Homeopathy is everywhere!
- Thread starter Dub
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy
Again Darat, you've ignored my question. Now you're going on the 5th attempt to answer them.
I agree with you that a minimum range of science experiments can be done on TV, but I disagree with you in general because I feel that Science, the entire discipline, cannot, for the reasons I've pulled out of your link which you choose to not address.
I agree with you that a minimum range of science experiments can be done on TV, but I disagree with you in general because I feel that Science, the entire discipline, cannot, for the reasons I've pulled out of your link which you choose to not address.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
I am not sure what the need for a mathematical basis is for something that has no mathematical basis to begin with and I have no idea where to find that if it exists which, in theory, it probably doesn't because it can't. But you can ask for it. I suggest Schiff's book (as above) which is also mentioned in the following review. Again, for the I dont know how many times I have said this, this discussion is about considering the explanations and possibilities and not closing ourselves to science we have such a problem understanding that we do not even wish to acknowledge its existence.
If we were to call a spade a spade, here is what we are dealing with. The following two paragraphs are snipped from a much longer unsigned reportage article (not copywritten as far as I can see).
http://mathpost.la.asu.edu/~boerner/suppression.html
Intimidate University officials into investigating their "black sheep" for fraud. Withdraw funding and staff. Undermine the professional credibility of the scientists using any means necessary, including, but not limited to, reviews that seriously distort the original research, sham replication of the experiment in question (which is then immediately published by the same journals that refused, or were extremely reluctant, to publish the original research), and, ultimately, slander and character assassination.
(SG note: or uncontrolled replication on television - a single series of 40 attempts versus thousands done in a reputable
medical school lab by a skeptic of homeopathy, e.g. Prof M. Ennis).
All of those things happened to the prestigious French immunologist Jacques Benveniste who proved experimentally that water can "remember" an active agent that has been diluted so much that not a single molecule remains. In years of diligent, careful experimental work between 1985 and 1989, Benveniste's team at the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) showed that sub-molecular dilutions of anti-immunoglobulin E (aIgE) can affect the staining properties of basophils in the same fashion as actual aIgE- thus validating the basic tenet of homeopathy. Extremely reluctantly, Nature editor John Maddox published the research, but accompanied it by a scathing editorial that expressed his belief that the results had to be incorrect. The paper set off a firestorm of scientific bigotry. The Church Of Science decided that scientific results such as these were a heresy of the highest order, and did not rest until Benveniste was deprived of his professional credibility, career and funding. Nature was eager to publish a subsequent unsuccessful replication, but refused to publish a successful one. The paradigm shift was thus averted, and the high priests of the Church Of Science remain safe in their smug, self-deluded belief that they know everything there is to know about nature. Michel Schiff, a scientist at the French National Center for Scientific Research, has documented the details of this scientific witch hunt in his book The Memory of Water - Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also need to come to grips with the following where homeopathy may be concerned:
QUANTUM SMARANDACHE PARADOXES
edited by Gheorghe Niculescu
Str. Muncii, Bl. B1, Ap. 50
2698 Uricani, Hunedoara, Romania
Abstract. In this paper one presents four of the smarandacheian paradoxes in physics found in various physics sites or printed material.
1) Sorites Paradox (associated with Eubulides of Miletus (fourth century B.C.):
Our visible world is composed of a totality of invisible particles.
a) An invisible particle does not form a visible object, nor do two invisible particles, three invisible particles, etc.
However, at some point, the collection of invisible particles becomes large enough to form a visible object, but there is apparently no definite point where this occurs.
b) A similar paradox is developed in an opposite direction. It is always possible to remove a particle from an object in such a way that what is left is still a visible object. However, repeating and repeating this process, at some point, the visible object is decomposed so that the left part becomes invisible, but there is no definite point where this occurs.
Generally, between <A> and <Non-A> there is no clear distinction, no exact frontier. Where does <A> really end and <Non-A> begin? One extends Zadeh's "fuzzy set" term to the "neutrosophic set" concept.
2) Uncertainty Paradox: Large matter, which is under the 'determinist principle', is formed by a totality of elementary particles, which are under Heisenberg's 'indeterminacy principle'.
3) Unstable Paradox: Stable matter is formed by unstable elementary particles (elementary particles decay when free).
4) Short Time Living Paradox: Long time living matter is formed by very short time living elementary particles.
References:
[1] Marie-Helene Boyer, "Re: How are possible the Smarandache Uncertainty, Unstable, etc. Paradoxes?", MAD Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri,
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/972501333.Ph.r.html.
[2] Chong Hu, "How are possible the Smarandache Uncertainty, Unstable, etc. Paradoxes?", MAD Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/972501333.Ph.q.html.
[3] Chong Hu, "How do you explain the Smarandache Sorites Paradox?", MAD Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/970594003.Ph.q.html.
[4] Amber Iler, "Re: How do you explain the Smarandache Sorites Paradox?", MAD Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/970594003.Ph.r.html.
[5] Leonardo Motta, editor, "A Look at the Smarandache Sorites Paradox", Second International Conference on Smarandache Type Notions In Mathematics and Quantum Physics,
University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania, December 21 - 24, 2000;
In the web site at York University, Canada, http://at.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/amca/caft-04.
[6] Gheorghe Niculescu, editor, "On Quantum Smarandache Paradoxes", Second International Conference on Smarandache Type Notions In Mathematics and Quantum Physics,
University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania, December 21 - 24, 2000;
In the web site at York University, Canada, http://at.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/amca/caft-20.
[7] Florentin Smarandache, "Invisible Paradox" in "Neutrosophy. / Neutrosophic Probability, Set, and Logic", American Research Press, Rehoboth, 22-23, 1998.
[8] Florentin Smarandache, "Sorites Paradoxes", in "Definitions, Solved and Unsolved Problems, Conjectures, and Theorems in Number Theory and Geometry", Xiquan Publishing House, Phoenix, 69-70, 2000.
[9] Louisiana Smith and Rachael Clanton, advisor Keith G. Calkins, "Paradoxes" project, Andrews University, http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/topparad.htm.
If we were to call a spade a spade, here is what we are dealing with. The following two paragraphs are snipped from a much longer unsigned reportage article (not copywritten as far as I can see).
http://mathpost.la.asu.edu/~boerner/suppression.html
Intimidate University officials into investigating their "black sheep" for fraud. Withdraw funding and staff. Undermine the professional credibility of the scientists using any means necessary, including, but not limited to, reviews that seriously distort the original research, sham replication of the experiment in question (which is then immediately published by the same journals that refused, or were extremely reluctant, to publish the original research), and, ultimately, slander and character assassination.
(SG note: or uncontrolled replication on television - a single series of 40 attempts versus thousands done in a reputable
medical school lab by a skeptic of homeopathy, e.g. Prof M. Ennis).
All of those things happened to the prestigious French immunologist Jacques Benveniste who proved experimentally that water can "remember" an active agent that has been diluted so much that not a single molecule remains. In years of diligent, careful experimental work between 1985 and 1989, Benveniste's team at the French National Institute for Health and Medical Research (INSERM) showed that sub-molecular dilutions of anti-immunoglobulin E (aIgE) can affect the staining properties of basophils in the same fashion as actual aIgE- thus validating the basic tenet of homeopathy. Extremely reluctantly, Nature editor John Maddox published the research, but accompanied it by a scathing editorial that expressed his belief that the results had to be incorrect. The paper set off a firestorm of scientific bigotry. The Church Of Science decided that scientific results such as these were a heresy of the highest order, and did not rest until Benveniste was deprived of his professional credibility, career and funding. Nature was eager to publish a subsequent unsuccessful replication, but refused to publish a successful one. The paradigm shift was thus averted, and the high priests of the Church Of Science remain safe in their smug, self-deluded belief that they know everything there is to know about nature. Michel Schiff, a scientist at the French National Center for Scientific Research, has documented the details of this scientific witch hunt in his book The Memory of Water - Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also need to come to grips with the following where homeopathy may be concerned:
QUANTUM SMARANDACHE PARADOXES
edited by Gheorghe Niculescu
Str. Muncii, Bl. B1, Ap. 50
2698 Uricani, Hunedoara, Romania
Abstract. In this paper one presents four of the smarandacheian paradoxes in physics found in various physics sites or printed material.
1) Sorites Paradox (associated with Eubulides of Miletus (fourth century B.C.):
Our visible world is composed of a totality of invisible particles.
a) An invisible particle does not form a visible object, nor do two invisible particles, three invisible particles, etc.
However, at some point, the collection of invisible particles becomes large enough to form a visible object, but there is apparently no definite point where this occurs.
b) A similar paradox is developed in an opposite direction. It is always possible to remove a particle from an object in such a way that what is left is still a visible object. However, repeating and repeating this process, at some point, the visible object is decomposed so that the left part becomes invisible, but there is no definite point where this occurs.
Generally, between <A> and <Non-A> there is no clear distinction, no exact frontier. Where does <A> really end and <Non-A> begin? One extends Zadeh's "fuzzy set" term to the "neutrosophic set" concept.
2) Uncertainty Paradox: Large matter, which is under the 'determinist principle', is formed by a totality of elementary particles, which are under Heisenberg's 'indeterminacy principle'.
3) Unstable Paradox: Stable matter is formed by unstable elementary particles (elementary particles decay when free).
4) Short Time Living Paradox: Long time living matter is formed by very short time living elementary particles.
References:
[1] Marie-Helene Boyer, "Re: How are possible the Smarandache Uncertainty, Unstable, etc. Paradoxes?", MAD Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri,
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/972501333.Ph.r.html.
[2] Chong Hu, "How are possible the Smarandache Uncertainty, Unstable, etc. Paradoxes?", MAD Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/972501333.Ph.q.html.
[3] Chong Hu, "How do you explain the Smarandache Sorites Paradox?", MAD Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/970594003.Ph.q.html.
[4] Amber Iler, "Re: How do you explain the Smarandache Sorites Paradox?", MAD Scientist, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/970594003.Ph.r.html.
[5] Leonardo Motta, editor, "A Look at the Smarandache Sorites Paradox", Second International Conference on Smarandache Type Notions In Mathematics and Quantum Physics,
University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania, December 21 - 24, 2000;
In the web site at York University, Canada, http://at.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/amca/caft-04.
[6] Gheorghe Niculescu, editor, "On Quantum Smarandache Paradoxes", Second International Conference on Smarandache Type Notions In Mathematics and Quantum Physics,
University of Craiova, Craiova, Romania, December 21 - 24, 2000;
In the web site at York University, Canada, http://at.yorku.ca/cgi-bin/amca/caft-20.
[7] Florentin Smarandache, "Invisible Paradox" in "Neutrosophy. / Neutrosophic Probability, Set, and Logic", American Research Press, Rehoboth, 22-23, 1998.
[8] Florentin Smarandache, "Sorites Paradoxes", in "Definitions, Solved and Unsolved Problems, Conjectures, and Theorems in Number Theory and Geometry", Xiquan Publishing House, Phoenix, 69-70, 2000.
[9] Louisiana Smith and Rachael Clanton, advisor Keith G. Calkins, "Paradoxes" project, Andrews University, http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/topparad.htm.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
That is interesting, because there are some studies that say there is some significance. True, we don't know what that exactly means (effect, or some error), but that is why we must do more tests.
What studies? Which ones have made it to peer reviewed medical journals?
As far as I understand it, double blind studies on homeopathy show that it is no more effective than placebo effect.
Um we don't know it works, that is why we have to keep examining the evidence in a scientific manner.
With the studies and science that has been done, we know that it doesn't work.
Of course, since the basis of homeopathy violates what science knows of chemistry, we really didn't need the studies to show that homeopathy is bunk.
What studies? Which ones have made it to peer reviewed medical journals?
As far as I understand it, double blind studies on homeopathy show that it is no more effective than placebo effect.
Um we don't know it works, that is why we have to keep examining the evidence in a scientific manner.
With the studies and science that has been done, we know that it doesn't work.
Of course, since the basis of homeopathy violates what science knows of chemistry, we really didn't need the studies to show that homeopathy is bunk.
T'ai Chi said:
How many properly controlled experiments showing that homeopathy does not work will it take before 'enough' have been done? 10, 100, 1000?
If you havent won the lottery, no matter how many times you check your numbers, you still wont have won.
T'ai Chi said:
You seem to have missed the reason I've given several times for not addressing the points you made and that is that they were all totally irrelevant to the evidence that showed that your statement
""Science ain't done on TV, no matter the credentials of the doers and the double blind etc. procedures"
was wrong.
You have now admitted you were wrong, that you made a mistake, fine. And I'm sorry this has been so protracted but you have been so dogmatic about this point, even though I showed within a couple of posts that your statement was wrong.
SteveGrenard
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
Dub, in failing to take cognizance of the number of controlled and observational studies done on homeopathic preparations, both in vivo and in vitro, both proving and failing to prove its validity, then asks:
Answer: As many as necessary.
Again, I strongly recommend the seminal work on the modern era of homeopathic research. It is OP so may be hard to find but it is findable.
The Memory of Water
Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science
By Michel SCHIFF
Covers the way the scientific studies on homeopathy have been received by most scientists. It is an eloquent argument that the scientific community needs to end its tradition of repression of new ideas. Printed in Great Britain, 166 pages, paperback
Dimensions (in inches): 9.10 x 6.00 x .50
Foreword -By J. Benveniste
viii-x
Introduction
1-4
Part 1 - The Strange Behaviour of Ordinary Water
5-46
Ch.1 - Anomalies of All Disciplines, Unite!
7-20
Ch.2 - Homeopathic Dilutions: Shake Vigorously Without Heating
21-30
Ch.3 - Agent X Travels Through Walls
31-46
Part 2 - The Strange Behaviour of Ordinary Scientists
47-122
Introduction
49-51
Ch.4 - Be Quiet, The Experts Are Not Worried!
52-66
Ch.5 - Direct Censorship is Only the Tip of the Iceberg
67-84
Ch.6 - The Perverse use of Legitmate Technical Tools
85-95
Ch.7 - Rumours, Slander and Sarcasm
96-106
Ch.8 - A Psychological Look at Scientific Repression
107-122
Appendix 1: A Forgotten Anomaly: Water Can Dissolve Glass!
123-124
Appendix 2: High Dilution Experiments Presented in Chapter 2
125-129
Appendix 3a: Indirect Transmission Experiments Using Hearts
130-133
Appendix 3b: Direct Transmission Experiments Using Human Neutrophils
134-136
Appendix 4: Two Documents About Contaminated Serums
137-139
Appendix 5: An Example of Institutional Censorship: The Director of INSERM Threatens Benveniste for Reporting an Experiment
140-141
Appendix 6a: An Example of the Perverse Use of Statistical Arguments
142-144
Appendix 6b: An Example of a Mock Attempt to Duplicate an Experiment
145-146
Appendix 6c: Seven Examples of Scientific Harassment Published by Nature
147-150
Appendix 6d: Scientific Studies of High Dilution Effects
151-152
Appendix 7a: Four Letters About a Suspicion of Fraud
153-157
Appendix 7b: Thematic Analysis of the Articles Quoting Davenas et al
158-162
index
So we can go on and on, all day with some saying there is no evidence, others not sure and still others pointing to evidence of studies and we can all ask ourselves who is reading this stuff correctly, who is reading what we want to, who is listening to pro or con propaganda (and there is plenty on both sides). Its fast becoming a useless exercise in discussion since nobody on the skeptic side wishes to acknowledge and discuss the major points save for one person who had a question about protocol level and sucess of studies and their relationship. I have no answer for this observation, I have seen it mentioned before and if I ever see an explanation for this, Ill be sure and let you know. Perusing Schiff's TOC, I have a feeling the answer to this question may be buried in there somewhere.
Answer: As many as necessary.
Again, I strongly recommend the seminal work on the modern era of homeopathic research. It is OP so may be hard to find but it is findable.
The Memory of Water
Homeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science
By Michel SCHIFF
Covers the way the scientific studies on homeopathy have been received by most scientists. It is an eloquent argument that the scientific community needs to end its tradition of repression of new ideas. Printed in Great Britain, 166 pages, paperback
Dimensions (in inches): 9.10 x 6.00 x .50
Foreword -By J. Benveniste
viii-x
Introduction
1-4
Part 1 - The Strange Behaviour of Ordinary Water
5-46
Ch.1 - Anomalies of All Disciplines, Unite!
7-20
Ch.2 - Homeopathic Dilutions: Shake Vigorously Without Heating
21-30
Ch.3 - Agent X Travels Through Walls
31-46
Part 2 - The Strange Behaviour of Ordinary Scientists
47-122
Introduction
49-51
Ch.4 - Be Quiet, The Experts Are Not Worried!
52-66
Ch.5 - Direct Censorship is Only the Tip of the Iceberg
67-84
Ch.6 - The Perverse use of Legitmate Technical Tools
85-95
Ch.7 - Rumours, Slander and Sarcasm
96-106
Ch.8 - A Psychological Look at Scientific Repression
107-122
Appendix 1: A Forgotten Anomaly: Water Can Dissolve Glass!
123-124
Appendix 2: High Dilution Experiments Presented in Chapter 2
125-129
Appendix 3a: Indirect Transmission Experiments Using Hearts
130-133
Appendix 3b: Direct Transmission Experiments Using Human Neutrophils
134-136
Appendix 4: Two Documents About Contaminated Serums
137-139
Appendix 5: An Example of Institutional Censorship: The Director of INSERM Threatens Benveniste for Reporting an Experiment
140-141
Appendix 6a: An Example of the Perverse Use of Statistical Arguments
142-144
Appendix 6b: An Example of a Mock Attempt to Duplicate an Experiment
145-146
Appendix 6c: Seven Examples of Scientific Harassment Published by Nature
147-150
Appendix 6d: Scientific Studies of High Dilution Effects
151-152
Appendix 7a: Four Letters About a Suspicion of Fraud
153-157
Appendix 7b: Thematic Analysis of the Articles Quoting Davenas et al
158-162
index
So we can go on and on, all day with some saying there is no evidence, others not sure and still others pointing to evidence of studies and we can all ask ourselves who is reading this stuff correctly, who is reading what we want to, who is listening to pro or con propaganda (and there is plenty on both sides). Its fast becoming a useless exercise in discussion since nobody on the skeptic side wishes to acknowledge and discuss the major points save for one person who had a question about protocol level and sucess of studies and their relationship. I have no answer for this observation, I have seen it mentioned before and if I ever see an explanation for this, Ill be sure and let you know. Perusing Schiff's TOC, I have a feeling the answer to this question may be buried in there somewhere.
What science are you talking about? Quantum mechanics or homeopathy?SteveGrenard said:
It's pretty clear both sciences exist -- or are you talking about a body of scientific work supporting homeopathy? I agree that that exists, too. The question is whether or not it is valid. I am certainly in no position to claim that it is invalid, but when people advance explanations based on quantum mechanics, it's a red flag, because generally speaking most people use such explanations for phenomena don't know what they're talking about.
I'll have to ask my physics friend why he said to "ask for their calculations," when someone cites quantum physics as an explanation for a given phenomenon. It was his opinion that "without the calculations, the theory is meaningless." I don't know -- I have to rely upon his superior knowledge of quantum mechanics.
Well, ok, I do not doubt that such political crap happens. We can trade "he said, she said" accusations indefinitely, with no progress made anywhere.
The fundamental question is still this: is Benveniste's science valid or not? If valid, he should consistently be able to show that. If not, it will fail, and it seems that it has failed. Seems to me an awful lot of "fringe" scientists want the rules changed in order to accomodate their work, such as the "intelligent design" people.
As for the paradox discussion, it's an interesting topic, but I don't see how it applies to homeopathy. See, it's when we begin to grope for these sorts of explanations when the science falls flat. One might as well cite the Theory of Enformed Systems -- an intriguing idea, but one which doesn't really explain anything, even though it explains everything, in a way.
No, first it must be established that a consistent effect is occurring; then one can begin to look for mechanisms and explanations, which have to be supported by work more substantial than speculative thinking and philosophical what-ifs.
Darat said:
You have failed to address my points for the 6th time. Clearly you fail to understand why those points make experiments on TV weak science experiments, but not Science as a rigorous discipline, which is what science is.
I've conceeded that experiments can be done on TV. That doesn't mean that science as a discipline can be. The problems with doing science as a discipline I've pulled directly from that link you gave, so in what way is it irrelevant? That seems to be your excuse for not answering my questions.
Here they are again. Will I have to make a Larsen list for you?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
T'ai Chi said:
This is consistent with Tai Quack's "science" ideas. He also believes that every human should be tested for superpowers if one wants to claim that people do not have superpowers.
I personally feel safe, confortable and perfectly sound in saying that people do not shoot lasers out of their eyes, have psychic powers or hold 2-way conversations with the dead. Homeopathy is quackery, it doesn't work and numerous studies have shown that id doesn't.
But, that doesn't hurt SG's or Tai's positions. They still have that notion that in order to say homeopathy doesn't work, we must be there to witness every treatment. It doesn't matter if homeopathy violates chemical laws or not, because homeopathy is special, laws of physics don't apply.
These guys are cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
SteveGrenard said:
Has this "scientific" evidence withstood review by the scientific community?
Does this "memory" of water crap really debunk the many, many studies that show homeopathy as being nothing more than placebo?
I'll tell you what, find us a homeopath that can cure some ailments and we'll see about setting him up for the JREF million. Homeopathy falls under the paranormal definition as far as the JREF is concerned.
Careful here, Ken. TC's statement, as it stands, is correct in this instance. There is simply no way of knowing a priori how many experiments would be necessary to provide confirmation or refutation of a particular idea.thaiboxerken said:
A few months ago, when Lucianarchy put a similar question to Stimpy and BillHoyt about the number of experiments it would take before they accepted the existence of psi phenomena, they quite rightly stated that it was impossible to answer. What's sauce for the goose etc.
RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
Way to go Sherlock - ignore the substantive points in my post and reply to one line. And as usual, you miss the point of even that one line, which was to highlight the weakness of the "successful" homeopathy trials. (Hint: look up "rhetorical question" in a dictionary.) I remember now why I put you on ignore in one of your earlier incarnations.T'ai Chi said:
Homeopathy is the thing here that has something to prove. It was MADE UP by Hahnemann. There is no proposed mechanism or evidence to back up its principles, which are contrary to all other scientific knowledge. The scientific principles that homeopathy is in conflict with, have huge amounts of scientific evidence backing them up. That is the problem for homeopathy.
Even if Benveniste was proven right, the other principle of homeopathy (similars), is still made up nonsense. But Benveniste has not even been proven right; his experiment could not be replicated and no amount of whining about " Intimidate(ing) University officials" will count as a replication of his experiment.
RichardR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2001
- Messages
- 2,274
Yes and no.JamesM said:
The position on homeopathy and psi is that there is no known method by which they work, they appear to conflict with scientific theories that arebacked by evidence, and there is no reliable evidence that they are real. With both psi and homeopathy, the burden of proof is upon their proponents to demonstrate they are real. And we perhaps cannot say how many experiments we would need in order to do that.
We do not need any more experiments to show that homeopathy does not work. The burden of proof is upon those who believe in it to come up with the experiments to show it does work.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
Careful here, Ken. TC's statement, as it stands, is correct in this instance. There is simply no way of knowing a priori how many experiments would be necessary to provide confirmation or refutation of a particular idea.
I don't agree because homeopathy is a paranormal phenomena claim. The default position is it doesn't work until someone proves that it does. Have there been clinical studies of homeopathy that show it works more than placebo? Studies that have withstood scrutiny of the scientific community?
A few months ago, when Lucianarchy put a similar question to Stimpy and BillHoyt about the number of experiments it would take before they accepted the existence of psi phenomena, they quite rightly stated that it was impossible to answer. What's sauce for the goose etc.
That's Stimpy and BillHoyt's position, not mine. The paranormalists need to provide evidence that has withstood scrutiny of the scientific community. Any experiments must have replicable results under scientific protocol and peer reviewed.
Tai Quack is not correct, neither are you. Homeopathy doesn't work is the default position.
TBK and RichardR,
I agree with you both in that homeopathy has the case to prove, I'm not sure which bit of my post gave either of you the idea that I disagree with that proposition.
The point I was making is that TC is perfectly justified in refusing to state a number of failed experiments that it would take before the case closed on homeopathy.
Of course, it may well be that the scientific community has decided that enough experiments in related areas have been carried out that further research is currently considered unnecessary. That is a different , albeit related matter.
I agree with you both in that homeopathy has the case to prove, I'm not sure which bit of my post gave either of you the idea that I disagree with that proposition.
The point I was making is that TC is perfectly justified in refusing to state a number of failed experiments that it would take before the case closed on homeopathy.
Of course, it may well be that the scientific community has decided that enough experiments in related areas have been carried out that further research is currently considered unnecessary. That is a different , albeit related matter.
RichardR said:
When I put someone on ignore, I actually ignore them. That is why I'm not responding to the usual purposeful aggravators nor even reading their posts. What a thought...
Yes, I agree with all of that, except I don't agree completely with the "no evidence" part. In some studies of homeopathy, there have been statistical significance that must be examined further. There could be something there, or there could be errors.
It seems sensible to continue to proceed scientifically and find out. We wouldn't want to possible throw out a baby.