Homeopathy & critical non-thinking

[Peter Morris]

You probably know as well as I do what Randi's standing test offer is in relation to homeopathy and the million dollar prize. It has nothing to do with some "stunt" involving swallowing dilute snake venom and not dying. And yet you seriously attempt to segue from a "stunt" that Randi mentions, to an implied impeachment of Randi's testing techniques.

You criticise him for mentioning the "stunt" that these doctors did without pointing out the obvious flaws in it as a test

Did it not occur to you that the reason Randi didn't point out the flaws the "stunt" had, when considered as a "test" was because it was a "stunt" and not a "test", and Randi only considered it as such?

No, princhester, Randi didn't point out the flaws because doing so would weaken his own position.

He reported the stunt, uncritically, without thinking, because jhe will say anything to discredit homeopathy. He doesn't give a damn whether it's true, or whether it makes sense.

Thre reason that he didn't point out the flaws in the stunt is that he didn't want the flaws in the stunt to be seen.

If Randi told a joke involving a ghost, a unicorn and a nun, would you start a thread pointing out that Randi is clearly a complete hypocrite because he's on record as saying there's no such thing as ghosts or unicorns?

If he reported it as a true story, then yes.

And when he reports a stunt as evidence against homeopathy, it's fine to point out the flaws in the stunt.

Given that you are merely a fair and unbiased commentator, and not a rabid Randi hating malcontent, why did you pull this sort of nonsense, Peter?

I'm just pointing out facts, princhester. If you can't stand them, nobody's forcing you to read them.

And another thing. You will note from the passage that Randi quoted that the homeopaths objection to the "stunt" was that "the venom and poison had no effect, because homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual"

So once again, Peter, we see you in a role in which you have placed yourself before: finding excuses on behalf of the proponents of the paranormal that even they don't raise.

Remarkable.

From Randi's article "the quack's answer was that of course the venom and poison had no effect, because homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual, or they won't work."

And here we see princhester's lack of critical thinking. He assumes that Randi has accurately reported the critiicism's made against him. Like Randi is honest enough to report the things he can't answer, and never ever makes things up.

Here's a tip for your critical thinking , princhester. Whenever you see a quote, unattributed to a specific source, and failing to quote the exact words used, be very suspicious. Often if you can trace the original at all, you will find that the meaning has been very much distorted, or even that it is completely fictional.

This is what is known as a man of straw. Look it up.

Oh, and princhester, consider the "response" to the argument that Randi claims they used.
"If that's the case, why do the homeopathic companies sell over-the-counter medicines? I guess it's because they can't resist selling distilled water at $400 a liter."

Does this make sense to you, princhester?

If so, then I suppose you refuse to use pharmcies that sell drugs only available under a doctor's prescription tailored to the specific patient, taking into account that individuals medical history, but also sells over the counter drugs to anyone that asks for them.

Since you are not a hypocrite who swallows every bit of BS Randi spouts, I know for a fact that you will apply the same standards of logic universally.

If homeopaths are bad because they sell individually tailored medicines, AND over the couner stuff, then legitimate pharmicists must be bad if they sell individually tailored medicines AND over the counter stuff.

Or you might say that it makes perfect sense to sell both types, and the argument produced by Randi is his usual hogwash.

 

[Peter Morris]

So what? This has nothing to do with homeopathy.

geni, the title of Randi's article was "poisoned doctors"

The text of the article said "Last week in Belgium a group of 30 doctors, incensed at the decision of a major medical insurance company to pay some of the cost of homeopathic medicines, publicly swallowed diluted solutions of snake venom and arsenic in a well publicized "suicide attempt." Needless to say, they're all still fit and well"

Randi was claiming that the homeopaths think the diluted snake venom should be a poison.

He wasn't saying anything about "proving."

You ae correct that this has nothing to do with homeopathy, but its Randi and the doctors distorting it, not me. That's the main flaw in the stunt.

 

[Rolfe]

Homoeopaths do qute often claim that homoeopathic remedies can be poisonous or dangerous, if not actually fatal. This is a good one. However, if you ask the homoeopaths exactly how to do this, they get all evasive. If one of them does give out a recipe, and you try it, when nothing happens it always turns out that there were all those other things which you did wrong (like had a cup of coffee) which sabotaged the entire effort.

Non-homoeopaths designing tests for homoeopathy will never be acknowledged as valid. The only way to do it is to get the homoeopaths to design or at least agree that the design is satisfactory. And even that doesn't work, they just backpedal like fury when the inevitable happens. There are always a dozen good reasons in their eyes why the test didn't work, including, if all else fails, "well, homoeopathy doesn't work on everyone" - and "homoeopathy doesn't work, period" never even enters their consciousness.

In this climate, just making a joke of it all is quite a reasonable approach, and I suspect that's what the snake-venom-imbibers were trying to do, though probably not very well.

Rolfe.

 

[Peter Morris]

Homoeopaths do qute often claim that homoeopathic remedies can be poisonous or dangerous, if not actually fatal. This is a good one.
Rolfe.

Can you show that a majority of homeopaths claim this, or is it just the one?

And is he claiming that poisonous substances remain poisonous, or is he claiming that a non-poisonous substance becomes a poison?

 

[Peter Morris]

In this climate, just making a joke of it all is quite a reasonable approach, and I suspect that's what the snake-venom-imbibers were trying to do, though probably not very well.

Rolfe.

As long as it is presented as a joke, then fine.

If it is presented as a serious demonstration then no.

 

[geni]

Randi was claiming that the homeopaths think the diluted snake venom should be a poison.

He wasn't saying anything about "proving."

But the reason they think it should be a poisen ( or more likly just make you feel ill) is because of the proving effects.

If we wish, for example, to attenuate a drop of the juice of sundew, (Drosera rotundifolia, a plant, which, along with its various species, grows on moist meadow-ground, and is very noxious to sheep.) to the decillointh, but shake each of the bottles with twenty or more succusions from a powerful arm, in the hand of which the bottle is held, in that case this medicine, which I have discovered to be the specific remedy for the frightful epidemic hooping-cough of children, will have become so powerful in the fifteenth attenuation (spiritualization) that a drop of it given in a tea-spoonful of water would endanger the life of such a child;

Taken from the ultimate homeopathic source.

I have no shortage of other referances to back this up since it is one of the coner stones of homeopathy.

 

[Rolfe]

Can you show that a majority of homeopaths claim this, or is it just the one?

And is he claiming that poisonous substances remain poisonous, or is he claiming that a non-poisonous substance becomes a poison?

This is an extremely difficult one. Homoeopaths are very slippery customers, and frequently shift their ground if things don't pan out the way they predicted. On the one hand, they will defend the right of homoeopathic remedies not to have to submit to any formal tests, because it's only water (or sugar), so obviously it's safe. But if you ask them to take the JREF Challenge by "proving" a remedy of their choice, that is taking it themselves and observing the characteristic symptoms it's supposed to produce, they plead that this would make them ill. Maybe they could do it once, but since the statistics of the test would require them to do it maybe ten times (to show that their ability to tell real remedy from placebo wasn't simply a lucky guess), they daren't try.

There was a fascinating thread on this at Homeopathy Home, where a homoeopath called Anna Bryant declared that she'd try it in spite of the dangers, but the thread was deleted in a purge of anything critical of homeopathy on the site. You could try this thread at H'pathy - they get on to ill effects towards the bottom of the first page.

I think any substance might produce ill effects, in their book - the proving symptoms are entirely delusional in any case, so even salt or onion might do all sorts of horrible things, in theory. In reality - if you can get two homoeopaths to agree on anything, you'll be lucky.

I think the demonstration that Randi was referring to wasn't entirely serious - it was just a protest against the reimbursement of homoeopathic remedies by health insurance. For serious tests, apply to Geni - he has a great collection, all done rigorously according to protocols approved by homoeopaths in advance, then repudiated as "fatally flawed from a homoeopathic perspective" as soon as the inevitable null effect was shown.

Rolfe.

 

[princhester]

As for pointing out instances of you failing to understand simple English, sure I can, my friend... [etc]

Peter I am not in the slightest bit interested in your revisionist history. The examples you give are a tissue of lies. I note you fail to provide links at key points. Too embarrassing I suspect.

Just provide a link to a particular post in which I have failed to understand simple English.

I'll show you what I mean:

Here's a link to a post in which you put your bizarre interpretation on something Randi said (about the third or fourth post down from the top).

And then on this page you say in post about 80% of the way down the page, when asked whether you are sticking with your original interpretation, that you are reserving judgement and the matter was not as clear cut in your favour as you'd thought. That's as close to an admission as you'd ever get. You also stated in that post that you were going off to some other forum to put a question and would revert with the responses. Of course, you never did. Wonder why?

 

[princhester]

No, princhester, Randi didn't point out the flaws because doing so would weaken his own position.

He reported the stunt, uncritically, without thinking, because jhe will say anything to discredit homeopathy. He doesn't give a damn whether it's true, or whether it makes sense.

Thre reason that he didn't point out the flaws in the stunt is that he didn't want the flaws in the stunt to be seen.

For someone who shows no empathy towards Randi you sure know exactly what he's thinking. Thanks for enlightening us. What did Randi have for breakfast this morning? Do you know that too? Don't worry if you don't know, just make something up...

And when he reports a stunt as evidence against homeopathy, it's fine to point out the flaws in the stunt.

And where in the commentary that you refer to does he report the stunt as "evidence"? I've read the article several times, I'm probably missing the relevant bit. Enlighten me.

I'm just pointing out facts, princhester. If you can't stand them, nobody's forcing you to read them.

Sure you are. So explain to me again how you go from a mention of a "stunt" to an impeachment of Randi's "tests". Because that's the link you made. Or are you dropping that particular position?

And here we see princhester's lack of critical thinking. He assumes that Randi has accurately reported the critiicism's made against him. Like Randi is honest enough to report the things he can't answer, and never ever makes things up.

If one adopts an a priori position that Randi is utterly untrustworthy, then certainly one is in a position where one not only should but must dismiss anything that Randi says. However, one must have a reason to adopt that position in the first place, otherwise one's position is just self fulfilling: I don't trust Randi because he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements. I know he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements because they are made by Randi. Randi is untrustworthy. How do I know that? Becaue he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements.

And by the way, I know that my reading abilities are seriously impaired and yours are godlike, but could you point out to me where Randi reports the criticisms made "against him"? Can you point to "the argument produced by Randi"? I was of the impression that all he does in the article to which you linked was give a brief intro to a piece written by someone else. I can't find any criticism of Randi. I can't find any argument produced by Randi.

As to the rest of your post, it's pretty simple: the quack is supposed to have said that "homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual [my emphasis]".

Have to be. And yet homeopaths sell OTC stuff all the time. This is a contradiction.

There is no analogy to be drawn to conventional medicine because no doctor would say "conventional medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual". Some do of course, but not all.

Of course you'll probably just say (conveniently) well the quack was probably misquoted. After all, you know that Randi is untrustworthy. So anything he says that might tend to support the accuracy of his position is not to be trusted. How do you know that it is not to be trusted? Because his position is inaccurate. How do you know it is inaccurate? Because what he says to support the accuracy of his position is not to be trusted.

 

[BillyJoe]

Has anyone else noticed that Princhester and Peter Morris have very similar ways of speaking. Including politely addressing each other as "Princhester" and "Peter" respectively several times throughout their posts. It's bizarre since they are so obviously at loggerheads in their opinions.

Or maybe it's just me?

BJ

 

[princhester]

Peter, speaking of English comprehension, I note you've been giving a few Americans a lesson in word usage and logic in this thread. Well done. Bravo. You sure taught them ignorant 'Mericans a snide little lesson there.

That was sarcasm, Peter. Are you getting the hang of this yet?

 

[Rolfe]

Has anyone else noticed that Princhester and Peter Morris have very similar ways of speaking....

I'm not sure which one's which, actually, and I've long since lost sight of the point they were making - if either of them ever had one in the first place.

Read the original Commentary again, children.

Randi describes it as "a stunt". He's quoting a letter from a reader, describing a protest demonstration stunt, against insurance companies who paid out for homoeopathic remedies. Randi also mentions that he himself has done the same "stunt" on a number of occasions. He describes it as "effective", but this seems to be in terms of publicity value, not as a meaningful piece of science.

Nowhere does anyone claim that it was any sort of rigorous proof against homoeopathy - it was a publicity stunt, pure and simple.

If Randi is making any point at all, as opposed to just passing on a mildly amusing story, it's that whatever protocol anyone adopts to test homoeopathy, when there is no effect, the homoeopaths will immediately claim that the protocol was fatally flawed. This is perfectly true, and although this stunt wasn't one of the best examples, it's a perfectly fair point.

Now, what was the argument about again?

Rolfe.

 

[princhester]

Well my habit of referring to people by their names comes from the fact that a couple of times when I've been being quite harsh, other posters have thought I'm being harsh about them (when you get involved in a fast moving multiparty debate sometimes it's not clear who you are addressing). Don't know why Peter does it.

I sometimes post with exaggerated politeness towards Peter because if you get snarky, he concentrates on that and says you have no actual arguments, just abuse.

Also, he's English and I'm Australian. We tend to use sarcasm (or is it irony?) a lot. Americans tend to speak more sincerely. There's a tale of a rather regrettable incident involving me, this American girl and a certain misunderstanding that I could bore you with...

 

[geni]

If Randi is making any point at all, as opposed to just passing on a mildly amusing story, it's that whatever protocol anyone adopts to test homoeopathy, when there is no effect, the homoeopaths will immediately claim that the protocol was fatally flawed. This is perfectly true, and although this stunt wasn't one of the best examples, it's a perfectly fair point.

You have to admit that it is amussing that they can't even get the right excuse.

 

[princhester]

Rolfe it's somewhat annoying that you would firstly imply that I have no point, then proceed to copy my point precisely as if I'd never made it. Check out the latter part of my post on 21 Feb. I was actually the first person in this thread to get to the nub of the matter as subsequently repeated by you, namely that Peter's treatment of Randi's mention of someone elses's stunt, as if it were indicative of or had anything to do with Randi's testing own testing standards, is absurd.

Of course, I do tend to get overly involved in putting the boot into Peter, which no doubt bores everyone stupid and causes my point to be lost. My fault really.

 

[Rolfe]

Of course, I do tend to get overly involved in putting the boot into Peter, which no doubt bores everyone stupid and causes my point to be lost. My fault really.

You understand perfectly. The whole exchange has become so personal that I've completely lost sight of which one of you is arguing from which position.

However, it seems to have been Peter who said:

He reported the stunt, uncritically, without thinking, because he will say anything to discredit homeopathy.

Seems to me Randi reported the stunt because it was mildly amusing. And homoeopath-baiting is always fair game to wile away the odd half-hour.

Peter, when you say that Randi "will do anything to discredit homoeopathy", are you implying that there is anything at all to be said in defence of homoeopathy, or any reason why the lot of us shoudn't go round doing all the discrediting we can pack into the day?

Bear in mind that these are people who claim to be able to help sick people, by charging a lot of money for long consultations during which an entirely fallacious theory of disease is applied (disturbances in the non-existent "vital force"), followed by a prescription for a "remedy" which contains nothing but the basic solvent material (water/alcohol or lactose). These content-free remedies aren't especially cheap either, considering what is(n't) in them.

Either there is evidence we don't know about why this works, in defiance of everything we know about chemistry and physics, in which case they should have no trouble at all walking off with the million dollars, or these people are perpetrating a particularly nasty and cynical health-fraud rip-off. (Oh, all right, some of them are probably sincerely deluded, too.)

There's a reason why these people aren't fair game for any criticism or discrediting that takes Randi's fancy?

By the way, regarding the OTC remedies. It's the homoeopaths themselves whose basic "theory" says that every remedy must be individualised for the patient by a trained homoeopath. They repeat this frequently, to justify these long and expensive consultations. It is from their own mouths that the practice of selling OTC homoeopathic remedies is condemned. But they still do it. The fact that there are real medicines which can be perfectly reasonably sold OTC for common minor complaints, doesn't alter this anomaly in the slightest.

Rolfe.

 

[Peter Morris]

Peter I am not in the slightest bit interested in your revisionist history. The examples you give are a tissue of lies. I note you fail to provide links at key points. Too embarrassing I suspect.

Just provide a link to a particular post in which I have failed to understand simple English.

Easy.

Folks, the link that Princhester himself gives shows his lack of understanding.

As reported above, he and I had a disagreement as to which one of Randi's two sentences was more important. I said #1 was more important, Princhester said #2 was more important.

Trying to prove a point, he posted a question to another forum, desperate for someone to agree with him.

He has shown himself unable to understand the answers he received.

Check out his own words, in the very link he posted above.
reposted here

Peter, check out this Straightdope thread.

You are of course quite correct about your interpretation of Randi's comment under discussion. You are right about everything. It's just that everyone else on the planet is wrong.

A bit later he said:

Almost every Doper who responded needs a lesson from you in English comprehension, surely? Aren't you going to pop in and give them the benefit of your wisdom? Perhaps you could use the "teacher" smilie on them?

And later still he said

Poster after poster says you are wrong. Some say that Randi was giving about equal emphasis to both points, some say that Randi's comments were ambiguous (but notably none say that after seeing the full context) and a big fat nil say that Randi's main point was what you say it is.

Well, folks, check princhester's link, just have a read of the responses that princhester received.

Did they agree with me that #1 is more important?

Did they agree with princhester that #2 was more important?

Actually, most of them said that the two are of equal imporatance, or that the sentence is so badly written you can't tell which is more important.

Yup, they disagreed with both of us.

Even the ones seeming to agree with Princhester did so only after he told them what they ought to think, and twisted Randi's words to suit his own agenda.

Check their exact words, folks.

Joe Random : "neither"

Squink said "It is a poorly constructed sentence ... and the main point, gets lost."

Eonwe: "Except, of course, when you're employing sarcasm such as ... "

Note: Randi's original comment was as sarcastic as usual. Princhester's editing removed that fact.

Wendell Wagner : ". O.K., the problem is that dividing things into main points and secondary points isn't useful, or even possible, based on this single sentence.... To know what this person's main and secondary points are, we would have to analyze the entire conversation, not just one sentence."

Vern Winterbottom "I'd say Joe doesn't go to the beach for both reasons."

Gadarene : "Alternatively, Randi could be using the "aside from" sarcastically in the manner of Eonwe, above. Were that the case, the emphasis would be on "irrational premises." Like so, maybe:"

The Ryan (a Randi fan I have crossed swords with in the past) said " And the OP certainly raised red flags in my mind (looked like an attempt to present only the favorable side of the argument),"

Yup, folks, a Randi fan questions princhester's honesty, and princhester believes everyone agrees with him. Go figure.

Wendell Wagner : "I don't think that it's useful to try to call one argument more important than the other. In fact, the more I read the statement, the more I think that it's not well written and it's not useful to try to figure out what Randi was saying."

Princhester has read the words, but he is incapable of understanding them. He remains totally convinced that every single one of the posters agreed with him. Sure, they disagreed with me, but they disagreed with princhester just as strongly. Princhester, however, thinks he has been vindicated.

Princhester links to this, smugly claiming that I had a "bizzarre interpretation" of Randi's words. He cannot understand thatm the replies he got show that his interpretation is equally "bizzarre" AND he cannot understand the replies to his question either.

That, my friends, is why I say princhester does not understand simple English.

 

[Rolfe]

Gosh, and when I saw that Peter had posted, I thought it might be that he's answered my quesiton about whether he had any sort of problem with criticising the sellers of magic content-free sugar pills.

Oh well, maybe another day.

Rolfe.

 

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester

Sure you are. So explain to me again how you go from a mention of a "stunt" to an impeachment of Randi's "tests". Because that's the link you made. Or are you dropping that particular position?

Because the "stunt" was logically flawed, and Randi shows the same sort of logical flaws when he devises a test. Then he crows because the "woo-woos" refuse to take the test that he has devised, and claim that it is because they know they cannot succeed.

He refuses to consider that they might refuse his test because his tests are crap.

If one adopts an a priori position that Randi is utterly untrustworthy, then certainly one is in a position where one not only should but must dismiss anything that Randi says. However, one must have a reason to adopt that position in the first place, otherwise one's position is just self fulfilling: I don't trust Randi because he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements. I know he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements because they are made by Randi. Randi is untrustworthy. How do I know that? Becaue he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements.

Princhester, have a read of the above. You are not even attempting to n answer any of my points, you are just making a vitriolic personal attack on me.

I am specific in my criticisms of Randi. I don't simply make accusations that Randi is a liar. What I do is to quote a specific claim that Randi has made, demonstrate it to be untrue, and THEN call him a liar.

You, by contrast, just spew out your hate toward me, make wild accusations about me,like the above, with nothing to back them up.

95% of your output is this sort of thing, the rest is silly quibbles such as the difference between a "stunt" and a "test"

As to the rest of your post, it's pretty simple: the quack is supposed to have said that "homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual [my emphasis]".

Have to be. And yet homeopaths sell OTC stuff all the time. This is a contradiction.

Really, princhester? Which quack would that be, then? Give the name.

What were hi9s exact words, princhester?

Since you are basing your argument on him using this precise word, rather than that alternative word, you must presumably know exactly what he said, even though it wasn't reported in the article.

 

[Peter Morris]

Peter, speaking of English comprehension, I note you've been giving a few Americans a lesson in word usage and logic in this thread. Well done. Bravo. You sure taught them ignorant 'Mericans a snide little lesson there.

That was sarcasm, Peter. Are you getting the hang of this yet?

Sigh. I made a little joke, then I explained that I was making a joke. I didn't wan't trolls accusing me of really thinking they are psychic.

What part of this don't you understand?