Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot
...
Lisa (MomOf2Gals) lets
out some steam against Dan and the critics. Michael Kopp strikes
back. Michael Kopp gives me a free lesson in how to unsubscribe
from the list. Dan Dugan praises Michael's battle against the
Dark Ages of anthroposophy. Michael's anger is psychoanalyzed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MomOf2Gals
Subject: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 17:18:51 EDT
To Dan and the other anti-SWA cult out there
who post on this list! (But mostly to Dan, who, in a lame but
appreciated effort to be nice, nonetheless insulted my intelligence
...)
Just because I have embraced some of the tenets
of SWA does not make me a robotic, brainwashed idiot! Despite
what you WISH to believe, there are those of us out there who
are intelligent, free-thinking, open-minded individuals who happen
to find that some of the teachings of a man named Rudolf Steiner
make sense to us in our lives as human beings in a very real,
very meaningful way.
Dan, you said that I am not to blame for being
``taken in '' (or some such language as that) by the rantings
of Joseph Chilton Pearce and company because it is hard for consumers
to distinguish between truth and fantasy. You obviously believe
that YOU can distinguish between the two yourself, but that those
of us who might find that some of what JCP and others have to
say resonates with our reality cannot. That is such an ego-maniacal,
stuck-up and conceited viewpoint that I was awestruck that you
would have the nerve to talk down to me in such a way! Before
this, I was impressed by the level of dialogue -- even heated
dialogue -- o n this list.
After reading that particular post, though,
I found myself feeling angry. I am a college educated woman,
40 years old, with close to 20 years of experience as an investigative
reporter for newspapers. I am a specialist in science and medical
reporting -- yet you talk down to myself and others as if you
and you alone know anything at all about telling truth from falsehood.
***I have a question for you, Dan, and for
others like you: If you so much believe that anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf
education is a bogus cult, nonesense or just not worthwhile,
why in the name of God do you spend so much time arguing with
people about it? Why not just ignore it, cut it out of your reality,
and move on with your own lives? My feeling is that you recognize
that somewhere within it there lies some meaningful -- if uncomfortable
-- universal truths. Because you are uncomfortable with these
things, you feel you must wrestle them down one by one. You must
work hard to make sure others do not believe in them, or give
them any credence.
I would very much like a straightforward response
to that question: Why spend so much time (and online, time is
money) trying to steer people away from SWA?
OK, my steam is blown off. I am ready to move
on. I hope you are, too.
--Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:20:47 +1200
Lisa (Mom-of-2-gals) who won't give her last
name, writes (and I'm replying because I fall into her second
category -- critics "other" than Dan Dugan):
Just because I have embraced some of the
tenets of SWA does not make me a robotic, brainwashed idiot!
Despite what you WISH to believe, there are those of us out there
who are intelligent, free-thinking, open-minded individuals who
happen to find that some of the teachings of a man named Rudolf
Steiner make sense to us in our lives as human beings in a very
real, very meaningful way.
Michael KOPP says:
You left out "critical" and "skeptical"
and "rational" in the thinking department, which is
the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers
and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?
The hallmark of SWA proselytization is that
it is for people who are "open-minded" and "free-thinking".
Steiner used the guru trick of telling people they had to find
the answers for themselves.
It's no surprise that nobody has gone beyond
Steiner in 75 years. Maybe, like the Catholic cult, it will take
centuries for any progress, and the critics are impatient sods.
Maybe, on the other hand, it won't change at all, since most
SWA people on this list write as if they believe Steiner infallible.
So's the Pope.
LISA:
Dan, you said that I am not to blame for
being ``taken in '' (or somesuch language as that) by the rantings
of Joseph Chilton Pearce and company because it is hard for consumers
to distinguish between truth and fantasy. You obviously believe
that YOU can distinguish between the two yourself, but that those
of us who might find that some of what JCP and others have to
say resonates with our reality cannot. That is such an ego-maniacal,
stuck-up and conceited viewpoint that I was awestruck that you
would have the nerve to talk down to me in such a way! Before
this, I was impressed by the level of dialogue -- even heated
dialogue -- o n this list.
After reading that particular post, though,
I found myself feeling angry.
KOPP:
The logical conclusion of your last sentence
is that now that you are angry at Dan Dugan you are no longer
impressed with the level of dialogue of the rest of us. Why don't
you see if you can separate your anger at Dan Dugan from your
apparent transference of anger to the rest of us.
LISA:
I am a college educated woman, 40 years
old, with close to 20 years of experience as an investigative
reporter for newspapers. I am a specialist in science and medical
reporting -- yet you talk down to myself and others as if you
and you alone know anything at all about telling truth from falsehood.
KOPP:
I am a college-educated man, 55 years old,
with close to 30 years of experience as an investigative reporter
for several media. I was for a time a specialist in science and
medical reporting (I won a national award for science reporting,
given by the scientists themselves, for my Radio New Zealand
work in 1991).
I think I am pretty "open-minded"
and "free-thinking"; I acknowledge that everything
that Steiner said may be true, and that there may be a supernatural
world of which I see no evidence.
Lisa wrote to me privately, and I wrote back
to Lisa privately -- and not at all in the manner which she finds
objectionable in Dan Dugan -- explaining why *I* was angry about
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical practices. I sent her an earlier
post of mine that tells a bit about my experiences with a Steiner
school, and included Dan Saykaly's proposed "disclosure
list".
One of the principles of journalism -- especially
investigative journalism -- is that one requires corroboration
and evidence of whatever is subject to investigation.
The difference between Lisa (and most of the
rest of the SWA crowd) and the critics is that Lisa's and SWAs'
"open-mindedness" and "free-thinking" leads
them to _believe_ there _is_ evidence of supernatural things,
in the words of Steiner, and the words of his followers, reporting
on *the content of their minds (or spirits)*.
But an investigative reporter (like a good
scientist) insists on having more than the reports of what others
*believe*. But there is no tangible evidence for a supernatural
or spiritual existence, and so the investigation into SWA comes
down to eludidating its beliefs, and the actions of its adherents
and practitioners. Facts and actions speak louder than beliefs
and ideas.
The fact that certain things in SWA or Joseph
Chilton Peirce "make sense to us [Lisa and other SWA believers]
in our lives as human beings in a very real, very meaningful
way" does not constitute the evidence that science -- or
good journalism -- demands.
If Lisa applied her investigative journalistic
yardstick to SWA (as do I) she might see that her anger is misplaced.
(Lisa has not replied to my private messages.)
LISA:
***I have a question for you, Dan, and
for others like you: If you so much believe that anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf
education is a bogus cult, nonesense or just not worthwhile,
why in the name of God do you spend so much time arguing with
people about it? Why not just ignore it, cut it out of your reality,
and move on with your own lives?
KOPP:
I can't answer for Dugan and the other critics;
for me, it's an investigative journalism project. And yes, I
admit to a bias. I admit that I cannot be completely objective
about the issue, because I and my children have been personally
harmed by SWA.
However, any journalist who says they are
unbiased and objective is either a liar or a fool.
What we should seek in journalism is fairness,
accuracy of reporting, and balance, which includes the admission
of our biases. (Unlike science, good journalism does not seek
"truth".)
That's what we have on this list: a balance
between believers and skeptics. (Well, as my statistics showed,
it's rather an imbalance, in favour of the SWA side -- I can't
keep up with the 5-1 or greater ratio of SWA attacks on every
post I make; I sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger. Seldom do
I see five or more critics responding to some post of the SWA
Defenders of the Faith [TM].)
One of the reasons so many critics can't get
SWA out of their systems is because when they were involved in
SWA, they were told much the same thing as Lisa is suggesting
that Dan and other critics do: "if you don't like it, just
leave, because we're so open-minded and free-thinking that you
will never get us to change anything about the way we educate
your children, or what we believe and practice upon them, and
we're not the least bit interested in anything you have to say
unless you agree with us 100 percent".
LISA:
My feeling is that you recognize that somewhere
within it there lies some meaningful -- if uncomfortable -- universal
truths. Because you are uncomfortable with these things, you
feel you must wrestle them down one by one. You must work hard
to make sure others do not believe in them, or give them any
credence.
KOPP:
No critic on this list wants to stop people
believing in SWA. Critics constantly repeat that they believe
people have inalienable rights to such beliefs.
Your characterization of critics as apostate
closet believers who can't live with their own contradictions
is an insult to me, personally, as an intellectual, and a bit
arrogant on Lisa's part to be so presumptuous.
For the record, I never said Lisa was a "robotic,
brainwashed idiot", and I don't think anyone else did, either.
LISA:
I would very much like a straightforward
response to that question: Why spend so much time (and online,
time is money) trying to steer people away from SWA?
KOPP:
Online time is cheap, compared to any other
medium of public discussion. Anyone who tries to set limits on
discussion on the Internet based on the supposed expense of e-mail
transfer, is either subscribed to the wrong Internet Service
Provider (ISP), or so poor they shouldn't even be able to afford
a computer, or living in a rural area where they have toll charges
to connect. Even there, e-mail is dirt-cheap (as opposed to live
browsing of Web sites or newsgroups, or chatting on-line). That's
why e-mail discussion lists were invented. (Actually, it's not:
they predate the World Wide Web and other Internet services by
20 or more years, back to the time when it was the ONLY technological
way.)
As to critics' motivation: call it consumerism.
Critics just want SWA to come clean about itself in its false
advertising and duplicity of parents, so that those people will
be well-informed about what they are getting into.
And, as I'm sure you _must_ understand by
now, because critics believe the SWA religious education has
no place in public or publicly-funded schools.
LISA:
OK, my steam is blown off. I am ready to
move on. I hope you are, too.
--Lisa
KOPP:
Okay, I hope it helped. And I hope the answers
to your questions will help you to use your intelligence, education,
and professional experience to get around your beliefs and take
a closer, more critical look at SWA. If you want to go on believing
part or all of it, that's fine with me. If you want to go on
believing without taking my advice about critical, skeptical
thinking, or you're offended by my suggesting other ways for
you to approach it, that's fine with me, too, and I apologize
if I sound condescending or patronizing.
Write to me anytime you feel like it.
Just don't ask me to shut up.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 04:23:41 EDT
Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:
You left out "critical" and "skeptical"
and "rational" in the thinking department, which is
the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers
and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?
I think that's pretty good for arrogance!
Bruce
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 21:17:54 +1200
Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:
You left out "critical" and "skeptical"
and "rational" in the thinking department, which is
the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers
and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?
I think that's pretty good for arrogance!
Bruce
Are you having some difficulty with the syntax,
Brucey?
Does is sound like a double entendre?
Or are you complimenting me?
You could be a little less obscure in your
comments, Brucey.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bruce
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:27:52 EDT
Michael cited Bruces Citation of his mail:
Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:
You left out "critical" and "skeptical"
and "rational" in the thinking department, which is
the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers
and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?
I think that's pretty good for arrogance!
Bruce
Are you having some difficulty with the
syntax, Brucey?
I don't think so!
Does is sound like a double entendre?
Are you having a little difficulty with the
syntax, Michael? "Is" sounds more English than "a
double entendre"!
Or are you complimenting me?
Well, I'll try anything once if it's not illegal!
You could be a little less obscure in your comments, Brucey.
I guess I could, but then maybe I am the brainwashed
idiot - after all I am still here, even if only lurking, and
what you SWA (did I write that) critics are doing is pretty close
to brainwashing. Why dont you go back to mutually shooting each
other in the foot?
warmly <g>
Brucey (since you seem rather partial to my
"y"!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 09:36:26 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:
You left out "critical" and "skeptical"
and "rational" in the thinking department, which is
the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers
and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?
I think that's pretty good for arrogance!
Bruce
Are you having some difficulty with the
syntax, Brucey?
Does is sound like a double entendre?
Or are you complimenting me?
You could be a little less obscure in your comments, Brucey.
Michael,
I didn't think he was being obscure at all.
You were the straight man for him. It was not a compliment. Frankly,
I wish I had spotted the opportunity first.
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: MomOf2Gals
Subject: Lisa on Lisa -- and Michael and Dan and et al ..
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:25:40 EDT
Oh Michael Kopp and Dan Dugan and other ``critics''
here!
Michael, first of all, I don't give my last
name because I am, admittedly, a bit paranoid about some online
disclosure. My husband thinks I am crazy to spend any time here
at all, and was upset that I even gave the city where I live.
(He is a newspaper editor with more than 20 years of experience,
and we both have seen -- as I am sure have you, Michael, those
horrible stories about people meeting online and then having
one of those psychos track them down and kill, torture, rape,
etc. them. So please excuse my little attempt at some semblance
of self-protection. If you knew me in person, you would know
that I am considered an ``open book'' by friends and acquaintances
in the newsroom and neighborhood.)
On to what Michael Kopp said regarding journalism
(and I never meant my mentioning that we share the same profession
to set off a ``I-can-top-you-with-all-my-awards-and-prizes''
fest ) I am sure you are a fine and respected science writer
(you certainly seem to put your faith in the scientific process!!)
As for me, I am now a small time reporter
for a chain of Los Angeles Times-Mirror weeklies, because they
allow me the flex time I think is important for me as a parent.
As a professional reporter, I do follow all of those hallmarks
of proof and corroboration that Mr. Kopp in the Godzone (what
is that? his city? or just a little inside joke? Please someone,
explain!) mentions. But I also have learned something I think
is very important in my 20-plus years of observing as a professional
and examining and writing: the truth is not always apparent,
or able to be proved by experts, etc. In other words, the double-blind
method of proof is not infallible, and leaves out much, IMHO.
Take a story I worked on for months and months
years ago when I was a fulltime science writer for The Baltimore
Sun. It was about the healing power of prayer. I talked to many,
many people who felt strongly that they had been healed and helped
through prayer and meditation, etc., but they had no proof, except
their regained good health. (Of course, doctors explained that
away as just a spontaneous remission, or the power of the mind,
etc.) Then, years later, along comes a doctor, Larry Dossey,
who documents at least a little bit the power that prayer may
have in healing. Have you heard -- and I am sure you have --
about the study during which patients in a coronary care unit
(post MI) were prayed for by name by a group of people to whom
they were not acquainted? A control group of patients who were
NOT prayed for also was studied. Those who WERE prayed for recovered
much more quickly, and had less relapses and interventions. How
the hell are you gonna explain that one, Michael? Chance? Dumb
luck? Yeah, I know; it was just one instance. But look at one,
and you will begin to find more. It's like peeling an onion --
each layer reveals another and another.
Years ago, no one would have believed that
a pet would make such a difference in the health and recovery
of hospitalized patients. Now, along comes an article in JAMA
a few years ago saying that the presence of an animal in the
home is the single greatest predictor of recovery for elderly
people who have suffered a heart attack or broken hip and been
hospitalized. Or the studies that show married men, no matter
how unhappily married, live longer than their single counterparts?
What about the studies that show that people with religious beliefs
have a lower diastolyic blood pressure? I could go on and on,
but you get the picture, dontcha? I am not saying that I believe
in every sentence uttered by Steiner, Salk, Spock or by anyone
for that matter. I am just saying that as adults and as parents
and as living, breathing citizens of a complicated world, we
should be intelligent enough and critical enough and have enough
good judgment to keep in mind the possibility that there are
some things out there that scientists and doctors do not yet
know. (Look at the history of science and its full of instances
where folks were called nuts and crazy for believing in things
that were later proven.)
The whole issue of the existence of GOD is
one such topic. I assume from Mr. Kopp's postings that belief
in God must not be possible, as it cannot be proven. I won't
bore you with the old argument that you cannot see love, either,
but its there. I just find myself more and more surprised (and
delighted) that as I age and gain experience, I am more and more
open to the idea that there is a whole realm of existence that
we as humans know little to nothing about. **One more thing:
I don't think being ``open minded'' means one needs let the wind
blow in one ear and out the other. I think it means, on the contrary,
that one should be intelligent enough to recognize what one does
not know and to have the humility to be willing to be taught.
That's why I think it is often fascinating to speak with children
-- they still (on the whole) have a fresh viewpoint on things.
I feel I learn a lot from my four year old.
As to whether Steiner schools should be state
funded, well, of course not! To me, they are private, independent
schools just as a Catholic school is a private and independent
school. Is public funding for Steiner schools a big issue there
in New Zealand? Here in the US, I have heard of only one public
Steiner school -- the one in the Milwaukee area. I am not sure
what to think about that. As I still stand firm that the schools
do not TEACH anthroposophy, I would be willing to say that I
think the public education system has a lot to learn about how
to approach children and education from the Waldorf schools.
But public funding in general -- naw!
**One more note to Mr. Kopp: You're right.
Arguing, debating, etc. on e-mail IS cheap financially. But timewise
it is expensive. You stated your aims quite clearly as to why
you do it -- because you feel a grievous wrong has been done
you and your children through what I must guess is a public Waldorf
school -- and I must as a fair person commend you for wanting
to protect others. I guess what I am still muddy on is what wrong
you feel WAS committed. I vow to go back through my older e-mail
and reread what you sent me, before responding to you again.
I also apologise to any and all who felt I
sounded self-righteous or stuck-up in my angry post. I am sorry.
I really am not a conceited person (in fact, like many women,
I struggle mightily with my self esteem.) The one thing I feel
sure of, though, is that I am intelligent enough to deal with
matters more lofty than the household budget, etc. Which is the
reason I am engaging in this dialogue at all!
Signing off, for now!
Lisa NoLastName in Baltimore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:00:05 -0700
Michael Kopp, you wrote,
What we should seek in journalism is fairness,
accuracy of reporting, and balance, which includes the admission
of our biases. (Unlike science, good journalism does not seek
"truth".)
That's what we have on this list: a balance between believers
and skeptics. (Well, as my statistics showed, it's rather an
imbalance, in favour of the SWA side -- I can't keep up with
the 5-1 or greater ratio of SWA attacks on every post I make;
I sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger. Seldom do I see five or
more critics responding to some post of the SWA Defenders of
the Faith [TM].)
For myself, Michael, I'm very grateful that
you have been here, passionately defending rationality against
the new dark ages. Lately I have been putting all my "public
service time" into preparation for the lawsuit; in recent
days that meant a total of nine hours of being deposed by the
other side, in three sessions, with 3-1/2 hours of driving time
for each session. This work is much more important than debating
on the list. It could lead to the removal of public funding from
Waldorf programs in all the U.S. I certainly feel better about
being absent from the list with you here, Michael.
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dan Dugan
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 00:45:55 -0700
Lisa, you wrote,
To Dan and the other anti-SWA cult out
there who post on this list! (But mostly to Dan, who, in a lame
but appreciated effort to be nice, nonetheless insulted my intelligence
...)
Just because I have embraced some of the
tenets of SWA does not make me a robotic, brainwashed idiot!
I didn't say that.
Despite what you WISH to believe, there
are those of us out there who are intelligent, free-thinking,
open-minded individuals who happen to find that some of the teachings
of a man named Rudolf Steiner make sense to us in our lives as
human beings in a very real, very meaningful way.
Your choice. To me, he says so much nonsense
that it isn't worth the trouble studying him for the things that
may be right. You should be aware that today's sophisticated
cults appeal to "intelligent, free-thinking, open-minded
individuals." That's where the money is.
Dan, you said that I am not to blame for
being ``taken in '' (or somesuch language as that) by the rantings
of Joseph Chilton Pearce and company because it is hard for consumers
to distinguish between truth and fantasy. You obviously believe
that YOU can distinguish between the two yourself, but that those
of us who might find that some of what JCP and others have to
say resonates with our reality cannot. That is such an ego-maniacal,
stuck-up and conceited viewpoint that I was awestruck that you
would have the nerve to talk down to me in such a way! Before
this, I was impressed by the level of dialogue -- even heated
dialogue -- o n this list.
After reading that particular post, though,
I found myself feeling angry. I am a college educated woman,
40 years old, with close to 20 years of experience as an investigative
reporter for newspapers. I am a specialist in science and medical
reporting -- yet you talk down to myself and others as if you
and you alone know anything at all about telling truth from falsehood.
Look, Lisa, I'm not talking from ignorance
here. I bought JCP's book and read every damn page. He may be
right, but the book is -all fluff-. As I said, the only reference
to a study I could find was an article in Sports Illustrated.
Given his recent absurd theme of "heart intelligence,"
I can confidently dismiss him as a quack and a demogogue. He's
telling people what they want to hear. I'm sure some of what
he says is true, but like Steiner, he's not worth the trouble.
***I have a question for you, Dan, and
for others like you: If you so much believe that anthroposophy/Steiner/Waldorf
education is a bogus cult, nonesense or just not worthwhile,
why in the name of God do you spend so much time arguing with
people about it? Why not just ignore it, cut it out of your reality,
and move on with your own lives?
Because I know about it, and the public is
being flim-flammed. A sense of duty. Besides, it's a fascinating
hobby.
My feeling is that you recognize that somewhere
within it there lies some meaningful -- if uncomfortable -- universal
truths. Because you are uncomfortable with these things, you
feel you must wrestle them down one by one. You must work hard
to make sure others do not believe in them, or give them any
credence.
With all due respect, your amateur psychoanalysis
misses the mark.
I would very much like a straightforward
response to that question: Why spend so much time (and online,
time is money) trying to steer people away from SWA?
OK, my steam is blown off. I am ready to
move on. I hope you are, too.
I'll be moving on when Waldorf is out of public
education and my book is published. Then I'm going to work on
Anthroposophical Medicine.
-Dan Dugan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 23:30:58 -0700
Lisa (MomOf2Gals) wrote >
In a curiously misguided attempt to convince
us that "Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...",
Lisa ([email protected]) somehow decided to demonstrate her
scientific astuteness and depth by relating this tale:
Take a story I worked on for months and
months, years ago when I was a fulltime science writer for The
Baltimore Sun. It was about the healing power of prayer.
Really, a "fulltime science writer",
in the shadow of the Nation's capitol has the time and motivation
to spend "months and months" on the healing power of
prayer. No double-blind studies here, just the pursuit of truth
by talking to the healed.
I talked to many, many people who felt
strongly that they had been healed and helped through prayer
and meditation, etc., but they had no proof, except their regained
good health. (Of course, doctors explained that away as just
a spontaneous remission, or the power of the mind, etc.)
I do hope we someday get a chance to read
this story for ourselves. Did the story explore the less photogenic
experience of individuals who did not get better, even after
massive amounts of devout prayer? And, what about the medical
history of athiests around Baltimore? Did they get better less
often, or perhaps feel any worse than religious people when they
recover? I wonder who was praying for the people who died in
Kosovo?
Then, years later, along comes a doctor,
Larry Dossey, who documents at least a little bit the power that
prayer may have in healing. Have you heard -- and I am sure you
have -- about the study during which patients in a coronary care
unit (post MI) were prayed for by name by a group of people to
whom they were not acquainted?
Yes, this study is infamous. And of all the
really valuable medical research conducted during this period,
most individuals would be hard pressed to name more than this.
The press, in fact amplifies events like this because of their
"newsworthiness". But ask yourself, where are the convincing
low-tech replications of this would-be scientific breakthrough?
A control group of patients who were NOT
prayed for also was studied. Those who WERE prayed for recovered
much more quickly, and had less relapses and interventions. How
the hell are you gonna explain that one, Michael? Chance? Dumb
luck?
Could be. But as a fulltime science reporter
like yourself surely knows, the most likely explanation for this
"effect" is poor experimental design. Believers who
conduct these type of experiments for the first time often find
a lot of correlations that do not bear the test of time. Science
is not governed by "innocent until proven guilty" rules.
Let's face it, this is another version of the same old claim
of the existence of some form of spirit or throught. Science
has not yet found proof of this often asserted phenomenon, even
after over 200 years of intense searching for a single replicable
test.
Yeah, I know; it was just one instance.
But look at one, and you will begin to find more. It's like peeling
an onion -- each layer reveals another and another.
It is frankly a sad joke to see anyone take
doctor Larry Dossey's report seriously, much less to use it as
a metaphor that we are revealing some new layer of the onion.
I say it's the same old layer of the onion, the power of self-delusion.
-- Daniel
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 00:31:13 +0200
Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:
You left out "critical" and "skeptical"
and "rational" in the thinking department, which is
the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers
and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?
Bruce wrote:
I think that's pretty good for arrogance!
Irrationality, self-contradictions, irrelevant
insults, and the projection of such qualities onto the target
is what characterizes innumerable posts from WE critics.
A lot of it reminds me of Nazi propaganda
against Jews, gypsies, and other minorities. They were portrayed
as lyers, cheats, dishonest, conspirators, etc. And as I pointed
out earlier, the first WE Critic was a Nazi and an anti-semite,
Dietrich Eckart, who started his attacks against Rudolf Steiner
is 1919, the very year the first Waldorf school opened. In those
days, Steiner was portrayed as a money-hungry, megalomaniac Jew,
a Sionist, and a Communist. Today, he's a fascist, a Nazi, and
a Jew-hater. But the spirit of such attacks has remained the
same, springing from the same source that produced Adolf Hitler.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 14:36:28 +1200
Michael Kopp wrote, in reply to Lisa:
You left out "critical" and "skeptical"
and "rational" in the thinking department, which is
the difference between Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical believers
and the rest of us. How's that for arrogance?
Bruce wrote:
I think that's pretty good for arrogance!
Irrationality, self-contradictions, irrelevant
insults, and the projection of such qualities onto the target
is what characterizes innumerable posts from WE critics.
A lot of it reminds me of Nazi propaganda against Jews, gypsies,
and other minorities. They were portrayed as lyers, cheats, dishonest,
conspirators, etc. And as I pointed out earlier, the first WE
Critic was a Nazi and an anti-semite, Dietrich Eckart, who started
his attacks against Rudolf Steiner is 1919, the very year the
first Waldorf school opened. In those days, Steiner was portrayed
as a money-hungry, megalomaniac Jew, a Sionist, and a Communist.
Today, he's a fascist, a Nazi, and a Jew-hater. But the spirit
of such attacks has remained the same, springing from the same
source that produced Adolf Hitler.
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Tarjei, you still here?
Still spouting the same old shit, I see.
Of course, it doesn't matter what a critic
says, or what evidence is produced, it's all nonsense to the
Tarjeis of the world.
I thought you asked Dan Dugan to unsubscribe
you? What happened: Saint Rudi come to you in a dream and beg
you to stay on, and spout some more bullshit?
I know I should welcome your staying on the
WC list: you're one of the best advertisements for the irrationality
and wild-hare behaviour of the Defenders of the Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical crowd.
And I do, truly, enjoy seeing you go apoplectic
about my modest efforts at elucidating the true nature of Anthroposphy
and Waldorf Education, and their stealthy link with each other.
But if you're having trouble unsubscribing,
here's how to do it "from the instructions you were mailed
by the mail server when you subscribed, but which you obviously
didn't keep, or can't find in your junk-heap of a computer:
HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE
To unsubsuscribe, send an e-mail message *from
the address you're subscribed at* to:
[email protected]
The subject field has no effect on the operation.
In the message body put *only*:
unsubscribe
There now, hope that helps, Tarjei. Been nice
knowin' ya! See ya in another life, maybe?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:00:51 +0200
Michael Kopp wrote:
<Irrelevant juvenile personal insults snipped>
I thought you asked Dan Dugan to unsubscribe
you? What happened: Saint Rudi come to you in a dream and beg
you to stay on, and spout some more bullshit?
Saint Rudy came to me and suggested I gave
Dan an option to get rid of me. The latter did not take advantage
of this opportunity.
<more immature personal attacks snipped>
About your personal insults: You must be really
hurting somewhere. What did those Waldorf teachers do to you?
Steal your fortune? Gang rape someone close to you? Your hatred
of WE and anthroposophy, with which you do everything in your
power to deliberately hurt everyone connected with it, is very
bitter, and it reminds me of an ad I have seen against racism
that goes approximately like this: "You're drowning, but
a hand pulls you out. The hand is black. Is that a problem?"
Let's rephraze that:
"You're drowning, but a hand pulls you
out. The hand belongs to an anthropop. Is that a problem?"
Tarjei
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:56:21 +1200
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Michael Kopp wrote:
<Irrelevant juvenile personal insults snipped>
I thought you asked Dan Dugan to unsubscribe
you? What happened: Saint Rudi come to you in a dream and beg
you to stay on, and spout some more bullshit?
And STRAUME replied:
Saint Rudy came to me and suggested I gave
Dan an option to get rid of me. The latter did not take advantage
of this opportunity.
KOPP says:
Dan must be on vacation, or he's not on the
same wavelength as Saint Rudi.
Did you TELL Dan you had been instructed by
the guru-in-chief to give DAN the opportunity of either unsubscribing
you or ignoring you?
Well, let me send a brainwave to Dan: PLEASE
DO AS TARJEI SAYS! Don't deny him the right to leave us to rational
debate.
<more immature personal attacks snipped>
KOPP:
Where, exactly is the personal attack? I simply
said you were full of shit (before the first time you said you
would unsub), and in the post you're now replying to, I said
you were STILL pushing the same old shit. I haven't called you
any names, I've simply characterized your rambling, raving posts.
STRAUME:
About your personal insults: You must be
really hurting somewhere. What did those Waldorf teachers do
to you? Steal your fortune? Gang rape someone close to you?
KOPP:
Well, now that you mention it ... there have
been reports from several Waldorf schools around the globe (some
on this list, some to me privately, that I haven't checked out
yet and won't report until I do) about sexual abuse in Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools.
You know, you're onto something there, Tarjei:
what happened to me, my wife, and my kids IS something very like
gang rape -- a sort of psychological (can't be spiritual, as
none of us believe in spiritualism) and personal violation, by
stealth, of our intellectual, emotional and moral beings, perpetrated
by an entire pack of "spiritual" cultists.
Maybe *I'm* the one in need of deprogramming
-- except that I never did believe any of their mumbo jumbo,
which was the reason there was strife and an eventual divorce.
But (if talking about it won't expose me to
insults for hanging out my credentials, like saying I was a prize-winning
reporter did) I do have some personal experience with traumatic
events, both on and off battlefields. I almost got killed four
times in Vietnam; my roommate did. I know a lot -- both personally
and professionally -- about post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
I think this list and my journalistic exposure
of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools false advertising,
duplicity, poor pedagogy, and assorted other wrongs, is my own
personal therapy for my guilt at not having seen how warped and
weird SWA was *before* enrolling my kids. That's despite having
done more homework (beforehand) than almost anyone I've heard
of.
You want to make fun of that, Tarjei?
STRAUME:
Your hatred of WE and anthroposophy, with
which you do everything in your power to deliberately hurt everyone
connected with it, is very bitter, and it reminds me of an ad
I have seen against racism that goes approximately like this:
"You're drowning, but a hand pulls you out. The hand is
black. Is that a problem?"
Let's rephraze that:
"You're drowning, but a hand pulls you out. The hand belongs
to an anthropop. Is that a problem?"
KOPP:
I've been `saved', in one way or another,
by blacks, Asians, American Indians, Maoris, Pacific Islanders,
preachers, athiests, holy-rollers, dogs ... and even Anthroposophists.
I wouldn't even reject *your* hand, Tarjei.
You'd love to believe I am hateful and bitter
and twisted. Well, I am angry, still, and will be until I finish
my work; I am a little bit bitter, but that's going away as my
children heal. What you see here on the list is just the cynicism
of age and the dread of a coming world where cults like Anthroposophy
might become as dangerous as Scientology and Aum Shinrikyu.
At the moment I think Anthroposophy is pretty
benign -- though the tales of Bob Jones in Wisconsin are a bit
hair-raising. But who knows what it could become? Especially
if it gets a foothold in public schools?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 15:30:41 +0200
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Michael Kopp wrote:
<Irrelevant juvenile personal insults snipped>
I thought you asked Dan Dugan to unsubscribe
you? What happened: Saint Rudi come to you in a dream and beg
you to stay on, and spout some more bullshit?
And STRAUME replied:
Saint Rudy came to me and suggested I gave
Dan an option to get rid of me. The latter did not take advantage
of this opportunity.
KOPP says:
Dan must be on vacation, or he's not on the same wavelength as
Saint Rudi.
Did you TELL Dan you had been instructed by the guru-in-chief
to give DAN the opportunity of either unsubscribing you or ignoring
you?
No I didn't, because I wasn't aware at that
point that I was getting instructions from Saint Rudy. But when
you reminded me that I had, I understood what the message had
been.
Well, let me send a brainwave to Dan: PLEASE
DO AS TARJEI SAYS! Don't deny him the right to leave us to rational
debate.
Interesting. Your posts are packed with irrational
emotionalism.
<more immature personal attacks snipped>
KOPP:
Where, exactly is the personal attack?
"I know I should welcome
your staying on the WC list: you're one of the best advertisements
for the irrationality and wild-hare behaviour of the Defenders
of the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical crowd." This is what I snipped. Bu irrationality you dont
simply mean irrational ideas that are added to the rational ones;
they have replaced them. By rational, logical thinking, you mean
intelligence. You are suggesting that I am less intelligent than
a skeptic/agnostic/atheist, even less intelligent than average
human beings.
When I say that your posts contain irrational
elements, I mean that these are added to your rational arguments.
There is a vital difference.
I simply said you were full of shit (before
the first time you said you would unsub), and in the post you're
now replying to, I said you were STILL pushing the same old shit.
I haven't called you any names, I've simply characterized your
rambling, raving posts.
No sweat. I have always regarded your attacks
as compliments. What I react against is preposterous lies and
off-the-wall conspiracy bunk.
STRAUME:
About your personal insults: You must be
really hurting somewhere. What did those Waldorf teachers do
to you? Steal your fortune? Gang rape someone close to you?
KOPP:
Well, now that you mention it ... there have been reports from
several Waldorf schools around the globe (some on this list,
some to me privately, that I haven't checked out yet and won't
report until I do) about sexual abuse in Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
schools.
I guess that means that Waldorf schools tend
to produce sexual aggression among the teachers, or that sexually
dangerous individuals are drawn to Waldorf schools like magnets.
You know, you're onto something there, Tarjei: what happened
to me, my wife, and my kids IS something very like gang rape
-- a sort of psychological (can't be spiritual, as none of us
believe in spiritualism) and personal violation, by stealth,
of our intellectual, emotional and moral beings, perpetrated
by an entire pack of "spiritual" cultists.
It looks like your family was made ill by
Waldorf and anthroposophy, perhaps on purpose.
Personally, I will need to hear both sides
of this story before I can make a private judgement about the
matter.
Maybe *I'm* the one in need of deprogramming -- except that
I never did believe any of their mumbo jumbo, which was the reason
there was strife and an eventual divorce.
But (if talking about it won't expose me to insults for hanging
out my credentials, like saying I was a prize-winning reporter
did) I do have some personal experience with traumatic events,
both on and off battlefields. I almost got killed four times
in Vietnam; my roommate did. I know a lot -- both personally
and professionally -- about post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
That might explain a few things.
I think this list and my journalistic exposure of Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools false advertising, duplicity,
poor pedagogy, and assorted other wrongs, is my own personal
therapy for my guilt at not having seen how warped and weird
SWA was *before* enrolling my kids. That's despite having done
more homework (beforehand) than almost anyone I've heard of.
And here is the reason for your insults: Because
Waldorf education is warped and weird and detrimental to your
children's health, every anthroposophist carries the same virus,
infecting his or her environment. In addition, capacity for the
rational logical thinking, i.e. intelligence, is significantly
lower in the anthroposophist than in the average citizen, because
of the brain-destructive effect of irrationality and munbo jumbo.
You want to make fun of that, Tarjei?
Not rationally.
<snip>
You'd love to believe I am hateful and
bitter and twisted. Well, I am angry, still, and will be until
I finish my work; I am a little bit bitter, but that's going
away as my children heal. What you see here on the list is just
the cynicism of age and the dread of a coming world where cults
like Anthroposophy might become as dangerous as Scientology and
Aum Shinrikyu.
From the looks of it, it apparently has become
that dangerous already. Otherwise, your children would not need
to be healed, or cured, from their exposure to it.
At the moment I think Anthroposophy is pretty benign -- though
the tales of Bob Jones in Wisconsin are a bit hair-raising. But
who knows what it could become? Especially if it gets a foothold
in public schools?
Time will tell. We can only wait and shudder.
Tarjei
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "MICHAEL RONALL"
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 19:20:02 -0400
Michael Kopp writes:
what happened to me, my wife, and my kids
IS something very like gang rape -- a sort of psychological (can't
be spiritual, as none of us believe in spiritualism) and personal
violation
Hi, Michael! MRx (yet) again.
In light of the above, I'm now even more interested
to learn, as I've written you twice:
the standards by which you evaluate (say)
said teacher's [one of MKOPP"s children's Waldorf teachers]
being [snip] corrupt spiritually (for teaching this mumbo jumbo).
Because:
Since you offer as grounds for impunging
the spiritual purity of this person his teaching this mumbo jumbo,
I would ask you for signs by which we can recognize such spiritual
purity whose privation you decry (as opposed to the corruption
you detect), and what exactly you mean by mumbo-jumbo.
Faithfully, MRx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Robert Flannery
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 17:57:57 -0400
Michael Kopp says:
Well, I am angry, still, and will be until
I finish my work;
When will your work be finished; how will
you know it is done?
Robert Flannery
New York
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 16:47:26 +0200
Dan Dugan wrote (to Lisa about Rudolf Steiner's
works):
To me, he says so much nonsense that it
isn't worth the trouble studying him for the things that may
be right.
In other words, you just scan around looking
for something you can laugh at or scorn out of context, ignoring
the rest - especially if there is obvious truth in it. And that's
what you call a rational, objective, and balanced approach?
Tarjei Straume
Greetings from Uncle Taz
http://www.uncletaz.com/
Anarchosophy, anarchism, anthroposophy, occultism,
Christianity, poetry,
plays, library, articles, galleries, marijuana, criminality,
death, skulls,
skeletons, banners, links, links, links. Big section in Norwegian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 06:53:15 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
Maybe *I'm* the one in need of deprogramming
-- except that I never did believe any of their mumbo jumbo,
which was the reason there was strife and an eventual divorce.
Now you're blaming a divorce on your Waldorf
experience? This is really beyond words at this point.
I am a little bit bitter,
That's the first time I've hear Michael Kopp
understate something.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: RE: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 01:01:30 +1200
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
Maybe *I'm* the one in need of deprogramming -- except that I
never did believe any of their mumbo jumbo, which was the reason
there was strife and an eventual divorce.
Now you're blaming a divorce on your Waldorf
experience? This is really beyond words at this point.
I am a little bit bitter,
That's the first time I've hear Michael
Kopp understate something.
Bob Tolz
Oh, go on, you big left-brained lawyer, you.
There's no mention of my wife in the sentence
about Steiner, mumbo jumbo and strife. Most literate readers
would know that I was not referring to someone not in evidence
-- not in evidence, get it Bob?
The divorce was from the Steiner school, not
from my wife! (Though she's probably thought many times about
a real divorce after seeing the crap I've had to take from folks
like you, Bob. She thinks I must be crazy to put up with it.)
Tolz, never one to miss a pot-shot, thinks
he's a better psychiatrist now than he is a lawyer.
How about a divorce from you, Bob? Can we
make it no-fault? Or are you going to bicker over who inflicted
more psychological damage or whom?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tolz, Robert"
Subject: RE: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:20:47 -0400
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kopp
Now you're blaming a divorce on your Waldorf
experience? This is really beyond words at this point.
I am a little bit bitter,
That's the first time I've hear Michael
Kopp understate something.
Bob Tolz
Oh, go on, you big left-brained lawyer,
you.
There's no mention of my wife in the sentence about Steiner,
mumbo jumbo and strife.
Nor did *I* mention your wife.
How about a divorce from you, Bob? Can we make it no-fault? Or
are you going to bicker over who inflicted more psychological
damage or whom?
I'll let you keep the dog.
Bob Tolz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Kopp
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ...
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:56:41 +1200
Michael Kopp says:
Well, I am angry, still, and will be until
I finish my work;
When will your work be finished; how will
you know it is done?
Robert Flannery
New York
The answer to both questions is: when I stop
being angry.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Daniel Sabsay
Subject: Re: Guess What?! I am NOT a brainwashed idiot ... (counter
evidence)
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:25:11 -0700
I am forwarding this message written by Michael
Shermer, publisher of the Skeptics Magazine. It describes a recent
article in Lancet, the British medical journal reporting counter
evidence to the prayer "study" of doctor Larry Dossey.
-- Daniel Sabsay
--------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------------------
Faith-Medicine Connection Challenged
The British medical journal Lancet, has published
an important review article that calls into question the so-called
Faith-Medicine connection (prayer and healing, faith and healing,
spirituality and healing, religion and healing, etc.). Here is
a short summary I wrote up for Skeptic magazine News for our
next issue, but definitely check out the article yourself. It
will be a keeper.
Studies over the past several years have reported
that people who believe in God, who are religious, who pray,
or who hold strong "spiritual" affinities, have lower
blood pressure, recover from diseases and surgery faster, have
greater longevity, and in general show many indicators of superior
general health. In other words, spiritual health equals physical
health. Skeptics have responded that the effect is most likely
due to psychological reasons such as the placebo effect and self-fulling
prophecies, or social psychological reasons, such as family support
and encouragement to take needed medications, lead a healthier
life style ("no, no honey, the doctor said you can't have
the extra rich Ben and Jerry's ice cream"), etc.
A study published in the February 20, 1999
issue of The Lancet (Vol. 353: 664-667) calls all of this into
question and challenges the original studies themselves. The
authors, Richard Sloan, E. Bagiella, and T. Powell, all from
Columbia University, present a comprehensive examination of the
empirical evidence and ethical issues involved in claims for
a religion-medicine connection. The authors begin by noting that
79% of Americans report they believe that spiritual faith can
aid recovery, 63% believe physicians should talk to their patients
about spiritual faith, 48% want their doctors to pray with them,
and 25% reported using prayer as part of their therapy. Nearly
30 U.S. medical schools offer courses on religion, spirituality,
and health. Of 296 physicians at a meeting of the American Academy
of Family Physicians, 99% said they believe religious beliefs
aid healing, and a remarkable 75% reported that they believe
that prayer by one person can actually help someone else recover
from an illness. But the authors point out a number of methodological
problems:
1. Lack of control of intervening variables.
Many of these studies failed to control for such intervening
variables as age, sex, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
marital status, and degree of religiosity or religious devotion.
Furthermore, the studies do not take into account that most religions
have sanctions against behaviors injurious to health, such as
smoking, alcohol and drug use, excessive promiscuous sexual activity,
and diet. The authors noted that when such variables are controlled
for in these studies, the formerly significant results drop off
to insignificance. In one study, for example, recovery from hip
surgery in elderly women failed to control for age. In another
study, church attendance and recovery did not take into account
the fact that people in poorer health were less likely to attend
church, and thus there was a selection bias. In yet another study
on lowering blood pressure through prayer and attending religious
services, levels of exercise and physical activity were not taken
into account.
2. Failure to control for multiple comparisons.
"Many studies on religion and health fail to make an adjustment
for the greater likelihood of finding a statistically significant
result when conducting multiple statistical tests. For example,
one study reported that religious attendance was inversely associated
with high concentrations of interleukin-6 in the elderly. However,
interleukin-6 was one of eight outcome variables and there was
no attempt to control for multiple comparisons." In other
words, report the hits, dismiss the misses. In one of the most
highly publicized double-blind studies of patients in a coronary-care
unit who were prayed for by born-again Christians, 29 outcome
variables were measured but on only six did the prayer group
show improvement. "However, the six significant outcomes
were not independent: the prayer group had fewer cases of newly
diagnosed heart failure and of new prescribed diuretics and fewer
cases of newly diagnosed pneumonia and of new prescribed antibiotics.
There was no control for multiple comparisons, a fact recognized
by the author." Furthermore, how do you prevent the "non-prayer"
group from being prayed for by friends and family? Since these
were real patients in a real CCU in real critical condition,
wouldn't their friends and family members pray for them?
3. Conflicting findings. In some studies a
number of religiosity variables were used but only those with
a significant correlation were reported. Meanwhile, other studies
using the same religiosity variables found different correlations
and, of course, only reported those. "Moreover, when the
entire scale was used, the relation between religion and mortality
failed to reach significance."
The authors also point out that most studies
did not provide definitions of religious and spiritual variables,
nor of outcome variables. "The absence of specific definitions
of religious and spiritual activity is an important problem,
since many of the studies to which we refer define these activities
differently." Sloan, Bagiella, and Powell conclude: "Even
in the best studies, the evidence of an association between religion,
spirituality, and health is weak and inconsistent. We believe
therefore that it is premature to promote faith and religion
as adjunctive medical treatments."
--------- End Forwarded Message ----------------
This was another edition of SkepticMag Hotline,
the internet edition of Skeptic magazine, and the cyberspace
voice of the Skeptics Society. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
[email protected]
For further information about the magazine
and society, visit our website
at http://www.skeptic.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Daniel Sabsay, president "Ignorance is the ultimate renewable
resource"
East Bay Skeptics Society http://www.eb-skeptics.org
[email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"