Homeopathy & critical non-thinking

[CFLarsen]

Expanding the contraction, we get: "is NOT necessarily DANGEROUS." Since necessarily here means the same thing as "always" in this useage, and since the modal-logic opposite of always is "sometimes": it means "is sometimes NOT DANGEROUS".

Give it up Larsen, you're wrong on this (silly) point.

I am?

Maybe it's my English which sucks. Isn't the opposite of "always" "never"?

 

[tommjames]

Give it up Larsen, you're wrong on this (silly) point.

But is it really just a silly point? Seems to me that adherance to logic and semantical exactness is the only true way to facilitate effective debate.

Just a humble opinion. Please don't pillory me. I'm just a newbie.

 

[geni]

It doesn't matter anyway. The claimed effect of proving don't always match the effects of the stuff when it it is taken in a normal concentration. So belladona won't be halunogenic.

 

[CFLarsen]

But is it really just a silly point? Seems to me that adherance to logic and semantical exactness is the only true way to facilitate effective debate.

Precisely. (Pun intended )

 

[Suggestologist]

I am?

Maybe it's my English which sucks. Isn't the opposite of "always" "never"?

Always means "every time"; the opposite is "not every time" -- which is "sometimes". Never is the polar opposite: "not any time".

 

[tommjames]

Always means "every time"; the opposite is "not every time" -- which is "sometimes". Never is the polar opposite: "not any time".

Weren't you the one who told Larson to "give it up"?

 

[geni]

I am starting to feel that we need a JREF dictronary: the presise mean of words

 

[CFLarsen]

Always means "every time"; the opposite is "not every time" -- which is "sometimes". Never is the polar opposite: "not any time".

Sorry, I really think you are wrong.

"Always" means 100% of the time. So, the opposite must mean "never". 0% of the time.

 

[Suggestologist]

Sorry, I really think you are wrong.

"Always" means 100% of the time. So, the opposite must mean "never". 0% of the time.

You know what; the only way to solve this is to do a double-blind RCT with n=100; and ask people to rate whether "is not necessarily dangerous" means "is sometimes safe" on a scale of 1 to 10. Oh, and we have to make sure they're all native English speakers.

There is a qualitative frequency scale that goes something like:

never:nly once:twice:every other time:every third time:half the time:all but a few times:all but once:always.

On the scale; never and always are polar opposites. But "sometimes" covers everything between "only once" and "all but once".

Necessarily means "absolutely every time x, then always y". "Not necessarily" means "not absolutely every time x, then always y".

 

[Rolfe]

Does it matter?

The bottom line is that no test sceptics can do by themselves will ever disprove homoeopathy. Sceptics try a proving on themselves and nothing happens - oh ask MRC_Hans, it's a waste of time. Sceptics try to replicate an in vitro study homoeopaths claimed as significant? Once they've exhausted the accusations of falsifying the method, the bottom line is that this just means that possible mode of action obviously isn't the right track. Sceptic tries homoeopathic treatment for an ailmant and it doesn't improve? The rational ones just say you need further consultations, and anyway, it doesn't work every time. The less rational ones get closer whan they say it won't work if you don't believe!

The only way to get to the bottom of it is to get the homoeopaths to co-operate in the testing. And they're much too busy seeing patients at $450 an hour.

Rolfe.

 

[BillyJoe]

WHAT RANDI SAID AND WHAT HE ACTUALLY MEANT TO SAY

Randi said......

".....ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth..."

This doesn't make sense because what he is saying is.....

Ingesting this substance is usually dangerous but not always....it could kill you if you had a cut in your mouth

See, it doesn't make sense.
I think what he meant to say was.....

Ingesting this substance is usually NOT dangerous but sometimes it IS....it could kill you if you had a cut in your mouth

Now this sentence makes sense and, what's more, it is correct.





BillyJoe

 

[juryjone]

I'm sure that everyone will agree that's a huge difference there. "not necessarily dangerous" rather than "safe".

I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

sheesh.

Driving while drunk is not necessarily dangerous. It can be and has been done with no ill effects for the driver, passengers and others on the road.

Driving while drunk is not safe.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Just wading into pedant's corner here...

"Dangerous" can have several definitions:

a) Involving or filled with danger; perilous.
b) Being able or likely to do harm.

(These are from dictionary.com)

Now, taking that second definition I suppose anything can be regarded as dangerous (even cotton balls if you choke on them), so it comes down to a relative assessment of risk. Drunk driving may not always end in disaster, but it is always dangerous, in that it carries a relatively higher element of risk than driving sober (or not driving at all!)

I am sure many parents would agree that running with knives is dangerous, though it can be done with care.

A crumbling cliff can be labelled "dangerous", though not everyone who approaches it will fall to their deaths.

Now, does anyone here actually know the effects of drinking snake venom (with or without cuts?).

 

[princhester]

The problem here is that in normal everyday communication, there is one person trying to express themselves and others trying to understand. This works reasonably well, despite the vagaries inherent in casual written or spoken English.

But when you have one person who is trying to express themselves and another deliberately trying to find a way to interpret what the other said in a way that will mean that the first person is wrong in some way, the whole normal system of human communication falls apart.

Which is why lawyers writing contracts express themselves in such a pedantic terms but no one else does.

When Randi writes his column he is just participating in normal everyday communication and he writes accordingly. If it were important to Randi that he not be misunderstood by the likes of peter morris, no doubt he would write like a lawyer.

It isn't, so he doesn't.

 

[The Don]

My two pennorth

If I was in Mr Randi's position I would say

Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds

To prevent something unmiraculous being presented as miraculous

 

[magicflute]

ALWAYS

Entry: always
Function: adverb
Definition: continually
Synonyms: consistently, constantly, eternally, ever, everlastingly, evermore, for keeps, forever, forevermore, in perpetuum, invariably, perpetually, regularly, repeatedly, unceasingly, without exception
Antonyms: at no time, never, temporarily
Concept: permanency
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

 

[Peter Morris]

Driving while drunk is not necessarily dangerous. It can be and has been done with no ill effects for the driver, passengers and others on the road.

Driving while drunk is not safe.

No, driving while drunk is always dangerous. It won't necessarily be fatal, but there is always a high risk.

When is it ever NOT dangerous?

 

[Peter Morris]

The problem here is that in normal everyday communication, there is one person trying to express themselves and others trying to understand. This works reasonably well, despite the vagaries inherent in casual written or spoken English.

That's rich, coming from you, princhester, given your repeated demonstrations that you are unable to understand plain English.

Case in point follows.

But when you have one person who is trying to express themselves and another deliberately trying to find a way to interpret what the other said in a way that will mean that the first person is wrong in some way, the whole normal system of human communication falls apart.

Oh? And in what way am I doing that, then princhester? How am I "deliberately trying to find a way to interpret what the other said in a way that will mean that [Randi] is wrong in some way?"

Princhester, I am not challenging the accuracy of Randi's statement, far from it. As far as I know, princhester, Randi's statement was accurate.

What I am saying, princhester, is that the homeopathy test in Randi's commentry was badly designed, and proves nothing - like many of Randi's own tests, in fact.

The doctors in the test drank a dilute solution of snake venom, and didn't die. But Randi has commented that drinking pure snake venom "isn't necessarily dangerous."

Do you see, princhester, how useless the test was?

You, princhester, are trying to interpret my words in a way that would make me wrong. I commented on poor test design, you interpreted this as a claim that Randi is wrong.

Readers may decide for themselves whether princhester's misunderstanding was deliberate or intentional.

When Randi writes his column he is just participating in normal everyday communication and he writes accordingly. If it were important to Randi that he not be misunderstood by the likes of peter morris, no doubt he would write like a lawyer.

BillyJoe ithinks Randi meant to say : "Ingesting this substance is usually NOT dangerous but sometimes it IS....it could kill you if you had a cut in your mouth" I understood his words as meaning precisely that.

If you think I've misunderstood Randi, let's hear what you think he said.

 

[princhester]

Read this thread, peter. See what you've spent much time arguing about. And now since what you've been arguing has been shown to be a load of nit picking bollocks, you are trying to pretend you haven't spent the best part of a page arguing about it.

You are a joke, peter. If only you were funny.

 

[geni]

Ok lets got through your opening post.

In [url = http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html#7]his lastest commentry[/url] Randi comments on a failed test for homeopathy.

Well, I'm no believer in homeopathy, but I do believe in giving extraordinary claims a fair test. With just a little bit of logical thought, it is obvious that the test described was grotesqely unfair, so poorly designed that homeopathy would fail the test whether it worked or not.


Only if the effect was fairly boarderline and you could overcome the effcts with the power of the mind. But homeopaths don't claim that.

Here's the problem: they ignore one of the fundamental principles of homeopathy, namely the claim that like cures like. So, if homeopathy is true, a dilution of snake venom would be an antidote to a smakebite.

only if you had been bitten. Otherwise you would experiance proving effects.

Another flaw in the logic - Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely.

Meaningless. Proving effects (which are what homeopaths would claim you would expect) have nothing to do with chemical toxicity


Randi claims to be a critical thnker. Not so at all. He's highly critical, but not at all skilled at thinking. He'll believe anything you tell him, as long as you are speaking against the paranormal.

Your logic is flawed because you don't understand the ideas behind homeopathy. You could take a homeopathic remedy of sodium chloride and homeopaths would cliam that you would experaince some effect. Wether the stuff is toxic or not at normal levels is not signifcant.