C. R. Bilardi is a faithful soul with an intentionally balanced argument style. His introduction is determinedly clear - this is information on a subject he believes and practices but the world needs some real facts about it, not the dramatic lies out there already.
After a wonderful history lesson on German immigrants, Christian belief and schisms in conservative/fundamental religions, and preconceptions, the book moves on to what the result of faith healing should be. Healing.
There's a few fun little paragraphs in there that quote some figures and studies run on the efficacy of prayer on physical healing.
There are researcher and organization names, figures, studies, and a few compilation titles…
Thing is, supporting an argument with stats is nice, but far from the whole story. So, grain of salt when these show up.
A study, first, has to be funded. Someone's got to pay to make it happen, so whoever that is should be figured into weighing the stats.
The study has to be well-constructed. In most published papers, there's a section for caveats. Or "if we did this again, I'd change … " and sometimes those caveats make the whole study suspicious, or make naysayers shoot it down despite legit results. Not having a solid control group, or having a breach in protocol would be there.
After the study, the piece has to be published. Sometimes the funder manages that. If it does make it to some kind of accredited journal, that journal's leanings or reputation casts light on how that study should be perceived.
Also, the study can't be fully accepted without repeatable results. Ideally, anyone anywhere, if conditions can be replicated, should get the same results as the published study. If it gets repeated a dozen times and only once do the results come out like the published study? That's not a good result. Could have been some errors in its conclusion.
Finally, when pulling numbers for an article or a book, those numbers should send the right message and not be taken out of context. That's more trust in the author, because numbers absolutely can lie - especially when taken out of their contexts.
Fact checking is intensive when its done right, but I am curious about the books and studies Bilardi's quoted.
Comments