Possibilities and limits of medical science: Debates over double-blind clinical trials of intercessory prayer
Zygon 47 (1):43-64 (2012)
|Abstract||Abstract. This article traces the intellectual history of scientific studies of intercessory prayer published in English between 1965 and the present by focusing on the conflict and discussion they prompted in the medical literature. I analyze these debates with attention to how researchers articulate the possibilities and limits medical science has for studying intercessory prayer over time. I delineate three groups of researchers and commentators: those who think intercessory prayer can and should be studied scientifically, those who are more skeptical and articulate the limits of science around this topic, and those who focus primarily on the pragmatic applications of this knowledge. I analyze these contests as examples of what Thomas Gieryn calls “epistemic authority” as medical researchers engage in what he describes as “boundary-work” or “the discursive attribution of selected qualities to scientists, scientific methods, and scientific claims for the purposes of drawing a rhetorical boundary between science and some less authoritative residual non-science.” (Gieryn 1999, 4 (Gieryn 1999, 4))|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter Graeme Hobbins (2005). Compromised Ethical Principles in Randomised Clinical Trials of Distant, Intercessory Prayer. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2 (3).
D. D. Turner (2006). Just Another Drug? A Philosophical Assessment of Randomised Controlled Studies on Intercessory Prayer. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (8):487-490.
Richard P. Sloan & Rajasekhar Ramakrishnan (2006). Science, Medicine, and Intercessory Prayer. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 49 (4):504-514.
Caragh Brosnan (2011). The Significance of Scientific Capital in UK Medical Education. Minerva 49 (3):317-332.
G. Paul (2008). The Remote Prayer Delusion: Clinical Trials That Attempt to Detect Supernatural Intervention Are as Futile as They Are Unethical. Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (9):e18-e18.
Erik Malmqvist, Niklas Juth, Niels Lynöe & Gert Helgesson (2011). Early Stopping of Clinical Trials: Charting the Ethical Terrain. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (1).
Boleslav Lichterman (2002). Conflict or Harmony? Clinical Research and the Medical Press in Russia. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (3).
Kevin Timpe (2000). Toward a Process Philosophy of Petitionary Prayer. Philosophy and Theology 12 (2):397-418.
Stephen Wear (1995). A Desperate Solution: Individual Autonomy and the Double-Blind Controlled Experiment. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (1).
Jeremy Howick, Against a Priori Judgements of Bad Methodology: Questioning Double-Blinding as a Universal Methodological Virtue of Clinical Trials.
Mark Gedney (2005). The Saving or Sanitizing of Prayer: The Problem of the Sans in Derrida's Account of Prayer. In Bruce Ellis Benson & Norman Wirzba (eds.), The Phenomenology of Prayer. Fordham University Press.
Piotr Zaborowski & Adam Górski (2004). Informed Consent and the Use of Placebo in Poland: Ethical and Legal Aspects. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (1).
Andrew Stark (2006). The Limits of Medicine. Cambridge University Press.
M. J. Seller (1992). Heredity: Science and Society: On the Possibilities and Limits of Genetic Testing and Gene Therapy. Journal of Medical Ethics 18 (1):51-51.
Saul Smilansky (2012). A Problem About the Morality of Some Common Forms of Prayer. Ratio 25 (2):207-215.
Added to index2012-02-27
Total downloads7 ( #133,420 of 549,070 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?