Homeopathy & critical non-thinking

princhester said:
One thing I missed:
Is it necessary that Randi recognise a true claim given that he is not the arbiter of his own tests?
Click to expand...

In what way? In the descriptions of the tests he provides, it seems as if he is.

I would have thought that all is required is for someone to pass a test. The fact that Randi would (in your view) closemindedly disbelieve that the applicant was capable of passing a test doesn't seem to be relevant to whether they do pass the test.
Click to expand...

That presupposes that the test is designed sensibly, and carried out honestly.
 
Rolfe said:
And exactly where has Randi "lied" to discredit homoeopathy?
Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I think the stunt described the article somewhat misrepresents the claims of homeopaths.

Most people reading the description would infer that - if homeopathy were true - the drink should have killed the doctors.

AIUI, homeopaths don't actually claim that.
 
Peter Morris said:
Most people reading the description would infer that - if homeopathy were true - the drink should have killed the doctors.

AIUI, homeopaths don't actually claim that.
Click to expand...

Did you read the bit I posted quoteing hannermann?

Most homeopaths would think that while the test would not kill it should have at least made a couple of the people involved unwell.
 
geni said:
Did you read the bit I posted quoteing hannermann?
Click to expand...

sorry, couldn't understand it. You obviously know a lot more about it than I do, so I'll have to take your word for it.
 
Peter Morris said:
I think the stunt described the article somewhat misrepresents the claims of homeopaths.
Click to expand...
Since you don't actually seem to know what the claims of the homoeopaths are, I don't think you're on very solid ground here.

Note also that Randi frequently describes how the test protocols for the official attempts at the prize are always agreed with the applicants themselves. They have to agree that under the circumstances of the test, they expect their powers to manifest. Not much scope for dishonest test design there.

In fact the terms of the homoeopathy challenge are particularly simple. Just demonstrate that you can reliably distinguish between the remedy of your choice and the stock solvent, any way you like. Leaving the homoeopaths completely free to design any test they think will cut it. All the JREF has to do is to ensure blinding.

You have to wonder why none of them even wants to try. Can you imagine any other system of "medicine" that admittedly can't tell any of it's products from placebo, given a totally free hand as to how?

Against this background the oft-repeated stunt of swallowing handfuls of homoeopathic pills (the usual form of the game) has to be recognised as a pointed way of saying "look how silly this is" to the public - it's not meant to be dissected as a serious experiment.

Now if you really want to understand the point of the snake venom hoop-la, go read up about the homoeopathic pathogenetic trial, or "proving". They do indeed claim that healthy people taking their very dilute preparations will be made ill. Sounds like an excellent easy way to win the Challenge actually, but none of them seems to want to want the money.

I thought I'd posted this link already, but have a look again. Homoeopaths claim to be able to poison people. They never give exact recipes, but every time a test of homoeopathy involving a proving is suggested, they line up warn you that this could be very dangerous. In spite of the fact that ten minutes ago they were telling you that there's no need for the remedies to be regulated, because they're absolutely safe.

This was in effect what the Belgian doctors were sort of basing their demonstration on, and I simply can't see why you have such a problem with this.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
You have to wonder why none of them even wants to try. Can you imagine any other system of "medicine" that admittedly can't tell any of it's products from placebo, given a totally free hand as to how?
Click to expand...

To be fair we do know of an exception.
 
Rolfe said:
To be fair, that's perfectly true. I wonder how her application is progressing?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

She's a JREF forum memeber you could try pming her.
 
Hmmm, discretion, better part of valour, I think.

I wonder if CCH put her off with the usual "don't associate with these evil sceptics, the test will be rigged and besides the money doesn't exist" line?

Talking to Niall, and going through all the excuses, we think actually that there is a simple rule they're applying which they don't articulate. Any test which involves effective blinding is in breach of homoeopathic principles. It's the only way to explain Hoare's behaviour when he's challenged by his own exact test design, but with blinding incorporated.

Bunch of fraudulent quacks.

Rolfe.
 
geni said:


Did you read the bit I posted quoteing hannermann?

Most homeopaths would think that while the test would not kill it should have at least made a couple of the people involved unwell.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm just trying to get a few things clear in my head here, just trying to understand what you're saying. I've been looking through your earlier comments and I'm confused.

For example earlier in the thread you said "A single does will have no effect on most people acording to homeopathic principles. It is multiple does over a length of time that will have an effect." Doesn't this indicate that the single dose the doctors drank shouldn't have had any effect?

You also said "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."

So, you wouldn't necessarily expect dilute snake venom to have the effects of snake venom, it might not make the drinkers ill, anyway, is that right?

You also said "Lets try this one more time. Chemical toxicty is not in any way relivant. the effect that was to be expected was what homeopaths call a proving. this has nothing to with whether the substance is toxic or not."
and " It has been explained why the toxicty of the substances involed is not relivant. "

If I've understood you, you are saying that homeopaths claim that ANYTHING becomes toxic when diluted. Honey, vanilla extract, garlic, vitamin-C, etc all of them should have made some of the doctors ill (with repeated doses?)

Why then do they use snake venom and arsenic? If ketchup ought to have had the same effect?

ISTM that they do so because the public think snake venom and arsenic is poison to drink., and that 99% of the public don't know about 'provings' at all.

Even looking at your remarks about provings, it STILL seems they are implying something false about homopathy.

The message looks like : This liquid ought to kill us because snake venom is poisonous

It doesn't look like: This liquid ought to kill us because provings can turn even safe things toxic.
 
Peter Morris said:
For example earlier in the thread you said "A single does will have no effect on most people acording to homeopathic principles. It is multiple does over a length of time that will have an effect." Doesn't this indicate that the single dose the doctors drank shouldn't have had any effect?

Yes no sort of. It depends it the homeopath is making claims or excuses. It would depend to a degree on the potency but going by homeopathic thoery at least a couple of them should have experanced some effect even if the majority should not.



So, you wouldn't necessarily expect dilute snake venom to have the effects of snake venom, it might not make the drinkers ill, anyway, is that right?

There is a homeopathic proving of snake vemon around so it should have some effect. What effect excatly I am not sure.


If I've understood you, you are saying that homeopaths claim that ANYTHING becomes toxic when diluted. Honey, vanilla extract, garlic, vitamin-C, etc all of them should have made some of the doctors ill (with repeated doses?)

In thoery yes

Why then do they use snake venom and arsenic? If ketchup ought to have had the same effect?

Probably but as far as I am aware there is no such homeopathic remedy as ketchup (yet). Snake venom and arsenic are well accepted however

ISTM that they do so because the public think snake venom and arsenic is poison to drink., and that 99% of the public don't know about 'provings' at all.

Posibley but if you are taking nat mur most of the public are not going to have the faitest idea what you are talking about. So they added some showmanship and probably atchived more than all the studies could.


Even looking at your remarks about provings, it STILL seems they are implying something false about homopathy.

The message looks like : This liquid ought to kill us because snake venom is poisonous

It doesn't look like: This liquid ought to kill us because provings can turn even safe things toxic.

Look do you feel like explaining to the public about proving?

There is also the factor that things that are toxic seem to have stronger proving effects (don't ask me why I don't know).

As you saw from my list there is no shortage of resurch (and I think there is more in the pipeline). There is aparently a failer to comunicate.
Click to expand...
 
Rolfe said:
Since you don't actually seem to know what the claims of the homoeopaths are, I don't think you're on very solid ground here.

Note also that Randi frequently describes how the test protocols for the official attempts at the prize are always agreed with the applicants themselves. They have to agree that under the circumstances of the test, they expect their powers to manifest. Not much scope for dishonest test design there.
Click to expand...

See my description of Randi's dowsing test, described above.

Yeah, the protocols are agreed with the applicants - that means Randi sets the protocols, the applicants have to agree to them.

If they don't agree to them, then they don't have to take the test.

Nowhere does Randi promise to give them a test that they like.

You will notice that the majority of applicants never actually take the test, because they don't agree to the protocols that Randi sets.

It seems that most of them really believe in their own paranormal claims, they just consider the test set by Randi to be unfair, and they refuse to take it.
 
Peter Morris said:
So, there we have it. If someone claims they can find water, Randi challenges them to "find a dry spot." That is the only test Randi is willing to give, and it makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

Peter if you read the comentries which it is fairly clear you do you will know that this is an outright lie. There are seveal descriptions of how dowsers have been tested and despite your claims they did not have to find a dry spot.
 
Do you have a specific example of Randi conducting a test for finding natural water underground? I don't remember seeing any.

Not finding a gold ingot in a cup, not finding a small bottle of water buried in a field, those are totally seperate claims.
 
Peter Morris said:
On this particular point, can I just say that, several times in the past, you have accused me of thinking that "randi is the only game in town", even after I vrepeatedly said its the exact opposite of my point.

Just for once, I thought I would turn the tables, and say it about you before you said it about me. It certainly is a great deal closer to your position than to mine.
Click to expand...

I don't accept this. Rather than sidetrack this whole discussion, why don't you start a thread outlining your views on the issue? Could I ask that if you do this, you don't kick off the OP by saying "my position is this, but princhester's position is that". Just give your own position, and I'll give mine. Things are likely to stay polite longer if you don't purport to represent my position, I suspect.

Well, I have given you evidence of flaws in his tests before, but you didn't listen. Since you now seem to in a more reasonable frame of mind I will show you one of my favorites among Randi's many flawed tests.
Click to expand...

We are trying to be polite. Being polite involves more than not swearing etc. It also involves not accusing others of not listening and not (by implication) suggesting that in the past people have not had a reasonable frame of mind. Try to stay polite or this discussion is going to get ugly real fast.

Now, as to the rest of your post, it seems to me you have two complaints regarding Randi's testing of dowsers. I'll deal with the shorter point first.

First point, you say:

Apart from anything else, the challenge set by Randi is radically different from the claim being made. Dowsers claim the ability to find water, not the ability to find dry spots.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that a dowser can't tell the difference between a wet spot and a dry spot? If not, how do they know when they are on a wet spot?

Second point: you say that you consulted some geologists and they said:

You can find some water anywhere you dig, but in the vast majority of places it's only a tiny trickle.
Click to expand...

and you provide a link. You say that Randi says that water can be found under 90 or 94% of land. Randi's method of testing dowsers is to say "find me a dry spot". You say this would be impossible, because "you can find some anywhere you dig".

OK, that makes sense. Now find me a link to a cite for the proposition that "you can find some anywhere you dig". Try to be precise, and please don't say you've already provided one.
 
If it's really possible to find small amounts of flowing water at some distance underground in almost all locations, then doing so isn't much of a demonstration of unusual powers, is it?

Now, if they could give a rough idea of how much water is involved, and how far down it was, that would be more impressive.
 
Peter didn't say you could find some water "almost" anywhere you dig: he did not qualify his proposition in that way. He'll be providing a cite shortly, I expect.
 
Hello again :)

To answer the question whether or not i had a real problem.

Yes, I had a real problem...

I could not get my bowles to work...in the proper function that they should...so I could not get rid of my stool..

(i just wouldn't write this before as i know americans look different upon describing this process)

But now I have done it... (hopefylly it wouldn't be administered away :) )

But I tell, no more than a day went by before I could go to the bathroom again... :)

And yes, I really do believe that if you think this or that remedy, be it a traditionel pill or a homeoptahy vial, will help you, your mind (maybe unconsciusly) will be more inclined to work with your body in repairing itself. (and i know that there have been researh shown that neuratransmitters and peptides ??? are present in the body .. i.e. some american scientists found a decade or so ago, neurotransmitters in the liver)

So yes, maybe it was a kind of placebo effect that cured me.
(but then again, if I did not believe that homeopathy remdies would help me to get over my little problem desribed above, I wouldn't have contacted a homeopath, now would I)

I also happen to believe that even if you, for instance take an aspirin, you MUST believe/think that this aspirin would help youn in dealing with your specifik problem. (if you don't, i also happen to believe/think that the doctors can pour dozen of pill in you --- without it helping you...)

aries
(who sincerely hopes this post isn't administered.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom