No, I have not gone away yet, but I am just about to do so, not because I am "broken," but because this conversation is broken. While some of you may be a tad diplomatic, you still are so entrenched in your position, you don't even consider that you may be wrong.
This is the "beauty" of the internet. It is possible to receive the equivalent of being run over by a steam-roller, and pretend nothing has happened. This gives it all an erie cartoon-like quality, where a character is flattened, floats around in a paper-like fashion for a few seconds, then pops back in shape.
However, you are fooling nobody but yourself, James/Dana: Everybody else here (with Manioberoi as a possible exception) can see how you have been devastated. You can put your fingers in your ears and scream "lalalala" at the top of your voice, but you are devastated and ridiculed.
I can and will assert that homeopathy is without merit if or when there is adequate evidence to prove it so, but the body of evidence (basic science, clinical research, AND historical empirical evidence) weighs much more heavily for homeopathy than against it.
So you think that a, carefully selected, few tentative results from poorly designed studies outweigh the mass of modern knowledge of physics, pathology, and pharmacology? Well, well, .......
And because GOOD scientists have humility and because I have not yet found a good scientist on this list (arrogance limits vision), this conversation is boring.
Your arrogance certainly limits your vision, yes. For instance, the thing you see around your head is not your halo, it is your horizon.
My previous longer posts were from a forthcoming book. I'm sorry if I do not have the time to include all of the references, but please know that what I've written is true.
How can we know that what you have written is true, when it has just been proven to be lies? I understand your preference for writing books, however. Relieves you of all those pesky contradictions.
It is classic that all of you assume that I am "wrong," without even asking me to be more specific. This is part and parcel of your unscientific thinking processes (you are right; others are wrong).
Who do you think you are fooling? People here
proved you wrong. Especially Mojo and Rolfe tore your lies apart.
My references to Holmes' writing is from his collection of essays, not just one. The fact that you all will quibble with what he said or didn't say WITHOUT knowing the facts (and again, without humility) is typical of your mindset.
This is simply so ridiculous that I wonder how you can look in the mirror. It was by finding the facts that they showed you wrong. Richard/Dana, you were
The worst that you seem to say is that I am "quote mining." Because I have no interest in quoting ALL of Holmes' work, how else can a writer quote work without being specific to one statement or another. Every quote from Holmes that I found could be found in other writing of his in slightly different language (THAT is not quote mining...YOUR critique is a weak effort to create a defense...a VERY weak effort).
Keep eroding your credibility. If you don't know what quite mining is, look it up. You can look up "straw man" while you are at it.
I have provided evidence of the work of Rustom Roy, PhD (I mentioned that he had 13 papers published in NATURE, and I got attacked for not knowing that he had actually had 15 papers published in NATURE).
No, you got
ridiculed for not knowing it. Afterward you got attacked for not mentioning that
not one single of those papers were relevant to the subject at hand. Look up "appeal to false authority".
His 2005 paper on water structure comes from some of world's leading scientists who understand WATER STRUCTURE, and I told you to watch out for a 2007 paper in which he conducts experiments that verify his previous writings on the subject. I could have provided you with a URL to a presentation on this new research,
Yes, that would have been the proper thing to do.
but I couldn't help but notice that no one inquired about what this new research was (the people on this list do not really want to learn; you want to attack, and you want to feel superior).
Pot, meet mr Kettle.
I referenced Rey's work in one of the most respected physics journals in the world, and the worst that could be said was quoted from Benveniste (who you normally attack!)...this "worst" statement is that the study wasn't blinded.
Showing that we are not biased. Where Benveniste is right, he is right. For a medical study, lack of blinding is very serious.
So, if I fly and show the world that I can fly, you would say that it isn't true because I (or you!) wasn't blinded.
Better look up "straw man" again, so you are sure you know what it means.
Some physical phenomena, like Rey's work, cannot be influenced by belief, and it is not necessary to have every basic science study be blinded (especially in physics--don't take this out of context).
Of course not.
*snip*
Mr. Monkey has STILL not evolved and is still asking the same innane questions about some machine that I have never heard of...and yet, he insists that I answer this questions.
Yes, that question is essential, for two reasons:
1) Those machines base their function on the same type of anecdotical evidence as conventional homeopathy.
2) As a prominent homeopath, it is very surprising that you should not have an opinion on such sensational devices.
Someone else continually asks me about homeopathy for syphilis. I'm sorry that you or someone in your family may have been stricken with it, but why the broken record?
Have you no shame? Apparantly not. You know why the question is asked. You know the central role of syphilis in classical homeopathy. So don't try to dirty the person who asks about it.
James/Dana, there is an advice we use to give people here, when they have gotten themselves in a position like yours: When you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging.
Hans
