exarch
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,184
Going out on a limb here, but could it be that yoiu forgot to ask the question last time (when was that?) as well, and that this is why nobody answered?
You've mentioned your question in half a dozen posts by now, yet you haven't even asked it once
No big reason why I haven't asked it agin other than it involves some background info which I don't have time to type yet.
Don - you and I are gonna have some problems aren't we?
Well, I want to say a few things before answering your questions. First of all, Prester, you asked in a post if I am here to debate and the answer is “no”. I came back here simply to set something that was said about me straight in the BSM thread about it galling me to recommend antibiotics. That was the sole purpose of my showing my pretty face here again. I will discuss for a bit however but the second someone calls me a liar or a fraud or says anything nasty or rude then I am outta here and you won’t have anyone to blame but yourselves about no homeopath staying to answer your questions. You don’t have to respect me but you do need to treat me civily, unlike my last visit. When I say “you” I mean all the folks in on this discussion, not you specifically Prester, my sweet. There are a few however who I have no interest in discussing with at all and will refrain from doing so (these are the folks that were jerks last time, yeah, I tend to hold a grudge). None of these folks are the ones on this thread however.
Now, anything I say is my opinion only, it does not represent any other homeopaths opinion nor should it represent homeopathy in general. These are my views based upon my beliefs and experiences. I apologize that I am all you got at this point as I am certainly no expert by any means. I am a simple gal, no grandstanding or great philosophical lectures from this little lady – just plain, simple answers. I think you should also know that I am a fairly liberal homeopath. I do not believe it is the be all and end all of cure like many do. In fact, I place more emphasis on diet and lifestyle that homeopathy when it comes to healing – as did Hahnemann. He often spoke of “the maintaining cause” something most homeopaths today do not consider.
I’d like to draw an analogy of something. See, your starting point is always with controlled scientific studies but these studies mean next to nothing to me and haven’t even before I ever came across homeopathy. It’s like when you have a debate with a staunch Christian and when you ask them why they believe homosexuals will go to hell ( or any other strongly held belief) they say “because it says so in the bible” - they believe the bible is divinely inspired and that anything in it must be fact – but I don’t believe that so their argument that “it says so in the bible” means nothing to me. Your argument against homeopathy based on it’s lack of scientific studies means nothing to me – Unlike you guys, I don’t think scientific studies are divinely inspired. It is difficult to have a discussion because of this.
Let’s see, what else? Oh, BSM, the reason I came here in the first place regarding the whole strep throat issue. I wish you would post my reply on the thread at hpathy so I can refer to it but either way the reason I recommended antibiotics was primarily because I figured the thread was a trap – the poster used your name and after checking here I saw a strep discussion. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to determine a remedy for a thread by you guys. However, even if the poster was not a skeptic then the person still had said it had been several days since the child had a high fever and was sick before getting a strep test done and then posted the info but it wasn’t a full case – by the time a full case would have been taken and a remedy recommended I wouldn’t have felt comfortable letting a child suffer that long and I wouldn’t feel comfortable getting the correct remedy at the first shot and if it wasn’t the correct remedy having the poster come back to check in. I wouldn’t play around with strep because of the possible (though very rare) ramifications. I have no problem recommending antibiotics in a case like that – and don’t feel I should be “shamed” by you for doing so. Also, I am very clear about NOT going against a doctors prescription. If I am treating someone and there is a possibility of them getting off a prescription (anxiety disorder for instance) I also make sure they do so under their MD’s care.
Oh, HC, I am working with your question too, I haven’t forgotten about ya.
I’m tired.
Don - you and I are gonna have some problems aren't we?
Well, I want to say a few things before answering your questions. First of all, Prester, you asked in a post if I am here to debate and the answer is “no”. I came back here simply to set something that was said about me straight in the BSM thread about it galling me to recommend antibiotics. That was the sole purpose of my showing my pretty face here again. I will discuss for a bit however but the second someone calls me a liar or a fraud or says anything nasty or rude then I am outta here and you won’t have anyone to blame but yourselves about no homeopath staying to answer your questions. You don’t have to respect me but you do need to treat me civily, unlike my last visit. When I say “you” I mean all the folks in on this discussion, not you specifically Prester, my sweet. There are a few however who I have no interest in discussing with at all and will refrain from doing so (these are the folks that were jerks last time, yeah, I tend to hold a grudge). None of these folks are the ones on this thread however.
Now, anything I say is my opinion only, it does not represent any other homeopaths opinion nor should it represent homeopathy in general. These are my views based upon my beliefs and experiences. I apologize that I am all you got at this point as I am certainly no expert by any means. I am a simple gal, no grandstanding or great philosophical lectures from this little lady – just plain, simple answers. I think you should also know that I am a fairly liberal homeopath. I do not believe it is the be all and end all of cure like many do. In fact, I place more emphasis on diet and lifestyle that homeopathy when it comes to healing – as did Hahnemann. He often spoke of “the maintaining cause” something most homeopaths today do not consider.
I’d like to draw an analogy of something. See, your starting point is always with controlled scientific studies but these studies mean next to nothing to me and haven’t even before I ever came across homeopathy. It’s like when you have a debate with a staunch Christian and when you ask them why they believe homosexuals will go to hell ( or any other strongly held belief) they say “because it says so in the bible” - they believe the bible is divinely inspired and that anything in it must be fact – but I don’t believe that so their argument that “it says so in the bible” means nothing to me. Your argument against homeopathy based on it’s lack of scientific studies means nothing to me – Unlike you guys, I don’t think scientific studies are divinely inspired. It is difficult to have a discussion because of this.
Let’s see, what else? Oh, BSM, the reason I came here in the first place regarding the whole strep throat issue. I wish you would post my reply on the thread at hpathy so I can refer to it but either way the reason I recommended antibiotics was primarily because I figured the thread was a trap – the poster used your name and after checking here I saw a strep discussion. I wouldn’t waste my time trying to determine a remedy for a thread by you guys. However, even if the poster was not a skeptic then the person still had said it had been several days since the child had a high fever and was sick before getting a strep test done and then posted the info but it wasn’t a full case – by the time a full case would have been taken and a remedy recommended I wouldn’t have felt comfortable letting a child suffer that long and I wouldn’t feel comfortable getting the correct remedy at the first shot and if it wasn’t the correct remedy having the poster come back to check in. I wouldn’t play around with strep because of the possible (though very rare) ramifications. I have no problem recommending antibiotics in a case like that – and don’t feel I should be “shamed” by you for doing so. Also, I am very clear about NOT going against a doctors prescription. If I am treating someone and there is a possibility of them getting off a prescription (anxiety disorder for instance) I also make sure they do so under their MD’s care.
Oh, HC, I am working with your question too, I haven’t forgotten about ya.
I’m tired.
1.Why do the effects of homeopathy, which are quite considerable when described anecdotally, dissapear when testing is performed under controlled conditions ?
The nature of homeopathy is difficult to test in such conditions. Being that it is based on individualization of remedy selection and is more often than not a process than a quick cure it makes perfect sense that control studies are not conducive to homeopathy. You are aware that even for acute conditions we can not prescribe on disease name but on individual symptoms so any study where all concerned got podophylum for diarrhea (example) are invalid. Even studies that are done where the remedy selection is done by a classical homeopath choosing a remedy based on individual symptoms are bound to not meet the criteria because it is very difficult to get the correct remedy (one out of 3000) on the first shot. Controlled conditions are not conducive to testing homeopathy.
2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?
I agree that like cures like but have never asserted that it is a natural law. I believe in the Organon that Hahnemann does give examples of this. Examples of course are not evidence. I don’t even know if I do agree that like cures like is a natural law. I tend to think it is more of a case that two similar diseases can not exist in the same body at one time and that is why homeopathy cures.
3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?
I have no idea, maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps the provings show the effects of all “ingredients” involved. Regarding the dilution and potentising I have never heard it explained that way. Where did you come up with that. Diluting doesn’t dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy, it lessens a physical reaction (i.e. – taking undiluted arsenic, not a grand idea) while potentising strengthens the energetic reaction. Not quite what you describe.
4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?
I have no clue, but I am not the only one. I don’t think anyone knows at this point do they? I am aware of some theories which I am sure you also know (probably better than I) but at this point no one know just how it occurs.
5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?
Because the memory is energy, and we are applying the energy of the substance which does not presumably evaporate. We are not talking on a physical level but an energetic level. Simply stamping the lactose pellets with an energies imprint.
6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?
Ah, good question (though again, we don’t “prescribe” but recommend). I have often thought that I would love to have a reparatory and MM based solely on remedies proven on animals, but then I think this may be unethical to do so as animals certainly can not give their consent to do a proving, but then again we have donor animals who give blood without consent so who knows? However, we do our best to interpret the mental symptoms in an animal which admittedly can make remedy selection difficult but at this point it is what we have and of course we can match most physicals with what has been proven on humans. And not to be taken lightly is the information we have gotten from animal cases that have been cured/treated by homeopaths and who have supplied us with their knowledge – learning from the experts so to speak. Of course it also helps to have some knowledge of animal anatomy and physiology and behavior.
7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?
I am not sure what your question is here. Could you rephrase this?
8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?
A difficult question. I know for sure that it cannot cure any disease or condition whose symptoms have never been shown through a proving. This is an absolute. For instance, we have no remedy that has grown a new limb in a proving so no remedy will be able to do that. Also cure is limited to the skill of the homeopath. Can it cure genetic disease? To be honest it depends on the genetic disease. Let me come back to this question a bit later. I haven’t given it the attention it deserves but plan to.
9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?
I think this is a weird question to ask. This is of course a purely personal question – you could ask the same question to MD’s and get many different answers. There is no “Homeopath handbook of beliefs in alternative therapies” that we follow. I personally believe in chiropractic and acupuncture and TCM but don’t really give any credence to Reiki or psychic healing. Not sure what other modalities you have an interest in. My rationale for what I believe in or do not believe in is based upon my experiences and what makes sense to me. It is based on my personal truth, what rings true for me and what I have experienced myself. I have already said that scientific studies mean little to me so that is not an issue.
10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:
Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically
Not for me that I can think of as I am a notoriously low responder to remedies and have rarely proved any remedy I have taken. From what I understand the Randi foundation will not accept a proving done on a third party as ethical. Although I have thought of trying to prove a remedy on plants to see if there is a change in the plant and if that would work. Perhaps I should give that a shot. I am sure it wouldn’t meet the Randi criteria but still it would be interesting.
The nature of homeopathy is difficult to test in such conditions. Being that it is based on individualization of remedy selection and is more often than not a process than a quick cure it makes perfect sense that control studies are not conducive to homeopathy. You are aware that even for acute conditions we can not prescribe on disease name but on individual symptoms so any study where all concerned got podophylum for diarrhea (example) are invalid. Even studies that are done where the remedy selection is done by a classical homeopath choosing a remedy based on individual symptoms are bound to not meet the criteria because it is very difficult to get the correct remedy (one out of 3000) on the first shot. Controlled conditions are not conducive to testing homeopathy.
2. What evidence do you have to support your assertion that "like cures like" is a natural law?
I agree that like cures like but have never asserted that it is a natural law. I believe in the Organon that Hahnemann does give examples of this. Examples of course are not evidence. I don’t even know if I do agree that like cures like is a natural law. I tend to think it is more of a case that two similar diseases can not exist in the same body at one time and that is why homeopathy cures.
3. Exactly how does the solvent's "memory" of the active ingredient become selective, to somehow erase the intimate contact it has had with possibly millions of other compounds in its history and since the dilution process is supposed to dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy's effects, and potentise the desirable parts, how does the remedy know which is which?
I have no idea, maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps the provings show the effects of all “ingredients” involved. Regarding the dilution and potentising I have never heard it explained that way. Where did you come up with that. Diluting doesn’t dilute out the undesirable parts of the remedy, it lessens a physical reaction (i.e. – taking undiluted arsenic, not a grand idea) while potentising strengthens the energetic reaction. Not quite what you describe.
4. How is information stored in water? It's no good just saying that unexpected processes occur in solvents they must store energy and information in a completely faithful and stable manner?
I have no clue, but I am not the only one. I don’t think anyone knows at this point do they? I am aware of some theories which I am sure you also know (probably better than I) but at this point no one know just how it occurs.
5. How does the memory of water apply when the final remedy is dried onto a lactose pill?
Because the memory is energy, and we are applying the energy of the substance which does not presumably evaporate. We are not talking on a physical level but an energetic level. Simply stamping the lactose pellets with an energies imprint.
6. How come you can prescribe for animals when you don't "prove" the remedies on animals?
Ah, good question (though again, we don’t “prescribe” but recommend). I have often thought that I would love to have a reparatory and MM based solely on remedies proven on animals, but then I think this may be unethical to do so as animals certainly can not give their consent to do a proving, but then again we have donor animals who give blood without consent so who knows? However, we do our best to interpret the mental symptoms in an animal which admittedly can make remedy selection difficult but at this point it is what we have and of course we can match most physicals with what has been proven on humans. And not to be taken lightly is the information we have gotten from animal cases that have been cured/treated by homeopaths and who have supplied us with their knowledge – learning from the experts so to speak. Of course it also helps to have some knowledge of animal anatomy and physiology and behavior.
7. Provings are demonstrably nonsense. In the vast majority no attention at all is paid to using controls. So it is vanishingly unlikely that many remedies in use today have the effects claimed for them in provings even if there was some validity behind the principles of homeopathy so that some remedies might truly work. So how come homeopaths using all the dodgy remedies claim success in using them? Doesn't the existence of this mass of defective remedies (even if we cannot identify them from a notional set of valid remedies) completely undermine the homeopaths' claims to make valid inferences from their much-vaunted 'clinical evidence'?
I am not sure what your question is here. Could you rephrase this?
8. What can homeopathy not cure? How do these diseases differ absolutely from all the things they say it can cure. Can it cure genetic diseases?
A difficult question. I know for sure that it cannot cure any disease or condition whose symptoms have never been shown through a proving. This is an absolute. For instance, we have no remedy that has grown a new limb in a proving so no remedy will be able to do that. Also cure is limited to the skill of the homeopath. Can it cure genetic disease? To be honest it depends on the genetic disease. Let me come back to this question a bit later. I haven’t given it the attention it deserves but plan to.
9. What are the limits of homeopaths' credulity? Are there any alt med therapies they do not believe in? If there are really wild and weird things they do not believe in then please can they explain the rationale for making that distinction?
I think this is a weird question to ask. This is of course a purely personal question – you could ask the same question to MD’s and get many different answers. There is no “Homeopath handbook of beliefs in alternative therapies” that we follow. I personally believe in chiropractic and acupuncture and TCM but don’t really give any credence to Reiki or psychic healing. Not sure what other modalities you have an interest in. My rationale for what I believe in or do not believe in is based upon my experiences and what makes sense to me. It is based on my personal truth, what rings true for me and what I have experienced myself. I have already said that scientific studies mean little to me so that is not an issue.
10. The Randi Challenge Special Question:
Is there any way to tell if a preparation is different from plain water or other solvent? Please do so and earn $1M (and no this is not a single dollar diluted homeopathically
Not for me that I can think of as I am a notoriously low responder to remedies and have rarely proved any remedy I have taken. From what I understand the Randi foundation will not accept a proving done on a third party as ethical. Although I have thought of trying to prove a remedy on plants to see if there is a change in the plant and if that would work. Perhaps I should give that a shot. I am sure it wouldn’t meet the Randi criteria but still it would be interesting.
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
Barbrae said:
A few genetic conditions to consider the appropriate homeopathic remedy for:
1) Cystic Fibrosis
2) Duchenne dystrophy
3) Fragile X Syndrome
4) Reye's Syndrome
5) Maple Syrup Urine Disease
6) neurofibromatosis
7) hemophilia
8) Tay-Sachs Disease
9) Sickle Cell Anemia
10) Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome
11) hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
Barbrae said:
Scientific studies are not "divinely inspired", you're right. Please put the Christanity/homosexual strawman away.
Here's a nice bit on the scientific method.
Here also are links to other bits on this.
Now, I'll grant that it's an ideal and that science is much messier, but to dismiss science in the manner that you have is utterly nonsensical.
Science is not a god, nor is it an altar to be worshipped at and to sacrifice the lamb of alternative therapies and whatnot. Science is a word that describes a method to approach an understanding of how the universe and things in the universe work. It's a method for asking questions and finding the answers.
It is not a Bible, nor is it an Organon. Science is a tool of the inquisitive mind, and if you're going to ask questions, be it "What makes the earth revolve?" or "Does modern medicine do more harm than good in comparison to alternative therapies?" you should use it.
1) OK, to make you happy, let's have the question again, right here right now, and we will try to answer it. <strike>THEN will you look at the outstanding questions for you?</strike> I now see you have started this already. Congratulations! I THINK you are the first homeopath to honestly do this.Barbrae said:
2) Why just "consider" it? Why not ask the homeopathy forum admins straight out to actually DO it (ie. not ban skeptics and delete their questions). As a self-claimed homeopath, you would carry far more weight than we would, apparently - they might listen to you...
Rolfe
Adult human female
Done. Though it seems she has agreed to answer the questions anyway, this should be good.Lisa Simpson said:
It should have been perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain in their heads that the situation in the sig line was hypothetical - if not from Snoopy's own words, then clearly from the link which anyone who was really interested was free to click on. However, since some people really don't seem to get it, sig line amended.
Now, just to get one up on Yahweh, this is my kitten.
Except that he's quite a big pussycat now. His name is Caramel and he has 26 toes. He caught a bat the other night, bad cat.
Now, Barb, I can't remember every detail of threads several months ago when you were Phil63 or whatever. (I agree you always made it clear who you were, but why not just register as Barb in the first place?) So, if you think I have told a lie, please specify which statement of mine you believe to be a lie, and demonstrate that it isn't true.
Don't worry, they don't delete threads here (or only when they're so old they think nobody really cares any more), and it's impossible for me or anyone to alter a post after two hours have elapsed since first posting it, so you should have no trouble finding it.
Repeated assertions that someone is a liar are more libellous than telling the truth in a slightly oblique way, you know.
Rolfe.
exarch
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2003
- Messages
- 7,184
Clearly, this misconception of how science operates is what makes you dislike it.
There is no ultimate truth in science, even if some people say there is. There are only people with a theory who then go out and test that theory through experiments. The best way to test your theory is to ask yourself: "What would disprove my theory". If your theory is "all bees have stingers", your theory can be falsified the easiest if you come across a bee that doesn't have a stinger. Voilà, theory disproven. That's all science is. That and the fact your collegues can then go out and test your theory too in their own experiments.
The problem with homeopathy however (and the main reason homeopaths and scientists don't get along), is that homeopathy starts with the presumption that homeopathy works, and any scientific tests they will carry out to falsify their theories start from the (unconfirmed) idea that it works. Scientists however, start with the question "does homeopathy work at all", and consider the lack of any positive results to date as good evidence that their theory - that homeopathy doesn't work - is true.
Your suggestion that homeopathy is difficult to measure is a misconception too. If a test group is receiving homeopathic treatment like they would when going to the homeopaths office, yet only half of them get the real cure described by the homeopath while the rest get empty placebos instead (without anyone knowing), there should be a difference in the results between the two groups (after all, only half of them are -supposedly - receiving a real cure). But there is no difference. No matter how fickle you say homeopathy is, if it does something, anything, it should show up in these kind of tests. the fact there is no difference between homeopathy and placebo suggests that homeopathy IS a placebo. Simple as that. We're comping oranges with oranges and, not surprisingly, find that there is no difference between them.
So the reason PJ asked you what kind of alt-med treatments even you find to be utter b*llsh*t is because apparently you don't believe just anything you're told, so we'd like to know why you don't regard homeopathy as BS but will think Reiki is BS, even though many people are as passionate about it as you are about homeopathy.
One of the main differences between science and a belief system is the falsifyability. In other words, if your answer to the question: "What would convince you that homeopathy doesn't work" is a straightforward: "nothing would", it is clearly a belief system, like a religion, since nothing will convince you it doesn't work.
This is also the reason why the explanations of how homeopathy works are getting wilder and weirder with the minute, always shifting further and further into the unbelievable, because as science progresses, all the previously suggested mechanisms have been proven to either not to be possible, or having been measured and found not to be present. So new excuses need to be invented to explain why homeopaths don't want to give up their disbelief of homeopathy being a dud.
Sorry for the long response. I hope you understood what I was trying to say
LostAngeles said:
Oh good Lord - I was using this as an analogy to having this discussion while coming from two very different starting points - it had nothign to do with christianity in itself.
And another point - I am not in a college debate class here - I am having a conversation/ a discussion with a few folks that disagree with me, please you put your "starwman", "red herring" "slippery slopes" finger pointing away during this conversation. It's just annoying.
Hydrogen Cyanide said:
Are you asking if it could cure these or what the remedy would be. Your question sounded like you wanted to know the remedy but having no actual case info it would be impossible to tell you. If you are asking if it can cure that;s a different story.
Rolfe
Adult human female
OK, Barb, I've altered the sig line.
Now, you keep calling me a liar. And not just talking about the TRUTH I posted about Snoopy. So, I'll ask you again.
Please quote the statement of mine you think is a lie. And please prove that it is untrue.
Calling someone a liar is a lot more libellous than posting the truth about someone in a slightly oblique way, you know.
Rolfe.
Now, you keep calling me a liar. And not just talking about the TRUTH I posted about Snoopy. So, I'll ask you again.
Please quote the statement of mine you think is a lie. And please prove that it is untrue.
Calling someone a liar is a lot more libellous than posting the truth about someone in a slightly oblique way, you know.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I knew it.Barbrae said:
Why do you think I posted the Addison's case in the form of case info in the first place?
Rolfe.
Chris Haynes
Perfectly Poisonous Person
Barbrae said:
Okay... let me use the term from a previous thread:
"How is homeopathy BETTER for these conditions?"
To make it simpler... not a cure but a better way of treating.
(note I am not asking how you would even diagnose the conditions... because I know from personal experience with one on the list that it literally took days, and several different tests to diagnose).
Rolfe
Adult human female
Just noticed this.Barbrae said:
Barb, how you tell the remedy from the sham is entirely up to you. If you can reliably (that is do it often enough to prove you're not just a lucky guesser) tell whether or not you've been given the remedy of your choice or the non-potentised fake, you win.
Plants would be ideal. So would a self-proving. So would dowsing. So would actually making a difference to patients' health (though I agree that this would have great practical difficulties). So would Kirilian photography. So would any way of measuring this non-existent "energy" you keep making meaningless noises about. So would degranulating basophils, come to that.
With all those possibilities, all of them (and more) confidently asserted by many homoeopaths as having a very obvious effect, do you think there may be some reason why no homoeopath ever even wants to apply for the challenge?
(But first, I'd appreciate your clearing up this bit about your calling me a liar. When and where did I tell a lie?)
Rolfe.
SquishyDave
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 27, 2003
- Messages
- 1,643
Hello Barbrae, I'd like to speak with you for a moment, if I may.
I don't really want to address the whole Rolfe signature issue, I don't really know if Rolfe went too far there, and I feel I like Rolfe too much to make an objective call on it, however I do understand how you reacted, if we felt a homeopath was misrepresenting a skeptic we would react in much the same way you did I'm sure, with anger. We are all, thankfullly, human after all.
Everyone heree wants to help people, in our own small way, the only problem is we disagree on what exactly will help people. Now I'm very happy to see you want to answer our questions, which you have had a red hot go at. But I feel we should clear some things up.
You think we view "science" in a similar way christians view the bible. This is not true, as has been pointed out, science is merely a tool, and this tool can easily be applied to homeopathy, you have already thought of a way to do it, in your suggestion on separating pure water and a homeopathic remedy. Science is just a tool, one which you can pick up and use.
Now in order to use this tool to determine if homeopathy works, is not too difficult, all you need is as you suggested, some plants, some homepathic remedies, and some water. First you need to determine what your homeopathic medicine will do to a certain healthy plant, make sure you have several of these plants, all grown in the same soil, same pots, and getting the same amount of water, and sun. Once you know exactly what your medicine will do to a plant, record it well, and makes you could identify the symptoms again.
What you need to do now, is get some help, ask someone over, get them to put the medicine in some bottles, the water in some identical bottles, then they need to flip a coin, and label the medicine "heads" or "tails" depending what comes up, then labeling the water with the other designation. Idealy this person will now leave, without ever even seeing you, leaving a note in a well sealed envelope saying which is which. You should put this note away, making sure you can't read it. Now apply your two mystery bottles to two different plants. More if you can, if you have 5 on each side, perhaps alternated across a windowsill to eliminate one half not getting enough sun. Everything you can do to make each plant receive identical conditions in everyway, and not have a single common element between those that get the "Heads", and those that get "tails" (apart from the medicine they recieve) must be done, Roll a dice or flip a coin to see which plant gets heads and which gets tails perhaps, this will randomise things even more.
Then, if in the end you can pick which 5 plants received the medicine and which the water, and you open up the envelope and find you are right, you are on the first step to proving homeopathy works to all of us. Remember, the person who does know which is which, should never have any contact with you until AFTER you have picked the plants and opened the envelope.
What I have outlined above, is in it's simplist form, science. That is what we all go ga-ga over. Nothing more. The reason we love it so much, is that it removes as much bias as possible, you don't know which is which, so you can't even sub-conciously change the result. Of course real science must then be verified by other people, which is where the 1 million dollars comes into it.
You should now contanct Randi, people here can help you with that, and you can try to prove to him you can do it. Don't worry, you will both have to agree to the conditions before the test starts, and it shouldn't be much different to what I outlined above. If you can prove it Randi, you will have won 1 million dollars.
What could be easier? Sure it's a bit of work, but experimenting is fun, and you could be a million dollars richer, so why not give it a go?
The problem is, what if you can't pick the water from the medicine? You could try again, think up a completely different test, but some things must be the same. That is, no one in the test can know what's water and what's medicine, and who or what gets the midicine and water should be randomised. If you keep doing tests like this and find you can't tell the difference, you will be at the reason why we don't think homeopathy works. But no need to think about that bridge unless it happens.
Sorry to talk your ear off, what do you think of that? Anything I need to make clearer? I hope you at least understand now WHY we don't hink homeopathy works, even if you still do think it works, I hope we can at least understand each others position.
I don't really want to address the whole Rolfe signature issue, I don't really know if Rolfe went too far there, and I feel I like Rolfe too much to make an objective call on it, however I do understand how you reacted, if we felt a homeopath was misrepresenting a skeptic we would react in much the same way you did I'm sure, with anger. We are all, thankfullly, human after all.
Everyone heree wants to help people, in our own small way, the only problem is we disagree on what exactly will help people. Now I'm very happy to see you want to answer our questions, which you have had a red hot go at. But I feel we should clear some things up.
You think we view "science" in a similar way christians view the bible. This is not true, as has been pointed out, science is merely a tool, and this tool can easily be applied to homeopathy, you have already thought of a way to do it, in your suggestion on separating pure water and a homeopathic remedy. Science is just a tool, one which you can pick up and use.
Now in order to use this tool to determine if homeopathy works, is not too difficult, all you need is as you suggested, some plants, some homepathic remedies, and some water. First you need to determine what your homeopathic medicine will do to a certain healthy plant, make sure you have several of these plants, all grown in the same soil, same pots, and getting the same amount of water, and sun. Once you know exactly what your medicine will do to a plant, record it well, and makes you could identify the symptoms again.
What you need to do now, is get some help, ask someone over, get them to put the medicine in some bottles, the water in some identical bottles, then they need to flip a coin, and label the medicine "heads" or "tails" depending what comes up, then labeling the water with the other designation. Idealy this person will now leave, without ever even seeing you, leaving a note in a well sealed envelope saying which is which. You should put this note away, making sure you can't read it. Now apply your two mystery bottles to two different plants. More if you can, if you have 5 on each side, perhaps alternated across a windowsill to eliminate one half not getting enough sun. Everything you can do to make each plant receive identical conditions in everyway, and not have a single common element between those that get the "Heads", and those that get "tails" (apart from the medicine they recieve) must be done, Roll a dice or flip a coin to see which plant gets heads and which gets tails perhaps, this will randomise things even more.
Then, if in the end you can pick which 5 plants received the medicine and which the water, and you open up the envelope and find you are right, you are on the first step to proving homeopathy works to all of us. Remember, the person who does know which is which, should never have any contact with you until AFTER you have picked the plants and opened the envelope.
What I have outlined above, is in it's simplist form, science. That is what we all go ga-ga over. Nothing more. The reason we love it so much, is that it removes as much bias as possible, you don't know which is which, so you can't even sub-conciously change the result. Of course real science must then be verified by other people, which is where the 1 million dollars comes into it.
You should now contanct Randi, people here can help you with that, and you can try to prove to him you can do it. Don't worry, you will both have to agree to the conditions before the test starts, and it shouldn't be much different to what I outlined above. If you can prove it Randi, you will have won 1 million dollars.
What could be easier? Sure it's a bit of work, but experimenting is fun, and you could be a million dollars richer, so why not give it a go?
The problem is, what if you can't pick the water from the medicine? You could try again, think up a completely different test, but some things must be the same. That is, no one in the test can know what's water and what's medicine, and who or what gets the midicine and water should be randomised. If you keep doing tests like this and find you can't tell the difference, you will be at the reason why we don't think homeopathy works. But no need to think about that bridge unless it happens.
Sorry to talk your ear off, what do you think of that? Anything I need to make clearer? I hope you at least understand now WHY we don't hink homeopathy works, even if you still do think it works, I hope we can at least understand each others position.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Not half as annoying as you using those things. You know, a false argument is a false argument, no matter in which context it occurs. To give them names just helps understanding and avoids the trouble of explaining the fault over and over again.Barbrae said:
However, you can easily avoid having strawmen pointed out to you: Just avoid using them
.I'll address your answers to questions next post.
Hans
Z
Variable Constant
Um... wow... a homeopath who answers honestly.
Oh, sure, she still spouts that nonsense about 'science' being a bad way to go, and still babbles about energetics... but at least she says, "I don't know" more than most of them do.
Barb, don't feel bad - apparently Helios is right there with you. So is Boiron, who in extensive correspondance with me, admitted to not knowing how it works or even IF it works - only that a demand for it exists and they fill the demand as required.
In fact, the Boiron correspondant even went so far as to admit that in the 'unlikely event' that the medicines get mixed up before labelling, there is no concern since no active ingredient remains, and all medicines shipped from their warehouses are identical (at the appropriate potencies, of course) in composition and effect.
Then suddenly the correspondences paused for a month, and a short email was sent, claiming that any further questions I have on homeopathy should be referred to one of several on-line homeopath forums, and not to take anything said by 'former employees' seriously...
Can we say, 'cover up'?
Damnably, my computer crashed and I lost all email correspondance with these sham-artists not long thereafter... it only JUST occured to me I ought to sue the pants off these flim-flam men (my wife having paid... well, about $50 for sugar pills)
Oh, sure, she still spouts that nonsense about 'science' being a bad way to go, and still babbles about energetics... but at least she says, "I don't know" more than most of them do.
Barb, don't feel bad - apparently Helios is right there with you. So is Boiron, who in extensive correspondance with me, admitted to not knowing how it works or even IF it works - only that a demand for it exists and they fill the demand as required.
In fact, the Boiron correspondant even went so far as to admit that in the 'unlikely event' that the medicines get mixed up before labelling, there is no concern since no active ingredient remains, and all medicines shipped from their warehouses are identical (at the appropriate potencies, of course) in composition and effect.
Then suddenly the correspondences paused for a month, and a short email was sent, claiming that any further questions I have on homeopathy should be referred to one of several on-line homeopath forums, and not to take anything said by 'former employees' seriously...
Can we say, 'cover up'?
Damnably, my computer crashed and I lost all email correspondance with these sham-artists not long thereafter... it only JUST occured to me I ought to sue the pants off these flim-flam men (my wife having paid... well, about $50 for sugar pills)