Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 19:28:41 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: don@partsnow.com, perhaps@yes.no, nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Newest Pentium bug (fatal) Message-ID: <199711120228.TAA01045@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199711120153.SAA20048@usr04.primenet.com> References: <3468FAD1.49A8@PartsNow.com> <199711120153.SAA20048@usr04.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > As I remember, the prayer experiment was very well prepared. The > > pray-ees didn't know they were being prayed for, and the pray-er's > > didn't know who they were praying for, except a first name and a general > > description of the problem. The groups were statistically equal, and > > relatively large. If I remember [too many bosses whizzing past FTL, > > Amancio], there were a total of 400 in the study. > > How can you seperate the telepathy theory from the God theory with this > set up? > > The researchers should have lied about the names, or given only number, > and/or not stated the symptom(s). In my feeble mind, I remeber that the only information given was a 'pseudo-name' (to make it somewhat more personal), and the symptoms were given in order to have the prayers be 'specific'. > They should also have put two guys named "John" with the same disease > in the same room, and see if there was preferential healing of one > "John", or if if there was 50% of the "prayer effect" split between > the two... Yeah, I'm sure they had the ability to pick and choose among all sorts of dieseases and such to make it a truly effective test (NOT!). Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199711120228.TAA01045>