 |
|
P Value Out of Control
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
As suggested by Harris et al,1 effective remote, intercessory prayer could be explained by one of two mechanisms. It might represent a miracle: the intervention of God in the physical world by a supernatural force in ways that are incompatible with natural law. It might also represent a form of telekinesis: the movement (healing) of an object (human body) at a distance (remotely) with thought or will (prayer) by an unknown natural force. Miracle or telekinesis has never been shown to exist by credible, replicable scientific experimentation.
Harris et al state that their purpose is not to speculate on mechanisms, but rather to convey results. This approach seems to miss the heart of the issue. It is the very improbability of the mechanism that raises doubts concerning the validity of the results. Goodman2 has cautioned against overreliance on P values in assessing the efficacy of studies. He emphasizes that P . . . [Full Text of this Article]
RELATED ARTICLES
Prayer and Medical Science: A Commentary on the Prayer Study by Harris et al and a Response to Critics
Larry Dossey
Arch Intern Med. 2000;160(12):1735-1738.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit
William S. Harris, Manohar Gowda, Jerry W. Kolb, Christopher P. Strychacz, James L. Vacek, Philip G. Jones, Alan Forker, James H. O'Keefe, and Ben D. McCallister
Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(19):2273-2278.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer: God, Science, and the Lesson of Massah
Chibnall et al.
Arch Intern Med 2001;161:2529-2536.
FULL TEXT
Prayer and Medical Science: A Commentary on the Prayer Study by Harris et al and a Response to Critics
Dossey
Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1735-1738.
FULL TEXT
|
