the full study. Thanks.
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
here is the link:
http://www
look forward to hearing your thoughts..
Having read all the comments here, the only thing I can really say is that more testing needs to be done to support this report, and no one here has given me any reason to believe that more testing shouldn't be done. So the question is, how do we get this testing done?
Try the John Templeton Foundation. They're spiritual and fund research. They gave over $2 million to the prayer study.
www.temple
In fact I agree with kryton86 here. I just mentioned the Templeton Foundation as an example to show that these studies do get funding. I don't think it's the lack of money that stops us proving psi. The Soviets sure tried. The CIA tried. McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research tried. PEAR labs (they claim to have proven stuff but no one can replicate the results).
This stuff has been researched for about 150 years, the last 30 of which can be even remotely called reliable from the viewpoint of experimental integrity. If it were any other field of study it would have been abandoned long ago as highly unlikely. Besides, there is no well established hypothesis behind any of this stuff. No one has a plausible mechanism for how ESP, PK, or the afterlife might work. This presents a serious problem in the design of any experiment.
Victor Stenger wrote that "In the natural sciences, an extraordinary phenomenon is normally not considered to be even tentatively established until it has been observed, in precisely the same form, in two or more independent experiments in which each experiment stands alone as being statistically significant and free of other errors. It is safe to say that this condition has not yet been achieved for psi, despite experiments going back to the 1850s."
This is the hurdle that needs to be cleared by any further psi experiments. Once this is done I will consider it further, but until then I can't take it seriously, and neither should anyone else.
Which is precisely why I said more testing needs to be done, under more stringent conditions to see if there is any potential there. There have been many many advances in science and the scientific method within the last 30 years, and that needs to be taken into account when looking at the evolution of the research. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity is still, 50 years later, being put to the test, challenged and aspects of it are being carried over into other fields such as quantum mechanics
To the scoffers,
Gregory Bateson years ago offered a 5 point logic system to replace the 3 point system. To:
True-Null-False
He added:
As If True and As If False.
These two additions, he suggested, come into play when we have insufficient information.
As If True provides a rational for exploring the unthinkable. If all your thoughts tell you something is not true then explore the thought which arise as if it were true.
As If True lets you explore out of the box ideas. For this I suggest the following book:
The Holy Man and The Psychiatrist - By Samuel H. Sandweiss, MD.
Well, I'm not sure why I would choose a fuzzy logic point when considering something for which there is insufficient evidence. Why wouldn't I just consider it to not be true? After all, Gregory Bateson is known for his belief that "Logic is a poor model of cause and effect.", but if that's so then why do the sciences work at all? Why is it that matrix mechanics (which is very, very logical indeed) describe Quantum Mechanics so well? I personally think that Bateson is just plain wrong about this. The very notion of cause and effect is one of directionality in time, and that's inherently logical. If you want to say that it isn't then you aren't challenging logic, you're challenging the idea of cause and effect itself. In this sense I find Bateson's statement to be internally contradictory.
- "If all your thoughts tell you something is not true then explore the thought which arise as if it were true."
Well, if these two extra logic values are valid, how about I just explore the thoughts which arise from the "As if False" side? After all, this is what the three point system already does anyway. I just assume a claim to be untrue until sufficient evidence supports it. The opposite approach, that it's true until disproved, seems to be needlessly more complex and less scientific than prevailing methods. It approaches such fallacious propositions as Pascal's wager, in my opinion.
krypton86,
In dealing with quantum theory we're dealing with fuzzy science. All scientific theory s assumed true until demonstrated as false:
As If True-Null-False
Because of the future you can never prove a scientific theory true.
Scientists deal in transiting the uncertain into the more and more certain., always faced with "what if this were true". Bateson just gave the first formal presentation of this which I encountered.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle and entanglement, among others, really mess with the notions of cause and effect, also the apparent directionality of time. Looking at these from the standpoint of logic really means "conventional wisdom" which placed Newton over Einstein for a while.
Dr. Leonard Smith once told me Advanced Calculus is simple once you've had it. Logic so often is a matter of experience and the limbic system.
I wrote, "If all your thoughts tell you something is not true then explore the thought which arise as if it were true." Likewise, if all your thoughts tell you something is true then explore the thought which arise as if it were false.
Google "scientific theory true false". As IF True until proven False is the general approach I was taught in college Physics. You can change a theory for new observations but then you have a new theory replacing a disproven old theory.
Your assertion, "it's true until disproved, seems to be [...] less scientific than prevailing methods" is opposite of the scientific method.
More research is fine. I have no issue with this. The idea that the experiments are not done often enough, however, is neither here nor there. It is the quality of experiments that makes the difference, and this quality has been lacking.
I think one of the biggest problems facing 'psi' experiments is the complete lack of theoretical underpinnings. The measurement of statistical significance is meaningless unless it actually points to something which affects the outcome. It is a false dichotomy to say that, when there is a statistical significance, that it is only the result of chance or a psi event. It could very well be any number of other factors that were not controlled for (or perhaps even that can't be controlled for).
Oops! This is supposed to be a response to PlaceboStudman in the thread started by zizyphus below. I guess I posted in the wrong section. Sorry!
Gregory Bateson was a crank who only became widely known because he was fellow-crank Margaret Mead's husband (surely you've read of how thoroughly the young people of Somoa pulled many bushels of wool over her eyes!)
Bateson was a zoologist who decided to explore anthropology instead. He never received any formal medical education, let alone in psychology or psychiatry, yet he claimed to have determined the true nature and cause of schizophrenia! He induced vicious harm to the parents and family of schizophrenics by claiming -- and was believed by many dupes with an M.D. after their name! -- it is "caused by a family's communication style, which, in turn, was due to the hostile, anxious, unloving nature of the parents. The schizophrenic's strange speech and behavior, the voices in the head, etc., are all due to linguistic confusion brought about by a childhood of mixed messages."
Yes, he actually blamed the family for schizophrenia, even though he had never performed even a single observation of a schizophrenic patient! Happily, this crackpot's ideas no longer destroy families because genuine science has debunked such evil BS.
Wow. I did not know that about Bateson. What a hack! You know, even if I didn't know much about schizophrenia, the thought that it could be caused by a family's communication style is too ridiculous to entertain. I would have immediately thought it to be a biological problem, not a sociological one. How bizarre to come to such a conclusion.
I feel that consciousness is the soup the universe swims in.
Why is there is so much resistance to the notion that our thought can affect other people? It may not be a strong force, as currently practiced, but perhaps it can be amplified. But then, considering how poorly people will treat each other, it may be better if they don't know what they can do.
I would like to remind everyone that the military/i
Check out this site: http://www
You can play various psi games, see how you did, and compare your results with others.
Or go to the Boundary Institute: http://bou
Do events in the future effect things in the past? Check out : http://www
When I see how vehemently, how tenaciously, some scientists cling to their theories, it seems more like a religion. Yet Science only evolves by testing new, and always "outrageous" hypotheses. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest for saying that the earth moved around the sun. Old ideas die hard.
- "Why is there is so much resistance to the notion that our thought can affect other people?"
The simple answer to this is that the evidence for it is dubious, at best. The second link in your post is in reference to Dean Radin's study on the 'Global Consciousness Project' as it relates to 9/11. It's interesting to note that although similar probability spikes also occurred during the Papal visit to Israel and several major earthquakes, they also happened during periods when there was no discernible event, global or otherwise. Indeed, in his 9/11 data there were several such spikes in previous days. What was focusing 'Global Consciousness' during these periods? Radin's answer: "I don't know." That says to me that we are not observing what he claims to observe.
Look, it's not about being confined to a dogmatic scientific viewpoint. I would love for this stuff to be true because it would pave the way for a world of science fiction and fantasy becoming reality. The problem is that there has been no convincing data in psi experiments, only statistical anomalies, and these often evaporate on closer examination. Even the director of the GCP, Roger Nelson, has said "I want to acknowledge that I like the notion of Global Consciousness, but that this idea is really an aesthetic speculation. I don't think we have real grounds to claim that the statistics and graphs representing the data prove the existence of a global consciousn
I am often reminded of the quote "there was a time in the history of everything that works, when it didn't". For all we know, this could be the case with distance healing, simply because the experiments have not been done often enough to collect a strong enough data base to make an adequate "true" or "false" statement whether the principle works or not. I say we need to do more research before anyone makes that kind of conclusion
(Part 1): Respectfully, zizyphus, the beliefs you discuss in your post have all failed miserably when put to the test by more cautious researchers. Not a bit of it survived careful examination.
For example, in regard to your comment involving "military/
See:
http://www
http://www
http://www
http://ske
As for your randomness and focused attention reference, if you examine the original time line charts (various researchers have been proved to have fudged their published charts to "improve the tale" as it were), you will discover that the peaks are always at least a little off of the alleged "event". Paranormalists are always quick on their feet with credible-sounding (to the uninitiated) but ultimately non-credible "explanations" for why their charts never work out right, but it's really all nothing more than self-deception. (continued
(Part 2):And the old saws about Galileo and other presumed martyrs to science are extremely tired, inaccurate, and utterly irrelevant to modern science. Galileo was scooped on the whole "earth orbits the sun" thing by thousands of years (the ancient Greeks knew it perfectly well, and that knowledge was never lost. Heliocentricity was all the rage well before Galileo came upon the scene, even in contemporary Europe. Galileo was put under house arrest for far more complex theological reasons.
And Einstein was also beaten to Relativity, although he certainly improved the idea and thus merits the lion's share of the credit. What we see over and over again in the history of science is not at all akin to your "outrageous hypotheses" notion, but rather that ideas understandably become "ripe" around the same time because those on the bleeding edge are reading the same things their competitors do. If it had not been Einstein or Galileo, it would have been someone else very soon thereafter.
But paranormal "research" has not yielded a single credible observation in 150 years! Since it hasn't happened by now, it's almost certainly never going to. And the enormous damage such beliefs have ravaged upon our societies resulting from acting upon erroneous and factually unwarranted beliefs is FAR too high a price to pay.
As I remarked elsewhere, we need clear, cogent, critical thinking NOW more than ever, and this paranormal silliness is unconscionably blocking our path!
zizyphus,
I have degrees in astronomy, mathematics and psychology. I agree with your comments. Long ago I lumped most scientists together with the religious dogmatists.
An excellent exposition how scientific dogma and superstition impedes scientific progress can be found in the book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.
Bryson's book should be require reading before one pursues a scientific discipline and might be eye opening for the scoffers commenting on SP's article.
You, AllenPapapetrou, have "degrees in astronomy, mathematics and psychology" and yet you assert that Bryson's charming little book has genuine relevance here?
Really?
Don't get me wrong, the book's a delight, but it's woefully inadequate in terms of cognitive nutrition! It's a fun romp in the park for a very casual reader, but an "excellent exposition how scientific dogma and superstition impedes scientific progress"? I think not.
Really? You have degrees in astronomy, mathematics, and psychology, yet you write things like "Energy always has direction and direction is intention.
- "Long ago I lumped most scientists together with the religious dogmatists
Ha! Right. Hows the weather up on mount righteous these days? Just so you know, we miss you sooooo much here in lump land. Not.
ziz, try reading "The Men Who Stare at Goats" for the hilarious story behind the military's paranormal disasters. A real eye opener.
That's a terrific book. By Jon Ronson. It's mostly funny, but sometimes tragic. He shows how the remote viewing project was the proximate cause of the Heaven's Gate Suicides. One of the viewers saw aliens on the Hale-Bopp comet. The cult leader took that as a sign the alien saviors were on their way.
Them: Adventures with Extremists, Ronson's other book, is also great.
"A well-designed study done in 2008 "
What study? What journal was it published in and what is the name of the study? I smell something very fishy here in this article.
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
please see next page of comments and discussion about the nature of the publicatio
I ask again: What study was this? Where was it conducted? Where is the link to the paper published on this study? This information should be provided in the article.
Dear Dr. Pillay, I enjoy reading your blogs because you inject what rational causes for seemingly irrational or random occurrences could be at work. I'm a skeptic who wants to be proven wrong because I want to see the scientific behind the what seems to be mystical. I would very much like to know your opinion on chakras, as well as quartz crystals. For years, the U.S. didn't "believe in" acupuncture, but that seems to have gone more mainstream. Isn't acupuncture based somewhat on the chakras? And isn't quartz used in things like radio transmissions? Just trying to see any scientific basis in some things seem almost entirely as metaphysical or even less substantial. Keep up your blogs, Doctor, I read them all and always find something of interest.
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
thank you for your comments..
That would be great, Dr. Pillay! You help me make sense of the physical, scientific and spiritual and what could have a rational component and what not.
Maybe acupuncture is going more mainstream They're even using it on dogs. I'm not kidding. But that's in spite of not because of the recent research. The credible studies show acupuncture is no more than an excellent placebo. Here's a great and easy-to-read (I don't mean you need easy reading, I do) article on acupuncture studies by Dr. Harriet Hall.
The placebo effect is what science should be studying, as it is so effective, but no drug companies will fund that research.
"The credible studies show acupuncture is no more than an excellent placebo...
1.) Cite/link your source material and explain how you are able to qualify these studies as the only "credible" ones.
2.) Please expound on the notion of an "excellent placebo". Are there gradations of the Placebo Effect? Explain exactly how the Placebo Effect works, please.
Interesting, Some. I saw a documentary on the use of acupuncture in China and it was fascinating to watch a woman only have acupuncture for the pain while having surgery. I always look for the rational explanation behind what seems to be anything but. I know there is so much the Western World scoffs at, but I figure until you research, it doesn't make sense to believe or disbelieve. Sometimes people add the mystical to what is really a rational explanation. I'm sure the telephone and the light bulb had some disbelievers in the beginning and I'm sure there are some really amazing things to yet be discovered to have a scientific basis. That's what I really like about this blog, the rational and the mystical and how they may not be so far apart.
I enjoyed this article. But I've also grown up understanding distance healing and the power of intention. I don't need a scientific experiment to prove something that ive seen my whole life.
Hmm. Well, I've grown up seeing the sun rise when the rooster crows, so I "know" that the sun rises, and can only rise, when roosters crow.
I'm pleased that there are a number of posters on this thread who understand the basics of science and are willing to, with tact, rebut suspicious claims.
I think Mr. Pillay's intentions might be good, but the methodological approach is off and the science absent.
Anything is suspious until it is in concrete, however one would be stuck in a folly to think that science can't progress without hard facts surrounding the thing to death. How would you measure this? how could you absolutly qauntify it? you can't, you go with supporting data, and that rooster crows plently.
Dr. Pillay opines (in his maddening, e.e. cummings-mimicking manner) "your knowledge of energy not having intention cuts off any hypothesis generating ideas."
I don't even know where to begin with such a mind-bogglingly bizarre comment, but here goes:
(1): "ANY" hypothesis generating ideas? Really? Is your imagination so impoverished?
(2): It is a capital mistake to dismiss, downplay, or reject rational explanations for any phenomenon prior to exhausting every single one of them first! The brilliant Martin Gardner warns us not to offer or accept hypothetical explanations for any phenomenon until that phenomenon has been established to exist in compelling, replicable, scientific demonstrations. Nothing in the entire 150+ year history of paranormal research has yet accomplished even that basic goal!
(3): We can safely say that denying intentionality to energy cuts off any energy-int
Pillay continues: "are you saying that you do not believe any of the existing data on the matter? if so, it is understandable and welcome that you have an opinion, but your opinion cannot be misconstrued as fact." Oh, the irony! It is you and Dean Radin who are giving voice to profoundly irrational and counter-factual opinions, Dr. Pillay. And your opinions -- far more than those of the genuine scientific community -- "cannot be misconstrued as fact."
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
i see the anger in your comments and that is fine, but i'm not meaning to be e.e. cummings-mimicking. in fact, i quite enjoy and appreciate your passion despite our different approaches. perhaps what we share is a love of science. you feel i betray that and do not represent it. i feel that i elevate it to being a reliable lens through which to examine things. we simply have different views.
within every "genuine scientific community" there are factions. i worry about that when that reaches a level of angry discourse that blocks communication. keeping the conversation going is vital to clarifying the truth. for me the bottom line is-if a phenomenon can help a person without adversity, i am in favor of it whether there are data to back it up or not.
do you think it is possible for two people to have extremely different views of a scientific phenomenon and explore this in a non-hateful way? i would like to attempt this if you are up to it.
(Part B1): You ask: "do you think it is possible for two people to have extremely different views of a scientific phenomenon and explore this in a non-hateful way?"
You are correct to infer I am angered by the credulity demonstrated on THP. I am angry for the reasons I specified in my first post. I find that mixing politics with pseudo-science on the same site contributes considerably to embarrassing and even defaming the liberal worldview.
It is shameful and harmful. If ever our society needed clear, cogent, critical thinking, it is now. We can indulge ourselves in flights of fancy after our current crises have passed. "New Age" thinking has contributed little or nothing of value. President Obama has been properly heralded as a "grownup". Let's emulate him!
And suggesting that I might be "hateful" or to have made "hateful" comments does not seem to bode well for the future of this discussion. It seems hardly auspicious of a fruitful debate, but I am eager to try to converse with you on these matters and so I am equally eager to forgive, forget, and start again.
Two issues first. The 250-word limit imposes a annoying burden, so I'm going to have to rely on sequential posts. Two: We'll likely not be able to synchronize the time of our replies, so that this might take several days. (continued in B2)
(Part B2): When I began to study philosophy at university decades ago, I was wisely taught that no debate can make any meaningful progress unless all the parties involved agreed on the nature and background of the issue. The most unproductive of all debates are those that employ non-traditional definitions and usage in incompatible ways. One person will use a given term to mean one thing while another will use the same term to mean something else.
But it is clear at the outset that our biggest stumbling block is that our knowledge and understanding of QM are starkly divergent. They are irreconcilable as they stand now. Mainstream physics has carefully examined the manner in which paranormalists have (mis?) appropriated and (mis?) applied quantum physics to justify their belief systems, and the results are devastating. They pick and choose, then they apply whatever appeals to them in specious ways to support their a priori beliefs (the word "specious" was chosen carefully).
Dean Radin, the primary author of the paper at issue, is infamous for his sloppy grasp of physics, as displayed in his book "The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena" http://www
(continued in B3)
(Part B3): But to understand where and how Radin and the paranormalists go so badly astray is beyond the scope of what can be accomplished in 250-word posts. One good place to begin is to read Victor Stenger's book: "The Unconscious Quantum: Metaphysics in Modern Physics and Cosmology". (Preface at: http://www
The main problem is that entanglement is stretched and abused FAR beyond what physics allows by the paranormalists. You just can't get there from here! It's a truly egregious violation of QM and is utterly unwarranted by the evidence. It's magical thinking writ tiny in flowing water.
Honestly, I'm not sure how to move on until you've read Stenger...
SP, sweetie. Calling a body hateful also blocks communication.
(As an aside, Dr. Pillay, it appears you may have misunderstood my "e.e. cummings-mimicking" remark. I was referring to the fact that I consider e.e. cummings to be the only adult justified in employing all-lowercase letters in his writings. I find that the exclusive use of lower-case letters is popular only amongst teenagers and is only marginally better than the exclusive use of upper-case letters. If you would indulge us by using traditional capitalization during our discussion, I, at least, would be much obliged. You manage perfectly well in your actual blog writings, so I don't imagine it is a personal style issue.
Of course, perhaps the caps key on your keyboard is broken? ;)
I would have added another control group that included cancer patients who believed that someone was sending intentions but who were in fact not. This would tell you whether the galvanic skin responses were self-induced, which to me would be the more likely result of the experiment. Some other statements also have me wondering; for instance, what is a shielded room; how do you seal a room against a thought?
As well, what has galvanic skin response to do with healing? The body reacts to many stimuli that produce that particular response and it is associated mostly with emotional reactions. If one of the trained pair was anticipating a stimulus they may in fact have induced a conditioned autonomic response (remember the bell – the salivating dog).
You’ve already laid out the potential problems for this new treatment regimen with the cautionary statements about transmitting abilities, countervailing intentions, and degree of illness. All this from a single poorly designed and I would bet unrepeatable experiment using medical research standards.
We already know that the initial report of successful distance (prayer) healing several years ago was unsubstantiated and bogus. Let people get comfort from the good intentions of others; don't lead them to expect anything else from them.
See Srinivasan Pillay's Profile
i agree that the additional group being added would have further substantiated the data. what i would ask, is when studies show that distant healing does not work, these control groups are not added either. so a mixed group of experimenters and replicated findings would help us be more certain.
the skin conductance use is also complicated. however, some preliminary studies at mass general hospital have shown skin conductance changes with increased empathy. i think that in this study, it is a measure of physiologic change correlated with the temporal sending of a message.
technically, most experiments in the field of human behavior are unrepeatable unless all experimental factors remain constant. but i would agree that this poses a big problem in studies of this nature. in fact, i often feel that funding mechanisms need to consider this...
thanks for your comments..
How is this behavioral science? Isn't it physics, physiology, and medicine if it's true? Neurology? Whether humans can communicate in a manner as yet unexplainable by physics is huge. I don't think behavioral science is the category I'd put it in.
Also are you asking that the studies which disprove distance healing remove their control groups?
"what i would ask, is when studies show that distant healing does not work, these control groups are not added either."
I don't understand what you mean. I sure that's not what you meant to write.
The big prayer study: http://www
(which cost 2.3 mil so the funding mechanisms were well oiled) had all the proper controls. The only effect it showed was that people who think they're being prayed for do less well than people who think they aren't. Totally weird! It's a reverse placebo.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
