Talk:Studies on intercessory prayer

Religion Redirect‑class

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Skepticism NA‑class

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Ignorant Assumptions

Prayer itself isn't an agent, and it is ignorant of researchers to say we are studying the effect of "prayer", that like saying we are studying the effect of quantum entanglement and the efficacy of prayer through this mechanism. A person prays to God who is meant to be the higher being and efficacy of the prayer, the arrogance in the research is that it lumps "prayer" by all religions to many different deities together. Assume for the sake of argument in this scientific context (if your Atheist) that God exists and you want to prove this, there are people who pray to statues, rocks and the sun are these studies measuring the efficacy of prayer to these things? what is the underlaying premise in the research, its subtext, its an argument for or against God. Maybe they got a group of satan worshipers to pray for these people, the point is, Prayer by who and to whom. Otherwise the entire underlaying premise of the researchers is null and void as a scientific experiment.

They should repeat the research and conduct it in the manner of, The efficacy of Buddhist prayer vs Christian prayer vs Jewish Prayer vs Islamic prayer vs no prayer etc, not the Efficacy of "prayer" and the end conclusion is for all prayer and that those prayed for a far worse than those not prayed for.

Sicher et al

The review at the bottom mentions Sicher et al but it is not present in the article. Is there any reason why this is not the case? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was clearly an oversight. I guess you could call it a case of double-blind editing. History2007 (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed adding the source to the peer reviewed article it was published in. Do you know the details of it? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a case of triple-blind editing, then. But Shannon has a good summary of it as well. History2007 (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for (triple-blindly, good one) including the Sicher article, but it studies distant healing, "including prayer and "psychic healing"," and only mentions intercessory prayer once (Byrd)." The 40 "self-identified healers" were from "Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Native American, and shamanic traditions as well as graduates of secular schools of bioenergetic and meditative healing." Would Sicher be more suitable for the Energy medicine page than the present one? Keahapana (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it makes a big difference. The conclusion here (and maybe there) is that there is no conclusion. The long and short of it is that there is not enough money to do proper studies, and these days the money is not going to appear anyway. So there will probably be no answer any time soon anyway, either way. History2007 (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two reviews presented as being in contrast to each other in fact do not. The first review suggests there is no effect whilst the second returns a result of inconclusive. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which two you mean, I have forgotten the topic now... So please modify it accordingly. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was this change I made I was referring to: [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now could you comment on the ITP journal being RS? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't pass WP:MEDRS; it appears to be based on a religious type movement as highlighted here: Transpersonal_psychology#Criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR

No source mentions that "Neither study specified if photographs were used, or if belief levels were measured in the agents or those performing the prayers." You have looked at the primary source and then talked about what it doesn't contain, that is original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, WP:Primary can be used if worded carefully. I will reword that later, can delete it for now. But it is certain that they did not use those items, so no big deal to reword it and add it later. It may even be in other sources. I will look later. History2007 (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they may not have used those terms, but no reliable source has mentioned there absense as noteworthy. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it out, it must be noteworthy... But what they used or did not needs to be clarified anyway. For instance, O'Laoire used photos. History2007 (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I will look for the sources tomorrow, no need to make a big deal of the whole issue given that there are less than a handful of rigorous studies, all inconclusive and no one can draw any conclusions either way. That should be the message of the article. I would, however, point out the tremendous (really tremendous) amount of analysis Zynga performs to determine what type of goldfish users like to play with. So that is where the world's intellectual power is focused now. History2007 (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not a major OR so no rush :). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactive intercessory prayer

I have to note that the Retroactive intercessory prayer section is quite possibly the funniest thing I've read in the article namespace on Wikipedia for a while. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

A note at the head of this article says "It has been suggested that this article be merged with Efficacy of prayer." Since the two articles cover essentially identical material, I would vote yes, merge. 76.241.138.58 (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]