• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ethics of Posting

Phil63 said:
and regarding your previous comment "Pervious dicussions on polls have never gone beyond 5 posts" - uh, because the previos polls where not about the EZINE as this was the first issue and being as it went out to hundreds or thousands of folks it would generate more discussion.

Still worth 99 posts? Well I suspose it could have drifted onto a discussion of 14th centery painters I doubt that.

Still you have access to the thread why don't you tell us what is in it? For fairly obvious reasons I don't know (all though do know that it mentions Xouper, Rolfe, Randi, Yahweh posibily me and the wanna vote thread so some one waas interested) Anyway my point was that I do in fact have some idea what they are doing (all though of course my main information come from reading the ezine its self and whatever turns up a in the maion forum


Believe me Geni - you guys are not the constant topic of discussion of there at the ezine site. Sorry to burst your bubbles. Though I find it interesting how much discussion you folks seem to give hpathy or hhbb. And the majority of the discussion is not about scientific evidence for homeopathy but rather specific discussion about the "woo woos" .

Scientific disscussion of homeopathy:
the evidence avaible supports the hyposysis that homeopathy has no effect beyond the placebo effect.

Right that took about ten seconds what shall we do now? And it is mildly interesting to watch these people (and you I assume) try and defend their belife system against reality.
Click to expand...
 
They are a fascinating branch of lower intellectual life.
Click to expand...

Nice - very very nice - I can't imagine why they don't answer your questions, I mean you guys are are so sincere.
 
Phil63 said:


Nice - very very nice - I can't imagine why they don't answer your questions, I mean you guys are are so sincere.
Click to expand...

In this debate I gave up being nice and decided to settle for being right. The homeopaths have too many people being nice to them and failing to call them the religiously fanatical frauds that they are.
 
geni said:
Your ID over at hpathy
Click to expand...
Does it matter?

He's here, and I'd like to hear some debate. Preferably moving beyond Kleijnen, Linde, Boissel and Reilly, and acknowledging some of the very good papers which have come out in the last four or five years.

So far, all we've had is a few half-hearted ad-homs.

Rolfe.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
In this debate I gave up being nice and decided to settle for being right. The homeopaths have too many people being nice to them and failing to call them the religiously fanatical frauds that they are.
Click to expand...
I like your style, BSM. They claim an effect on the real world, something testable and, logically, falsifiable. But they defend themselves as if we had quesitoned their belief in God.

Never mind the faith healing, look at the facts.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Does it matter?
Click to expand...

No but I am midly interested (apart from anything else Phil63 almost certianly know more about homeopathy than Gold so the debate should be more interesting)
 
what do you want to debate? The scientific papers that are expressed as evidence in favor of homeopathy are appallingly lacking in quality and quantity. No debate there - what else??

In this debate I gave up being nice and decided to settle for being right
Click to expand...
weird - I didn't realize that you couldn't be both. I always assumed you could be right and nice, course what do I know? I am a less intelligent life form after all, eh?

There is something just as important as being right by the way when debating - it's called being effective, and that you are not.
 
geni said:
(apart from anything else Phil63 almost certianly know more about homeopathy than Gold so the debate should be more interesting)
Click to expand...
My thoughts entirely. Debating with Gold was like debating with a pre-recorded answer message. Stuck on the word "Linde".

Rolfe.
 
Phil63 said:
what do you want to debate? The scientific papers that are expressed as evidence in favor of homeopathy are appallingly lacking in quality and quantity. No debate there - what else??
Click to expand...

Well at the most basic level why you think that homeopathy work Vrs why I think that the evidence says that it doesn't.
 
I can tell you why I think homeopathy is effective but alas it would be dismissed without a second thought, except maybe to call me some derogatory name from someone and I already agree with you that the scientific evidence leans in the direction that is innefective.
 
So let me see. From that I guess you are talking about about anicdotal evidence? If you poke around this forum you will run into the pharse "the plural of anicdote is not data" which is a pretty good summing, Remeber the placebo effect is stronger than many people think.

Of course I might be wrong and you may have a totaly different reason for beliving it works
 
Phil63 said:
I can tell you why I think homeopathy is effective but alas it would be dismissed without a second thought, except maybe to call me some derogatory name from someone and I already agree with you that the scientific evidence leans in the direction that is innefective.
Click to expand...
Well homoeopaths are experts at name-calling, so you should be used to that.

We can promise you at least the second thought. Why come here if you won't even give your point of view an airing?

Rolfe.
 
Phil63 said:
what do you want to debate? The scientific papers that are expressed as evidence in favor of homeopathy are appallingly lacking in quality and quantity. No debate there - what else??

weird - I didn't realize that you couldn't be both. I always assumed you could be right and nice, course what do I know? I am a less intelligent life form after all, eh?

There is something just as important as being right by the way when debating - it's called being effective, and that you are not.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the medical establishment has recently chosen to be 'nice' to the CAM community in the name of inclusiveness and pandering to an irrational public mood and let them in under the roof without requiring them to pay the price of admission i.e. to substantiate their remarkable claims. Now we are stuck with the problem of having to prove their negative for them when they should have been required to deomnstrate their positive and in failing to do so go back to the fringes where they belong.

The other problem is that if you scratch the surface veneer off many a 'nice' homeopath you reveal a blinkered fanatic. They will not engage in civilised debates for the very simple reason that at almost the first step they are proven to be spouting horsefeathers. This has been discussed here previously in the 'Quacks- Knowing or Unknowing' thread. The fact that Phil the homeopath implicitly accepts that all he/she has is half-baked anecdote;
I can tell you why I think homeopathy is effective but alas it would be dismissed without a second thought
Click to expand...
but will not willingly acknowledge the absolute uselessness of this is typical. Couple that with the usual bleating about how we adopt a superior tone while they demonstrate their inferior understanding and the mixture is complete.

I am prepared to eat whatever portion of humble pie is required if and when homeopathy proves its claims. Having a scientific mind does entail a preparedness to repudiate cherished ideas when the evidence fails to back them up. However, there is an increasingly large body of evidence to support my contention that homoepathy is basically a fraud at least partially knowingly perpetrated by people who actively run from the facts and I think that I should be serving not consuming that pie.

It may be that other members of this board have never read the anecdotes of homeopaths. They should do so. Sometimes there is a risk of granting them that these anecdotes are remarkably strong and a feeling can creep in that we are being a bit tough in calling them to account and sticking to our guns about what constitutes real evidence. It's been specifically commented on more than once that "their remarkable anecdotal claims mysteriously fail under proper scrutiny", but that is to give too much credence to those anecdotes. If you read their case histories it is remarkable how often it should be obvious even to the participants that nothing remarkable has happened except their willingness to suspend disbelief. Gold/Xanta's example is one of the best I have recently come across. The utter failure to treat her IBS should be enough for her to question the anecdotal validity of homeopathy, but instead excuses are always found. This is not rational behaviour, this is superstition.
 
Well, Phil, are you just going to sit there and feel all persecuted, or are you going to telll us why you think homoeopathy is effective?

Hint. Post hoc ergo propter hoc doesn't cut it. A modicum of a semblance of evidence of cause and effect would be appreciated.

Rolfe.
 
Phil63 said "I can tell you why I think homeopathy is effective but alas it would be dismissed without a second thought, except maybe to call me some derogatory name from someone and I already agree with you that the scientific evidence leans in the direction that is innefective."

Phil can you clarify for me please, whether you mean-
"I can tell you why I think etc" , or " I can tell you why ,(I think) etc"

(The first is a statement about your thinking, the other a statement about your understanding of hy mechanism)
Thanks.
 
Well, Phil, are you just going to sit there and feel all persecuted,
Click to expand...
My My My Rolfe - a psychiatric background along with beign a vet? Or perhaps you have ESP? Either way you are mistaken that I was sitting around feeling persecuted - I actually had stuff to do over the weekend.

Soapy - I was replying to Geni who asked why I think it works and yes, when I said I can say why I think it works it was reflective of my thinking. The fact is we do not know why homeopathy works, or should I say how it works. There are theories, which have been floated around here so no need to repeat them.
 
Still not actually saying anything, I notice.

Of course there's no law says you have to, but unless you fess up you'll never know if anyone will take you seriously.

Rolfe.
 
Mystic Phil, you haven't contributed anything actual to the debate. How abouts you tell us why you think you have the right to see people who are ill and tell them how to get better. Its real peoples lives you are messing with, phony war is over.

When you take it upon yourself to say "i can heal you" you have taken a responcibility. If you cannot present a reasonable case as to why people should entrust you with that responcibilty then you are a fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom