Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Christian Science"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Questionable: guide to martinspeak)
(My 2 cents: new section)
Line 401: Line 401:
 
:::Sorry Trent, for some reason I thought that was TotnesMartin's screed. MY BAD. <sup>This&nbsp;message&nbsp;brought&nbsp;to&nbsp;you&nbsp;by:</sup> {{Imagelink|20|16|-2|-2|text-bottom|User:Toast|Image:Toast s.png|Toast}}<sup>[[User talk:Toast|respond]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Toast|<span style="Background-color:Tan;color:#8B4513;line-height:1ex;font-size=50%;"><sub>and&nbsp;marmalade</sub></span>]] 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Sorry Trent, for some reason I thought that was TotnesMartin's screed. MY BAD. <sup>This&nbsp;message&nbsp;brought&nbsp;to&nbsp;you&nbsp;by:</sup> {{Imagelink|20|16|-2|-2|text-bottom|User:Toast|Image:Toast s.png|Toast}}<sup>[[User talk:Toast|respond]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Toast|<span style="Background-color:Tan;color:#8B4513;line-height:1ex;font-size=50%;"><sub>and&nbsp;marmalade</sub></span>]] 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 
::::if that had been one of mine it would just be three long sentences (with tangential bits in brackets), and would end up stating the opposite of what it started off saying. And there'd be a Monty Python/George Orwell/Dr Who quote in the edit comment. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 21:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 
::::if that had been one of mine it would just be three long sentences (with tangential bits in brackets), and would end up stating the opposite of what it started off saying. And there'd be a Monty Python/George Orwell/Dr Who quote in the edit comment. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 21:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== My 2 cents ==
 +
 +
Bob, 
 +
 +
I've been sitting here on the sidelines a couple of days watching this thread.  I too have a strong scientific background and recently retired after serving 41 years in a lab in which we used scientific method everyday.  You posed a good question in the beginning and did (I think) present evidence as best you could, although I know what these fellows were looking for.  There has been a couple of double blind experients done in regards to prayer and healing that I recall vaguely.  One of them actually came out favorable, however it was later discarded because apparently the doctor was a baptist and would only allow baptists into the experiment.  That's par for the course I guess. 
 +
 +
Regardless, I took it upon myself to look at some of the links you offered and I actually went down to the library and took out the Robert Peel book you mentioned.  Quite a good book if I do say so myself and I can see what you were saying about the evidence, although like I said before, it just wasn't what these guys were looking for.  Nonetheless after spending a fair amount of time looking at what you offered (I'm retired and bored what can I say). I actually came to see exactly where you're coming from and I see no problem with it.  I am actually guilty of attemptig to change the christian science and nancy brewster articles because I actually agree with you, and now especially after your last post.  however I soon found that this is not your typical wiki so I gave up.
 +
 +
I can see what you're saying and have to admit I'm in agreement with you, just so you know you're not alone here.  I agree that scientific methods have changed as I did the revisions of our standards in the lab amongst other things over the period of time I served there.  I also agree that picking a religion with the name science in it to point out that it is a pseudoscience and an oxymoron shows me that someone is bored indeed.  I should also mention that I read all of the responses given here to you and I must point out that the case study done by the other fellow here, tmltouse or whatever his name is, I have to admit, carried some holes in it.  In his study it appears he likes to theorize.  In science theorizing is just fine, you just don't want to overdo it.  it also qappeared to be a rush study and one thing I know is that you cannot rush your research. 
 +
 +
In some instances I also agree with some of what the fellows here said as far as your evidence goes, but all in all your last presentation here is the one that finally sold me.  I should like to point out to you Bob that you shouldn't take their last responses here to heart because we had many people just like them come and go in the lab over the time I was there, and really they're just being hard nosed scientists and nothing else.  I learned to deal with those types early on in my career and we almost always agreed to disagree.  I myself am just a bit more open minded than these fellows here. 
 +
 +
In closing I want you to know once again Bob that even though you don't strike me as a scientist I think you gave it your best shot and did a fine job.  I agree with you on the removal of the article in question and the changes you said should take place, but as I said before I know these types of scientists and you shouldn't take it personally.  You admitted to your temper and apologized and I will acknowledge that that in itself is an admirable thing to do.  My many years as a scientist taught me to keep a slightly open mind and not take scientific method as seriously as some would like to believe you should because there's always room for some change. 
 +
 +
Take care from Jim

Revision as of 01:27, 1 July 2009

Christian Science Given the following definitions, I would like to know how it is that one could consider the name an oxymoron?

Christian: Following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ.

Science: Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain (as in Christian Science the healing of sin, disease or death)

Seems pretty straightforward. I see no "Pseudoscience" as is depicted by the "misinformed" and obviously hateful author of this article.

Many documented and verified (thousands upon thousands) healings exist to substantiate the claims of Christian Science and I might add, not JUST Christian Science but also SCIENTIFICALLY and other religious beliefs as well.

Why is there such a big deal made out of the "casualties" of Christian Science anyhow when in fact there are millions of people dying each year under conventional medical care? The original article written is only written in spite and has no backing whatsoever.


Is the Nancy Brewster article all you can come up with? The article that is written about Nancy does NOT depict a true Christian Scientist as they are taught to be in Christian Science. Perhaps I should list the millions of casualties caused by conventional medical care that far outweigh the handful of Christian Science? Does this site allow for several million pages full of names and cases? — Unsigned, by: 69.95.5.89 / talk / contribs

Okay, now that the meta issues are resolved. Let us take a look at what you are saying. First of all your definition of science is certainly not one that is accepted generally. Science is usually defined as the body of knowledge derived from using the scientific method, or the act of deriving knowledge using the scientific method. There are also important ideas such as falsifiability and peer review that are important to the proccess if not the definition.
Can you provide some of the scientific evidence you claim to have, of a single case, just one, is all I need, where Christian Science provided a cure for an illness? tmtoulouse 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Proofs

Before I address your request, I would also like you to provide proof of what your article states about CS. The Nancy Brewster article is no proof whatsoever. I have read the Science and Health twice and listened to it on audiobook all the way through 5 times, so I am well versed in how it operates and how it REALLY is supposed to be practiced, and I can assure you, the Nancy Brewster article shows some "wackos" that thought they were using CS and were definitely not. Mrs. Eddy clearly declares that if one feels they need medicine they should use it until they can understand better. And I might add I have studied many other religions wherein prayer is used and those too are almost always vastly misinterpreted and abused just like CS.

You will also notice that I not only defended CS but also other religions and the scientific community that has also done experiments to prove the power and effectiveness of prayer. Your "opinion" about the correct definition of science is only your opinion because from the latest dictionary (2008) I have sitting in front of me also shows the definition I provided as an acceptable one (and in all fairness) in addition to the one you state.

As to scientific proof.... perform a google search and you will see that there are thousands upon thousands of people, healed not only by CS but by other religious beliefs as well, which were in fact verified by competent medical doctors as healings of real conditions (the conditions being also verified) as compared to a handful of failures in CS and any other religion. Now look at the millions every year (and you did not deny this) that die at the hands of regularly accepted medical practice. A medical doctors opinions should suffice as "scientific" evidence. There are also several books filled with verified (in the same manner) healings.

[[1]]


Documented scientific proof (more scientific for you that is), exists for many experiments done where a group of people pray for peace (for example) and there are scientifically measurable differences in levels of violence, crime and illnesses while the prayers were taking place. Now this stuff is more I'm sure of what you're looking for, but I want to state that a medical doctor's opinion is also considered "scientific". And this "scientific" proof is easy to find.

Just one of many examples you can google:


[[2]]

Here's more:

[[3]]


Now, look in the obituaries of any newspaper and go to the hospitals and view the records and I can assure you that there are many many of those that could have had something different done that could have saved their lives (even adding prayer to treatment), but... no one says anything about those cases, or at least hardly at all. Even in my small town, we've all heard about the local hospital's "mistakes", but those are brushed off. But.... heaven forbid someone should attempt to heal by prayer and it fails, and all of sudden it's a national crisis.

The whole truth behind any of this is that there is scientific proof that shows "beliefs" and not merely the religious followings that heal people, so I not only stick up for CS but any religion that believes in the healings through prayer. It's just that this article points the finger at CS exclusively.

Now please, provide me with proof that backs your claims in your article. It appears the evidence is just not there. Your article is merely an opinion and an accusation without merit. Just a minor point made here but, googling links to stories for those who die at the hands of doctors = 53,100,000 links as compared to those who died from religious causes = 14,400,000 links.

Here's the ones for those who died from the general medical practices:

[[4]]

Once again, please provide your proofs now to back up your article because as I said above, Nancy Brewster's Mother, family or the alleged Practitioner obviously had no understanding whatsoever about CS.

And, if I made a mistake here (it was a lot to write) I will correct it. However, I stand firmly when I say that CS is definitely not a Pseudoscience. If it is, then so is conventional medicine. — Unsigned, by: 69.95.5.89 / talk / contribs


Now hang on a second, lets slow it down a bit, you are pushing a strategy known as the Gish gallop, where you throw as much as you possibly can at the discussion and say "here this is proof." The amount of time/effort needed to debunk one of your examples far exceeds the amount of time needed to claim it as proof. As such I can only address a small fraction of what you toss out, and then you can claim that all the things I didn't address prove I you are right.
I am not here to argue the relative merits of conventional medicine, right now we are addressing christian science, pray, and other spiritual "healing." Even if conventional medicine was a giant scam, that does not prove the validity of your proposed alternatives. Those things must stand and fall on the merits of the evidence for them. Not the merits of real medicine. Also the no true Scotsman approach you are applying to defend against Nancy Brewster's mother doesn't really fly either. But realize that you are making a positive claim here so you need evidence to back up your claim, not arguing against the lack of evidence against it.
The important bit about our definition of science is it helps to establish what counts for evidence. Evidence are things that have gone through predictions, testing, and replication. Things that do not count as evidence: random anecdotes on google, testimonials, statements from "experts," etc. This is not a body of evidence that is scientific. There are many reasons for it, such as the fact that people lie, the placebo effect, confirmation bias, etc.
So how about this, you pick what you think is the absolute strongest example of evidence that there is some validity to spiritual healing. Once you have picked this one piece of evidence I will go out and review it and offer my thoughts on it. At which point, if it fails to live up to proof, you can provide another piece of evidence. And we can continue this till you don't want to do it anymore, you run out of evidence, or perhaps you manage to prove you are right and I am convinced. tmtoulouse 20:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can address that google-fu stuff on doctors killing people ("googling links to stories for those who die at the hands of doctors = 53,100,000 links") because it's just too damn easy. For a start, most people in the western world (which is the predominant contributor to the internet thus far) will rely on evidence-based, i.e., conventional, medicine. Far fewer will rely on alternative medicine. So, even if the "number of google hits" was acceptable "evidence" (and I can't believe I even have to think it is even for the sake of argument) the numbers are unreliable. For it to be any indication, you'd have to know the number of people using alternatives to mainstream medince. 52 million links vs 14 million. Now, assume google links are proportional to actual deaths (they're not, for multiple reasons), for this to show that prayer and whatnot kill fewer people, this would mean that at least a quarter as people should rely on alternative medicine as mainstream medicine, otherwise, as a proportion, it will be higher. Not that this matters, as the point is useless on many, many levels. But I thought I'd poop shoot the easy stuff first. I'm looking forward to something more definitive, preferably double-blind and controlled (and no special pleading, these are the only terms) to look over. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 21:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, these two search terms are far more useful to try: [5] [6] Scarlet A.pngpathetic 21:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Google fights Q.E.D. It is a bit of reversal of the standard Argumentum ad Google ranking, though I am starting to wonder if this concept might deserve to be upgraded out of fun and made into a real article.
I agree with all that you said, I just tried to avoid getting into it. My many, many wasted hours of debates has taught me that you can not win these kind of gish gallop wars without getting the person to zero in on specific evidence for their positive claims. Otherwise you get lost in the non-sequiturs and never get out. tmtoulouse 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the second piece in the first Google search gives a Washington Post article that states:

But these and other studies have been called deeply flawed. They were, for example, analyzed in the most favorable way possible, looking at so many outcomes that the positive findings could easily have been the result of chance, critics say. "It's called the sharpshooter's fallacy," said Richard Sloan, a behavioral researcher at Columbia University. "The sharpshooter empties the gun into the side of a barn and then draws the bull's-eye. In science, you have to predict in advance what effect you may have."
here

Sterile driptray 21:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Moar ironically, because of the googling without quote marks, I saw this summary on the first page of links: "A DOCTOR who examined Gloria Thomas three months before she died from ... for their baby's death because they shunned conventional medical ..." So this search surely contains every death by prayer that uses the word "doctor" in any way. Sheesh... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know we had anything like "argumentum ad google" or whatever, but since we've seen it in use, it's definitely worth looking at in more detail. It seems to go far beyond CP's ranking obsession. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting on your proof

And I quote you: "The important bit about our definition of science is it helps to establish what counts for evidence. Evidence are things that have gone through predictions, testing, and replication."

You are (without realizing it), sticking your foot in your mouth by writing that article and then making that statement I just quoted. I provided a very small body of evidence and yet you still cannot validate your article which anyone with half a brain can see is nothing more than a poke at Christian Science without being properly researched.

Your only evidence thus far has been the Brewster article and as I stated, I know the Science and Health inside and out and I can assure you that those people were not Christian Scientists. They vastly misunderstood what Mrs. Eddy taught, so your article remains a worthless rant without "evidence" yet you want me to provide evidence?


Alas, once again here's something a little simpler for you to digest; three books, full of evidence of healings, with medical doctors providing their written testimonies and I might add not only doctors but people of many upstanding positions in society both past and present, and that is not "Gish gallop":

A Century of Christian Science Healing, Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age (which provides affidavits of numerous healings in which the disease had been medically diagnosed and the healings medically confirmed ((and not just simple diseases but ones such as spinal meningitis, cancers, tuberculosis, and many more)) and finally Healing Spiritually.. And, this is only 3 books of many that you can borrow from a local library, so check them out.


I might also point out that there have been some documentaries done on television where prayer was studied under more "scientific" scrutiny more to your liking and it was shown to be effective although I cannot recall off hand what those were. If I remember then I will direct you to those too. I personally don't need to see anything beyond all of what I have provided to you to believe in it, albeit as much as I stand up for Christian Science I am not a Christian Scientist myself. I have however known many that were and I have seen things for myself which was proof enough for me. Although I honestly do not and never did understand the need to see "air" in order to believe in it.

So, once again I offer more proof. Somehow though I suspect this will not be adequate. You ask for one piece and I give you a whole pie. I see no sense in providing anything else and therefore rest my case, although I still await your evidence. So come on now, let's be fair. You have an article to defend and so far it's me = 2 and you = 0. It's your turn. — Unsigned, by: 69.95.5.49 / talk / contribs

In order to demonstrate that your dismissal of the Nancy Brewster case is not a No True Scotsman, perhaps you can cite something Mrs. Eddy said that the Brewster family flouted, with the effect that Nancy remained ill.
Also, do not cite books brought out by the Church of Christ, Scientist to demonstrate the veracity of the church's position; one can go and check the Bible and two commentaries out from the local library, but that does not demonstrate the truth of young Earth creationism. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
You have failed to provide any evidence at all, nothing, nada, zip. You talk in terms of vague generalities, and citing 3 books "full of examples" is a classic Gish Gallop. The amount of time needed to refute every case in the book far, far exceeds the time needed for you to say "Look in that book!" I will give you one more chance, pick the single best example of spiritual healing that I can go and examine the evidence for. Continued refusal to do that, and more attempts at obfuscation will likely just lead to me given up.
As for Nancy Brewster case, as ListenerX has stated, you are making a positive claim that her mother is not a "true" Christian Scientist. Can you provide specific examples of things she said and did that could make your case? There should be a common theme at this point in our conversation, if you make a positive claim, we ask you to provide evidence for it. Pro-tip: Regardless of how much evidence we provide, or don't provide, our relative lack of evidence does not count as evidence for your claim. I tell you this truthfully, what you put on this page can change the article content. If you provide a coherent argument, with evidence, I am more than willing to rewrite any of this. tmtoulouse 16:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And there you have it folks....

And now a third time you are unable to defend your article. Not unlike anyone else I have successfully shut down when I defend CS.

Anyhow...

I cite those books (and one of them was NOT published by the CS Library which shows once again your lack of proper research. I can assure you that you did not in fact go borrow or read anything in those books, because if you did you would clearly see the verification process is quite stringent for submitting testimonies. Once again you judge without facts as your article so eloquently proves.

As for you continued ignorance of my requests (obviously everyone can see you have absolutely no knowledge of anything you claim to know about CS so I'm really wasting my time here) but.... I present what Mrs. Eddy said in Science and Health (per your request) that the Brewster's and the alleged practitioner were not authentic Christian Scientists.


In the Brewster article it mentions about Nancy being made to exercise and forced to eat. In S&H it states:

Christian Scientist's medicine is Mind (and I should add "Mind" is God in CS), the divine Truth that makes man free. A Christian Scientist never recommends material hygiene, never manipulates. He does not trespass on the rights of mind (mind is lower cased thus meaning human mind) nor can he practice animal magnetism or hypnotism.

There was obviously a great deal of manipulation going on with Nancy.

It also states:

In order to cure his patient, the metaphysician must first cast moral evils out of himself and thus attain the spiritual freedom which will enable him to cast physical evils out of his patient; but heal he cannot, while his own spiritual barrenness debars him from giving drink to the thirsty and hinders him from reaching his patient's thought,-- yea, while mental penury chills his faith and understanding. Obviously there was a great deal of cruelty going on with Nancy and it was NOT CS being practiced properly.

Here is more against the Brewster article. It appears from the article that the disease was given attention to thus once again NOT following CS properly:

Avoid talking illness to the patient. Make no unnecessary inquiries relative to feelings or disease. Never startle with a discouraging remark about recovery, nor draw attention to certain symptoms as unfavorable, avoid speaking aloud the name of the disease. Never say beforehand how much you have to contend with in a case, nor encourage in the patient's thought the expectation of growing worse before a crisis is passed.

And more:


Is it skillful or scientific surgery to take no heed of mental conditions and to treat the patient as if she were so much mindless matter, and as if matter were the only factor to be consulted?

And even more:

When you manipulate patients, you trust in electricity and magnetism more than in Truth; and for that reason, you employ matter rather than Mind. You weaken or destroy your power when you resort to any except spiritual means. Obviously they employed more than spiritual means.

And even more:

It is foolish to declare that you manipulate patients but that you lay no stress on manipulation. If this be so, why manipulate? In reality you manipulate because you are ignorant of the baneful effects of magnetism, or are not sufficiently spiritual to depend on Spirit. In either case you must improve your mental condition till you finally attain the understanding of Christian Science.


And even more:


If hypocrisy, stolidity, inhumanity, or vice finds its way into the chambers of disease through the would-be healer, it would, if it were possible, convert into a den of thieves the temple of the Holy Ghost,--the patient's spiritual power to resuscitate himself. The unchristian practitioner is not giving to mind or body the joy and strength of Truth. Which the alleged practitioner and the mother were very guilty of.

And I quote from the Brewster article:

Both her mother and the practitioner believed that Nancy was just being stubborn. Her mother sometimes even beat Nancy and blamed her for not getting healed.

From S&H addressing the above:

Argue at first mentally, not audibly, that the patient has no disease, and conform the argument so as to destroy the evidence of disease.

When Nancy was obviously not being healed, the Practitioner should have known to drop the case as is evidenced by what Mrs. Eddy states here:

If patients fail to experience the healing power of Christian Science, and think they can be benefited by certain ordinary physical methods of medical treatment, then the Mind-physician should give up such cases, and leave invalids free to resort to whatever other systems they fancy will afford relief. The mother, being the adult, should have known this and especially the practitioner. The practitioner should have suggested she seek medical help. It would not be the first time any practitioner has done so, and wouldn't be the last.


The mother was way off as evidenced by this simple statement from S&H:

f the case is that of a young child or an infant, it needs to be met mainly through the parent's thought, silently or audibly on the aforesaid basis of Christian Science.


And although I could give you countless more evidence, here is one that even a complete non-christian (or true scientist) can understand and proves how silly the Brewster article is:

Sickness is neither imaginary nor unreal,--that is, to the frightened, false sense of the patient. Sickness is more than fancy; it is solid conviction. It is therefore to be dealt with through right apprehension of the truth of being. If Christian healing is abused by mere smatterers in Science, it becomes a tedious mischief-maker. Instead of scientifically effecting a cure, it starts a petty crossfire over every cripple and invalid, buffeting them with the superficial and cold assertion, "Nothing ails you."

The mother had Nancy exercising. Mrs. Eddy states:

The discord which calls for material methods is the result of the exercise of faith in material modes,--faith in matter instead of in Spirit. The mother was "mixing" her own beliefs which obviously Mrs. Eddy states is not CS. Nowhere does Mrs. Eddy say to exercise.

To prove that statement I offer the following from S&H:

We hear it said: "I exercise daily in the open air. I take cold baths, in order to overcome a predisposition to take cold; and yet I have continual colds, catarrh, and cough." Such admissions ought to open people's eyes to the inefficacy of material hygiene, and induce sufferers to look in other directions for cause and cure. Jesus never taught that drugs, food, air, and exercise could make a man healthy, or that they could destroy human life; nor did he illustrate these errors by his practice. He referred man's harmony to Mind, not to matter, and never tried to make of none effect the sentence of God, which sealed God's condemnation of sin, sickness, and death.


In closing, I will point out that your 1 piece of evidence as compared to my many doesn't hold water because of the plethora of evidence I have produced, once again at your request. You on the other hand have spent no time proving your article to be fact but have shown me and anyone else that it was definitely not researched at all. Pulling opinions from the internet is not research. What I have done is. I am asking once more (and finally), please provide proof for your side of it, but I truly believe you won't, because you can't.


By the way, I had a friend of mine who writes articles (and has for over 30 years, ((and gets paid handsomely for it I might add)) read your article. He pointed out a large lack of credible evidence in your article (as I not being a writer pointed out), saying that if he wrote something like that he would have been fired.


Before you respond, I truly hope you actually read everything this time. Other than that, case closed I'd say. 3 - 0

Well. It seems that the size of your contributions is increasing exponentially. You will be crashing the Wiki next!
  1. You continue to practice dishonest debate tactics; only those who wish no debate consistently attempt to stop a debate before they have obtained a concession from their opponents.
  2. If someone applies the principles of Christian Science and it does not produce the expected results, the principles have by definition been misapplied? Sounds like a No True Scotsman to me!
  3. Also, in what sense is a book by Robert Peel, one of the Church of Christ, Scientist's most prominent spokesmen, not a book brought out by the Church of Christ, Scientist? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, one more thing......

Honestly I could care less if you remove or edit your article or the Nancy Brewster one. You're asking for stuff that not even the world's greatest Scientist could provide other than anything I have already provided. I already typed in a crapload of evidence and certainly am not going to get out the books and type more. If you were honestly "scientific" you would take the time to read rather than judge.

In order to prove anything, I have to cite that which proves the point so when you say "it's over" if I do, and you still do not offer your side, then you basically really stuck your foot in your mouth and anyone that reads your article and sees what I offer here is going to side with me more than with you (unless they're your friends or acquaintances).

Your article obviously makes you look bad and you don't care and that's fine with me. It makes you angry because i can provide points of proof and you can't and that too is fine with me. I had my say and provided my proof. You provided absolutely zilch and everyone can see that because it is blatantly obvious.

Case definitely closed.

I will review the material on Nancy Brewster, but you need to role back your ego about 20 notches or so, your posts are full of logical fallacies and non-sequiturs, and you have failed to meet what I consider to be a basic level of argument. The reason I haven't addressed specific claims you have made is you avoid specific claims like the plague, and rely and generalities instead. I offered you an opportunity to defend that CS was anything but pseudoscience of the worst sort, I explained to you how you could go about doing that, several times. Instead you relied on rhetorical techniques designed to make debate impossible, then you declare victory. None of this really reflects positively on you, or your "arguments." At this point, as I have said, I will review what you have strung together about the Nancy Brewster case, but your limited ability to address these issues in a coherent, fair and rational manner will likely greatly reduce any potential impact you could have had. Now, if you choose to role back your ego and actually want to address this issue in a real and substantive manner I would be glad to continue you this. But I am done responding to your tirades of fallacies, feel free to declare yourself the victor once more....tmtoulouse 18:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actual improvement of this article

The mega-tirades of the bunch of numbers not-withstanding, this subject does deserve a much better article. Maybe the talk page activity will motivate people to do some expansion on the subject? tmtoulouse 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, although it's not exactly my area of expertise. We should probably just ignore the BON because it's going completely cyclic and unconstructive. Should I whack the WP template on for now? It's certainly the kind of article that it's meant to be used on as we're hardly going to take a balanced look at it (although it certainly will be a fair one). Scarlet A.pngpathetic 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And you have done the same without realizing it

Actually, you have done exactly what Ann Coulter and people like her do all the time. In other words, demand so much of everyone else and skirt your way around the initial point and repeat yourself never actually answering.

You gave up never proving your point or justifying your article and never answered questions given you. Like I said, anyone that reads all this will side with me and I have no ego to roll back because I am confident on what I have offered and there is a vast difference between ego and confidence.

I gave sufficient proof, offered by doctors and (I might add) scientists (if you took the time to read the books or even portions thereof you'd see this) which is sufficient proof in itself and since some was by scientists, is obviously acceptable by the scientific community. You are asking for more than what is acceptable. I was only asking for one thing from you and never got it.

I second this notion, Michael Jackson's conversion to Islam was obvious and we should not disrespect his faith by not mentioning it in this article, here are ten sources and his brother is a Muslim so please fix this.71.193.206.116 19:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) If you dislike our demands, quit smearing your logorrheic caterwauling all over the Wiki; nobody is compelling you to remain here. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The lurkers support me in p-mail! tmtoulouse 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I haven't had a chance to link didactic megalomania in a while either. tmtoulouse 20:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is the first time I have read this talk page but I'm afraid BoN's arguments are an epic fail. Not once has s/he come up with a single case as asked for that would stand up to scrutiny (just one case, not dozens, so the Coulter comparison is invalid). Even the Catholic church requires a thorough investigation before they will declare a miracle at Lourdes and over 150 years they have credited just 66 cases with a miracle verdict. Over 70,000 people visit Lourdes every year and yet the success rate is about one every 2.5 years. With all the intense and earnest praying that must go on there, this is a staggeringly low rate of success. Even when an alleged miracle does occur it doesn't mean that it has been the result of intercessory prayer and we cannot rule out the placebo effect in every case. If scientific medicine had the same success rate as Lourdes it would deserve to be criticised but given the number of people involved the odds are in favour of getting successful medical treatment from trained professionals than relying on some religious credo. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh....

So now I'm a lurker because you cannot validate your claims? LMAO... Whatever. Like I said I could give a rats behind what you do with the article or this talk section. And anyone that knows anything about IP addreses knows that many users can have the same IP address. Sheesh.... I mean come on.

I'm still waiting for the proof you cannot provide. Really, I see only 2 people that sided with you and most likely you had to call them in. Whatever. My 11 year old daughter is smarter than anything you or your 2 buddies have come back with. I do find it funny that you would need back up though and I need none. And when you cannot defend your silly article then you resort to calling me a lurker.

Whatever. I'm through arguing with children.

And anyone who actually knows what "lurker" means would know that we are not calling you one... Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


I'm still waiting for proof that CS is a Pseudoscience and an oxymoron. Remember, 1 ignorant article is hardly proof. I continue to await the proof or any kind of intelligent answer. I played fair now put your money where your mouth is.

An intelligent answer, sadly, requires an intelligent question. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I will try one more time, pseudoscience is having the trappings of science but none of the substance. Christian Science makes all kinds of claims that is says are scientific, but it provides no acceptable evidence to back up those claims. It does not subject itself to any kind of experimental, controlled testing, it doesn't make falsifiable predictions, it doesn't offer concrete causal theories or explanations. That is why. You can disprove my statement above by showing me where CS offers this evidence, or even better, to show me what directly what evidence there is that is "scientific." I am looking for an example a "miracle" if you will, that can be verified by uninvolved disinterested parties. I am looking for evidence that is not testimonial or anecdotal. Ideally, you can show me an example of a double-blind, controlled experiment submitted to peer review. If CS stood up to that kind of scrutiny, it would not be pseudoscience.
As I have explained multiple times, I don't play rhetorical games, and tactics like the Gish gallop will merely be met with scorn. Find me one example that meets any of the criteria I have laid out, and if it is a valid example I will admit that CS is not pseudoscience. tmtoulouse 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)



Okay, one more time for me...... as for ListenerX, your comments have nothing to do with this topic other than to slander me. Your ignorance is apparently your virtue in life. I asked a basic intelligent question about proving how CS is a Psuedoscience and an oxymoron. What is so NOT intelligent about that?

To tmtoulouse; apparently verified healings with affidavits from doctors and scientists is not proof enough for you. Also, you may want to pay attention to the time period in which CS was first discovered and realize that the word science and it's meaning have undergone some changes over the past hundred or more years. Back then it was likely much more relevant, but time changes things and meanings as in the word "gay". Do you see what I'm saying here? What would it benefit the church to change the name now? Even so, Science still holds the meaning I addressed and therefor the name is basically still relevant.

The books I cited, especially the one by Robert Peel (which was not published by the CS Publishing Society) provides the proof you ask for. I honestly do not want to sit here and type it out, so please go borrow the book and you will see that it does in fact address your concerns. And be sure your buddies accusing me of providing you nothing do the same so that they can address this issue intelligently and quit slandering me with terms they have to get out of dictionaries in order to do so.

Without even looking at the books I mentioned how can you even accuse it of not proving what you're looking for? Come on, let's be fair about this. And all the stuff I quoted from the Science and health by Mrs. Eddy does prove that the Brewster mother and her alleged practitioner were nothing more than screwed up people that gave CS a bad name. I honestly fail to see how that is not proof in itself when it came straight from the horses mouth.

please now. Provide me with your verifiable evidence of your claim. I have given you plenty and your angry buddies are quite wrong in their accusations that I have not.

You might get a (very) slightly more positive response to your many, varied, and slightly hysterical claims if you had the common courtesy to sign you posts.--Bobbing up 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
(EC) What was there in your extensive quotes that could not be applied to any other case of Christian Science principles failing? I refer specifically to the paragraph containing the phrase "...the metaphysician must first cast moral evils out of himself..."
How about picking your favorite case from one of the books and providing a summary here? Are you concerned that if you get any more specific your claims will be shown up for what they are? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No, citing a book and saying "it is filled with what you want to see" isn't going to work. Pick the best example out of that book and tell it too me and I will go look at the evidence for that example. Remember, statements, testimonial, anecdotal evidence, no matter who it is from is not evidence. Do not cite "so so says he saw a miracle" even if it is a "doctor" or "scientist." We need something that has actual evidence. I don't have to provide evidence for my claim, because I am making stating that something doesn't exist (in this case evidence of miracles). I can not provide evidence for the lack of something, you must provide evidence that it exist. tmtoulouse 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been following this thread with interest, but mostly only in Tmtoulouse's clarity and facility in talking about science and the scientific method. To state it charitably, Tmtoulouse is taking it easy on you. You've yet to provide any scientific evidence of CS's claims, and indeed seem to have a flawed understanding of what counts as science. I suggest you take Tmtoulouse up on his offer to evaluate one piece of evidence of CS's claims. Referring to "verified healings with affidavits from doctors and scientists" without citation is useless. Anecdotal "evidence" is anecdotal. It's not evidence. That's why we have the scientific method, which begins with a good idea and falsifiable predictions subjected to controlled experiments. Referring to a book with a self-serving characterization of its contents is also useless. It's not our burden to go borrow a book, read it, and make your arguments for you. If you're going to make positive claims, you've got to back them up. So go for it - give one single piece of scientific evidence backing CS's claims and everything else will fall into place. Barring that, someone here that cares will get around to writing a better CS article, or not, and you'll go on your merry way to defend CS and hone your debating skills somewhere else. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Who cares about "science" or "evidence" when you have people being healed and the divine word of God?
Prove a single person has been healed by the divine word of god and I'll buy you 10 internets. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Hell, at this point, I would settle for evidence that could actually be reviewed....tmtoulouse 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Christian Science neither of are really here. Accordingly, evidence or, for that matter, signatures, are irrelevant.
(I think the latest two unsigned posts are a different BON taking the piss) ħumanUser talk:Human 22:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again into the breach

Obviously you're too lazy to do anything for yourself nor any one of your buddies will either. Minds like yours are unfortunate since the cure for cancer can stare you in the face and you will never know it since you are so closed minded.

You had to call in a bunch of people to stand behind you and cannot stand on your own. I stood on my own and I'm satisfied. The evidence you want is there anytime you' re ready to take a stand, read it and be a man about admitting your mistake in writing your fallacy. Until then, enjoy your life cutting down things you know nothing about. You failed to prove anything other than you have a dictionary on your lap as you're typing and can bullshit fairly well. At least I don't need anyone to stand behind me. None of you are scientists, you're nothing but wannabees. - Bob

Well, Bob. I'm sure you guess that we respectfully disagree. Why don't you make an account to carry on the good fight? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, Bob, I am disappointed, though not surprised, by your tactics. Pressed to provide specific evidence for your claims, and not hand wavy generalities you start in on the ad hominem attacks. I will give you a 100 million to 1 odds that the "cure for cancer" is going to be discovered by scientist, following the scientific method, working with in peer-reviewed literature, and not through prayer, bleeding statues, magic dirt, or any other "miracle." When your mind is so open it falls out, you get lost in what "feels good" and what you "want to believe" instead of learning about the real world. The real world, discovered through careful observation and controlled experiments, is far more wonderful and exciting than the make believe world you structure around yourself because you are too prideful to not want to admit that you are not the special creation of an all powerful being. You are missing a lot.
Everyone who came to this page and wrote to you did so on their own accord, not everything in life is a vast conspiracy. And finally, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the credentials of this group. I am pretty sure almost everyone on this page could easily out credential you. Some of us are scientist and have work published in relevant fields. However, you should note, that none of us smeared our credentials across this page as a way to prove we are some how correct. Ideas stand or fall upon the evidence, not the person making the argument. You could learn a lot, and have some significant inter-personal growth if you just dropped the attitude and the attack dog posture and tried to have a real conversation. tmtoulouse 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


And once again you completely succeeded in avoiding providing the proof. how can you expect to have a real conversation when you have consistently avoided the original post and question and skirted the subject, demanding that I prove myself but you don't have to do the same?

I would like to point out however that there's no way in hell that anyone here could out credential me when in fact if you took the time to go back through all of the posts you would see numerous grammatical and spelling errors. And you got published?

Oh, and I already said I wasn't a Christian Scientist, but I have experienced healings through prayer. And sorry to say, cancer has been healed through prayer already and that happened a long time ago as well as recently and there is credible evidence to back it up. I also personally know people that have been healed of many things. I saw them both before and after, meaning that I saw their diseased condition when it was upon them and after when it was gone, and all done with prayer. Being open minded has its rewards far and above being closed minded. I really should be going now. I've made my point over and over, which is why I take the "attack dog" position because I'm talking to a wall here. If you really were scientists then you would look at every angle and not just your own, and a real (spoiler alert) scientist has an open mind (gasp). And a real one would do his own footwork and not demand someone else to especially when they were given the materials to do so. Funny, that's what I was taught in school, even though that was a long time ago.


Like I said, when you decide to get off your duffs, the evidence is there. I did all the footwork, you have to (gasp) go pick up the book. In the meantime you can all yuck it up as I'm sure you will, never learning anything. - Bob

You're the one making the claim, not us. Please provide one strong example from your arsenal of evidence, surely we'll be able to track it down on the web if it's so compelling and realize the rectitude of your claim that incantations, performed "properly", can consistently sarcomas. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The only claim that I have made is that there is no evidence to back up what you are trying to push, I can not "prove" a claim like that, other than that to reiterate again and again that there is no evidence that has yet been presented. Every time you refuse to present your evidence you are providing evidence for my original claim. And yes, I have multiple publications, and multiple lines of research going on at this moment. I am a "scientist." But that is neither here nor there. My credentials have nothing to do with the validity of any of my statements. You really can't see why you coming in here and claiming to have seen a miracle doesn't count as proof? Really? I find that level of ignorance to be extremely hard to believe.
Did you know that one day I woke up and found a tiny pink elephant sitting on my desk playing poker? I saw it, and came here to tell you that I saw it. That is complete and utter proof that tiny pink poker playing elephants are real. Any refusal to believe that they are real merely shows you are a closed minded bigot. We all know that my absolute conviction that I saw this would be all the evidence any real scientist would need.
Doesn't quiet work does it? tmtoulouse 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
BON/Bob, you have done very little "legwork". You've typed stuff into Google and claimed that "it's there", yes, it probably could be there but it's a waste of time and resources for many people to go trawling through those lists, most of the contents of which would actually disprove what you want to claim (as shown several times by Human above). I'm sorry you think that an anecdote equals truth, but it isn't. These are the rules; proper evidence, controlled trials, real results. So far - in the world at large as well as on this talk page - these evidences are extremely lacking. This can be shown very simply: if they weren't lacking, James Randi would have lost a lot of cash, the Nobel Laurates for the last 100 years would be much different and Rational Wiki would be proclaiming across the internet the power of prayer. We do want to see this proof, really. Our perceptions are meant to be challenged but only by things that are real. Personally, I think the world would be much more cool and interesting if the supernatural was real, ghosts and ghouls haunting us or gods and goddess playing with our fates. How it all works in Dogma, for example, is awesome and I'd love it if that happened so I'm more than willing to accept it if it was real, but it's not, it's fictional. Unfortunately, the real world is considerably more boring than that and we plain and simple don't have the evidence to say that it isn't like that. If you can prove this wrong, I'd be exceptionally happy so don't go around accusing everyone here of being closed minded about it. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 02:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Playing with our fates is the Weird Sisters' job. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)



You know. I just had a thought. Since you are claiming to be scientists; You could conduct the experiments and tests for yourself. Hell, you could make a documentary or perhaps write a book, filling it with everything you did and the results you got. Most likely you'd have a following and make some money too.

Here's something really easy. There's a film made by Gregg Braden wherein they have visually documented evidence that no one has been able to debunk, with a woman that goes through a prayer process and her tumor disappears on camera, within 3 minutes. Perhaps seeing that would help? He does talk about experiments conducted in that one and there's no effort in watching it because you can watch it on youtube for free. It's called The Science of Miracles and it's in 7 parts. How easy is that? At least I'm making an effort here to make it easier for you.

- Bob

Bob
One piece of video does not constitute scientific evidence. Show me properly constructed double blind trials and I will be interested. Show me videos constructed by woomeister charlatans and I'll just laugh.
Silver Sloth 13:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh and Bob, we are NOT going to conduct the experiments ourselves, because we are not the ones making the claims. If we were to take it upon ourselves to scientifically test every woo claim in the world then not only would we all be bankrupt, we'd also be quite annoyed that the likes of people such as yourself would (1) ignore the results, and (2) make up another stupid claim for us to test. Therefore, if you are going to try and pedal crap then the burden of proof lies with you. Sorry. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Ok Bob, you're still not getting it. Read our article on the scientific method. Read the one at Wikipedia too. Then go look at the evidence you're referred to and pick 1 scientific proof of the healing power of CS, if you can find one. I don't think you can. I realize CS uses the word "science" in its own way. This doesn't render the truth value of our arguments equal. I tend to believe that any claim based on denying the reality of physical matter in favor of the world being a sort of pleasant spiritual illusion is inherently untestable. Interesting philosophical problem, but not science. Once again, you've been invited over and over and over to provide evidence of the claims of CS's healing power. Are you going to continue galloping or get down to business? I hope you'll agree we've been very courteous and patient with you. But after a while this repetition gets old, no? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One wonders exactly what credentials "Bob" has, because so far all the evidence points to a solitary diploma in gullibility. If you want to understand the scientific method and how to design medical trials then I suggest you read Ben Goldacre's excellent book Bad Science. Even some scientists don't always get it right and that's why we have peer-review. YouTube videos do are not evidence, TV camera crews can be (and frequently are) duped, after all they are not medical experts. Michael Schermer made this point in his Skeptic column in this month's issue of Scientific American concerning evidence for UFOs. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

-------------------- <rolls eyes, hangs head and shakes it side to side> Could you type out the article you gave me a link too? My finger doesn't want to raise and click it. This is exactly the excuses you have been throwing at me. And once again you pass judgment without looking at what I offered you. You guys are a joke and your spelling and grammatical errors show just how much of scientists you really are. The Wikipedia article also offers some mistakes but as much as (even here) it states we can edit it, it always goes back to the original "crap" that is written about it because some "know it all" thinks they have it right and all without proper research (as in your case). I could care less about you being "nice to me" or that you leave your article up or that your buddies jump in to defend you. I maintain that none of you are scientists and are no more than some group of teens that like to trash (without knowing anything about what your trashing) things that bother you. The traits are there and I've seen it all over the Internet and I'm glad you had fun but I'm through playing your silly ass games. 20 or 30 years down the road you'll look back on your high school pranks with a chuckle (much like I did or anyone else that matures) and say "boy, was I dumb back then"

Have a good life, seriously.

- Bob

Okay, okay, okay, even though it is not what was asked for I gave in and watched the video. There is a problem, I can't find this "disappearing tumor." It is just some guy sitting around making stuff up in what looks like a bus. Could you maybe tell me where this disappearing tumor is? Which segment of the video? The time? He mentions "experiments" but unfortunately does not provide a single source for his claims. So I can't go back and verify that the experiments even happened, let alone that they showed what he claims. All I am left with is having to take some guys word for it. That is not evidence.

As far as "doing it ourselves," we shouldn't have to. You came here telling me that the scientific evidence was overwhelming and that there was tons of it out there. But now you are telling me that we are going to just have to do it ourselves?tmtoulouse 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob, do you know what an ad hominem attack is? Do you know why this is a bad debate tactic? Resorting to it at all usually means you are failing miserably at whatever you are trying to show. But when you are reduced to arguing only through ad hominem attacks, well there is nothing left. It is embarrassing. If all you are going to do is attack us personally, then I would recommend giving up now. Ideally of course you would provide some of this "amazing evidence" you keep promising but never deliver on. tmtoulouse 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone questioned your credentials, Bob. They're not relevant to a discussion like this. You don't need to rise to the bait and turn around with a specious insult that we're not scientists. On its own, this doesn't mean we're more correct than you are, but you ought to know lots of people here are well-credentialed scientists and science writers and very few here are younger than college age. Even Mrs. Eddy would tell you to stick to the facts and not let the discussion devolve into a turd-slinger just because some feelings got hurt. None of this is real anyway, right? Bob, you're starting to look like a troll. We're obviously very interested in seeing scientific evidence of your claims. Your belief that we have any obligation to read your sources, conduct your experiments, or make your arguments for you reflects you don't understand how science works. Seems to me that your consistent failure to provide even a scintilla of scientific evidence for your positive claims means we ought to move on. This discussion is going nowhere, slowly. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I can't vouch for others on this site but I am a 57-year old physicist/geologist. When I was a youngster, I too used to half-believe some of the supposedly amazing stuff that people claim to have seen or done such as bare-hand surgery to remove tumours and not leave any scars? Well I have learned that there are many opportunistic people who are only to ready to con the gullible, and once you take a serious interest in performance magic you find out all the tricks that the con-men use to fool people. Unfortunately some people remain gullible all their lives. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes but, TM, a video on YouTube is irrefutable evidence, so shut up. For example, see this video of how mobile phones can cook a steak! Therefore it's true!
Why do these morons always come here, claim we're all uneducated kids (oh Bob, I have a degree in Pharmacology by the way, so I have studied experiment design and analysis) and then just leave a parting shot saying they're fed up with bombarding us with "proof" when the only thing they can actually prove is how crap they are at backing up their arguments? See ya Bob, don't let the door hit ya where god split ya. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Science of Miracles

Seriously guys, you have to check this out. Bunch of Numbers aside it is such a ridiculous hodge-podge of quantum woo I haven't seen something this painful since What the bleep do we know. The guy just sits there talking about a bunch of "experiments" and "lab results" and "published papers" and he never tells us once who did the research, a single university, scientist, not a name not a citation nothing. Guy is just making this shit up as he goes along. It is a great example of exactly what pseudoscience is. tmtoulouse 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, the more I look into this this more silly it gets. He is a Hay House product, and likes to hang out with the likes of Doreen "the angel lady" Virtue. It is more Law of Attraction bullshit. And this is the spectacular scientific evidence! tmtoulouse 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh for fucks sake. This video is such inutterably mindless shit. Even the soundtrack is making me want to stab myself in the head. We need an article on this bearded twat, Gregg Braden, post haste. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good lies guys. Yuck it up. You're really showing your "teen" colors now. Like I said I'm no Christian Scientist, never claimed to be, therefor I do not follow what Mrs Eddy said about such things as this. A true Christian Scientist would have never even looked at the garbage you purport to be true much less argue with you about it. You were trolling for someone gullible enough to fall into your trap and I (like a sucker) fell into it. My bad. I accept the tongue lashing I deserve for being fooled. Well, we're always learning. Enjoy your youth while you can. - Bob

I would ask that you stop attacking and go back to the conversation at hand. We have asked for evidence, you have provided none. I gave in and watched the video you showed me. You promised two things would be in that video, one information that I could use to find scientific experiments to back up your points, and two video evidence of a shrinking tumor. I could not find either of these. Would you mind telling me where those are in the video? And if they are not there, maybe you could actually present the evidence we asked for instead of making silly attacks? tmtoulouse 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't like to do this as this is a talk page where grammar and spelling may be overlooked, but pots and kettles come to mind with accusations about spelling and grammar:
"Could you type out the article you gave me a link too? My finger doesn't want to raise and click it. This is exactly the excuses you have been throwing at me. And once again you pass judgment without looking at what I offered you. You guys are a joke and your spelling and grammatical errors show just how much of scientists you really are."
Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I always thought that poor spelling and grammar where characteristics of most scientists. :)  Lily Inspirate me. 16:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It's got to be frustrating to realize there is no proof for something you already believe in. Most people stop believing. Others watch YouTube videos and blog about mysterious experiments. — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Spelling and grammar are exactly the reason we have peer review in science; your peers read over your papers and send you great long lists of purported spelling errors, and you have to expend considerable effort picking out the ones that are actually spelling errors and the ones demonstrating that your peers do not know how to spell. The more accurate lists come from the foreign reviewers. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In case any one cares I am going to play "case study" with this supposed evidence here, follow along or join in, or not. tmtoulouse 17:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So I am done, check it out, I doubt it will be surprise to anyone but Braden is a proven fraud, and the claim I tracked down is a long trail of dead ends and crazy alties. No science. tmtoulouse 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Great bit of work there TM. In theory our BON "Bob" should now either admit he's wrong or search up some real scientific data to back up the youtube video. But he'll do neither. As you say, he will instead Gish Callop into: - "Ah, yes will you may have spent a few hours debunking that one, but what about all these other (lunatic) youtube videos I can find?" --Bobbing up 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Ignoring questions, shifting the burdon of proof, aggressive wiki posts. Does "Bob" remind you of anyone?
You're TK.jpg

CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Bob (that's Bob_M, not BON/Bob), I too seriously doubt that will happen. You can tell from the pattern of the talk page. It goes 1) BON-Bob posts a new subsection with a long meaningless rand 2) RWikians discuss it. 3) BON-Bob ignores this and posts a new subsection 4) Go to 2. Whether any of this has gone in is debatable, although it has provoked some interesting stuff. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable

Gentlemen;


I decided to go on a little "case study" of my own and found some interesting information that neither one of us considered, and that is not mentioned in your article here on rationalwiki about scientific method nor here.

After having read this information I find it interesting that any of this would go on considering the age of Christian Science (the time period in which it was "named") and the fact that science itself was conceived from Christianity. It appears that both are in all honesty meant to go hand in hand because neither one can disprove the other. So my attempting to provide proof to you would definitely be met with the opposition it was met with and vice versa. I offer as partial evidence; The Origins of Modern Science by Herbert Butterfield.

To suppose Christian Science then as a pseudoscience is a pseudo in itself given that there have been changes to scientific method over the past 120 years. If indeed you are scientists then I don't need to convince you of at least the changes that have taken place in scientific method I'm sure. Therefor, judging the name of this 120 year old religion based on modern day scientific methodology would not seem appropriate.

Many of the founders of modern science were in fact Christians, however other religions as well seem to have given us great discoveries as well such as the introduction of zero from the Hindus and Algebra from the Muslims as I'm sure you will agree. This is just an added tidbit of course because the main contributions, historically recorded seem to point to science in itself evolving from Christianity. Bacon was an outspoken Christian and formulated the scientific method as you well know, although you did not mention the part about his being an outspoken Christian.

Galileo and his conflict with the roman catholic church has been used to support an anti-scientific bias of Christianity towards science, but when referencing the book; The Galileo Connection Galileo actually had many high ranking catholics on his side. It was his "Aristotelian" professors who actually caused him his problems with the Pope. Kepler, whose discoveries are the basis for our space program wanted to be a minister. In his writings, he frequently quotes psalms and relates the order of his discoveries to "God's rational creation." Pascal, (almost anyone knows this name) credited with being the father of probability theory, hydrostatics, mass transit, modern French prose, computers, and Christian Apologetics defends the Christian faith in his "Pensees". Boyle, the first to show the difference between compounds and elements, was a lay preacher.

So, rather than an obvious battle of wills here, I offer a peace settlement of sorts. Obviously science as well as theology have their limits and I'm sure you will agree with that. The "how" in theology is not explained and in the same respect, the "who" and metaphysical "why" is not explained in science. A scientist has to step beyond the bounds of the 4 dimensional time-space continuum to understand the creator or else just brush the creator off (which would seem nonsensical). In the same respect a Christian is bound by Gods revelations in the Bible and cannot gain any knowledge to make scientific pronouncements unless he too steps beyond those bounds.

So, in closing I think I did a very thorough case study of my own and offer as argument against your calling Christian Science a pseudoscience and an oxymoron. As far as the subject of relying on healing by prayer alone, well, it is within its own bounds as I have offered and one has to experience it for themselves or see it firsthand (as I have) and read what evidence there is, thus making their own conclusions. I nor anyone else can convince you otherwise just the same as you cannot convince me that CS is what you state it to be. Whether you pull it, modify it or leave it is up to you because in the long run it's not hurting it any.

My only other problem is with the Nancy Brewster article because I did actually offer direct from the Science and Health by Mrs. Eddy (as you requested) where she does speak against such things as were done by Mrs. Brewster and the practitioner, which in the long run does not properly represent official CS practices. The same of course goes for that too, namely; whether you choose to remove, modify or leave it the same, the impact it makes will be minimal at best. I've offered about the best argument I can here as I did with the evidence I have been able to find thus far that shows prayerful healings as a very real method. I also submit my apology for being hot headed. I've always had a temper and especially when someone attacks something I feel very strongly about.


So, there you have it. Do with as you see fit. And seriously, do have a good life. - Bob

I am attempting to follow your argument, but it is a little difficult. From what I can tell you are arguing that Christian Science can not be a pseudoscience because it was formulated a 120 years ago, and was a "science" based on the definition of science 120 years ago, and that only modern definitions of science would find it non-scientific? You also seem to argue that science needs Christianity or emerged from Christianity? Then you toss in some NOMA for good measure.
Assuming this is roughly your argument my response would be that the basic methodology of science has not changed significantly in hundreds of years. The body of knowledge it contains, the tools it can use, the questions it asks, and some of the social aspects have changed considerably. But the basic core of the idea, of prediction, experiment, analyze, communicate, replicate, repeat has not changed in the least. This argument also falls flat because modern Christian Science is still making the same claims of being able to heal people, and is still refusing to be submitted to the testing needed to validate its claims. We are not calling Christian Science pseudoscience because of the word "science" in its name, but because of its claims and its refusal to have those claims assessed in any meaningful manner.
As for the role of Christianity in the development of science, that is a far less interesting discussion for me. I don't particularly care. My main thought on this is that some people who were christian helped formulate the ideas of science, but it was not Christianity that formed science. Such a claim sounds an awful lot like "brown hair is responsible for science because Bacon had brown hair." Perhaps some elements of Christianity facilitated some aspects of the development of science but I hardly think it was a necessary component and certainly not a sufficient component. Regardless, this doesn't matter in respect to whether Christian Science makes pseudoscientific claims.
As for NOMA, and the role of religion and science in dictating whys and whose and what for..........meaningless to the conversation at hand and even less interesting to me than the history of religion in science. I reject all religion as silly superstition, and have no use for it in defining a working morality, and there for do not think it is needed. I am also not into scientism, it is an amazing tool but not used for everything. But that doesn't mean that I think we need to ever resort to non-materialistic interpretations of reality.
In the end we are left where we were to begin with. Claims are made about miracles, often proponents claim that they have been verified or are scientific, or that their is scientific reasons to think it is possible. When asked for evidence all we get are anecdotes, testimonials or out right lies as the Science of Miracles has proven to be. Looking at Braden's claims showed him either to be a terrible scholar or a fraud. This is the kind of evidence I have always seen, and why I feel confident calling it all pseudoscience.
I will give you this much, the Nancy Brewster article needs to be rewritten, as it stands now it is a poor article. But that is because it is a stub. This is a wiki, with a fair chunk of content. We rely on volunteers who have an interest and desire to expand and write on topics. I will add the article to my list of things to look at eventually, and others may step in as well. You are also free to participate in the rewriting of the article. It would be easier if you addressed specific content issues and didn't go off on metaphysical tangents. I don't mind the tangents, it is just all that leads to is debate not article improvement. Or you can go merrily on your way to some place else as you see fit. tmtoulouse 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Well done, Martin (even wiv de poorly elbow). I don't have the patience to argue with idiots. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand marmalade 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Trent, for some reason I thought that was TotnesMartin's screed. MY BAD. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand marmalade 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
if that had been one of mine it would just be three long sentences (with tangential bits in brackets), and would end up stating the opposite of what it started off saying. And there'd be a Monty Python/George Orwell/Dr Who quote in the edit comment. Totnesmartin 21:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Bob,

I've been sitting here on the sidelines a couple of days watching this thread. I too have a strong scientific background and recently retired after serving 41 years in a lab in which we used scientific method everyday. You posed a good question in the beginning and did (I think) present evidence as best you could, although I know what these fellows were looking for. There has been a couple of double blind experients done in regards to prayer and healing that I recall vaguely. One of them actually came out favorable, however it was later discarded because apparently the doctor was a baptist and would only allow baptists into the experiment. That's par for the course I guess.

Regardless, I took it upon myself to look at some of the links you offered and I actually went down to the library and took out the Robert Peel book you mentioned. Quite a good book if I do say so myself and I can see what you were saying about the evidence, although like I said before, it just wasn't what these guys were looking for. Nonetheless after spending a fair amount of time looking at what you offered (I'm retired and bored what can I say). I actually came to see exactly where you're coming from and I see no problem with it. I am actually guilty of attemptig to change the christian science and nancy brewster articles because I actually agree with you, and now especially after your last post. however I soon found that this is not your typical wiki so I gave up.

I can see what you're saying and have to admit I'm in agreement with you, just so you know you're not alone here. I agree that scientific methods have changed as I did the revisions of our standards in the lab amongst other things over the period of time I served there. I also agree that picking a religion with the name science in it to point out that it is a pseudoscience and an oxymoron shows me that someone is bored indeed. I should also mention that I read all of the responses given here to you and I must point out that the case study done by the other fellow here, tmltouse or whatever his name is, I have to admit, carried some holes in it. In his study it appears he likes to theorize. In science theorizing is just fine, you just don't want to overdo it. it also qappeared to be a rush study and one thing I know is that you cannot rush your research.

In some instances I also agree with some of what the fellows here said as far as your evidence goes, but all in all your last presentation here is the one that finally sold me. I should like to point out to you Bob that you shouldn't take their last responses here to heart because we had many people just like them come and go in the lab over the time I was there, and really they're just being hard nosed scientists and nothing else. I learned to deal with those types early on in my career and we almost always agreed to disagree. I myself am just a bit more open minded than these fellows here.

In closing I want you to know once again Bob that even though you don't strike me as a scientist I think you gave it your best shot and did a fine job. I agree with you on the removal of the article in question and the changes you said should take place, but as I said before I know these types of scientists and you shouldn't take it personally. You admitted to your temper and apologized and I will acknowledge that that in itself is an admirable thing to do. My many years as a scientist taught me to keep a slightly open mind and not take scientific method as seriously as some would like to believe you should because there's always room for some change.

Take care from Jim