Homeopathy is everywhere!

[reprise]

Society? How is this done? Do we take a national poll? Global poll?

Come to think of it, this might be a good idea. Add a referendum to the next national ballot: do we spend one more nickel on researching homeopathy or not? Give a synopsis of the "theory" behind it and clinical results to date in layman's terms. Majority rules, either we continue researching homeopathy or it is declared worthless and have FDA ban the practice and "remedies".

Sounds like a good idea to me. I'd vote for a candidate who made such a proposal.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Society? How is this done? Do we take a national poll? Global poll?

No..

It is something that gets decided like an invisible hand- something that is implicit in society.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But in your opinion? You are suggesting that we keep on trying, but for how long? In your opinion.

Or are you saying you don't know if we should keep on trying?

You asked me 'how will we know when we can stop?', and I gave you my answer.

I guess it depends on the outcome of future studies and how well they convince people.

 

[reprise]

Nobody is stopping the advocates of homeopathy from conducting properly constructed scientific research into its effectiveness. Is there some compelling reason why the general community should bear the costs associated with such testing, when we require pharmaceutical manufacturers to meet their own costs for research, development, and testing associated with gaining FDA or other government approval for their products?

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess it depends on the outcome of future studies and how well they convince people.

But since you don't know when to stop, you will never be convinced that homeopathy is bunk.

 

[RichardR]

You asked me 'how will we know when we can stop?', and I gave you my answer.

Yes. You said: "It is usually decided by a larger group, such as society". In other words, you don't know. That's fine. Since you have no idea how to decide when to stop, perhaps it would make sense if you stopped telling us that we shouldn't stop yet.

I guess it depends on the outcome of future studies and how well they convince people.

Some people will never be convinced, no matter what the evidence. We have had 180 years of testing. It is idiotic to keep on testing this stuff, expecting it to work. Time to move on.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But since you don't know when to stop, you will never be convinced that homeopathy is bunk.

That's not true at all.

I don't know how one can give a 'after X studies, stop!' type of rule, but that doesn't mean I am not convinced by evidence that others provide.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is idiotic to keep on testing this stuff, expecting it to work. Time to move on.

I guess the Royal Society, Randi, Randi's statistician, and a host of other competent people are all "idiots" then.

I disagree though. Scientific testing is always a good thing.

 

[jj]

That's not true at all.

I don't know how one can give a 'after X studies, stop!' type of rule, but that doesn't mean I am not convinced by evidence that others provide.

What evidence, in the case of Homeopathy, are you talking about? You seem as determined to argue that evidence exists, despite the evidence, as Ian does to singlehandedly asssert that the evidence for Psi is "obvious".

Please, there is no credible evidence. It's in the same catagory, science-wise, as the existance of God or the presence of green cheese on the moon.

 

[TLN]

I disagree though. Scientific testing is always a good thing.

T'ai Chi, according to your line of reasoning, we should continue to test if the Earth is a sphere. And continue and continue...

When do we get to stop and say "hey, it's a sphere"?

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi, according to your line of reasoning, we should continue to test if the Earth is a sphere. And continue and continue...

TLN, I noticed you ignored this:

"I guess the Royal Society, Randi, Randi's statistician, and a host of other competent people are all "idiots" then."

To quote Randi, 'if there is something there, I want to know about it.'

T'ai Chi, according to your line of reasoning, we should continue to test if the Earth is a sphere. And continue and continue...

Societal forces have already determined that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

 

[ceptimus]

I knew I'd find a use for that smiley eventually.

 

[TLN]

TLN, I noticed you ignored this:

"I guess the Royal Society, Randi, Randi's statistician, and a host of other competent people are all "idiots" then."

I didn't ignore it, it's simply not relevant to the discussion we're having. I don't even know what point it’s attempting to address. I'm still trying to resolve a fundamental point from many posts ago, that is, when is a fact a fact.

Societal forces have already determined that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

"Societal forces"? What the hell does that mean? Science has determined that the earth is shperical (fine, spilt hairs and call it an oblate shereoid, but the earth is still more shereical than anything humans could construct). But, according to you, we should continue to test to see if earth is flat.

Address this point. Or don't...

 

[RichardR]

So that's what these last seven pages boil down to: society should decide.

I think I'm done with this thread.

 

[T'ai Chi]

"Societal forces"? What the hell does that mean?

Well, no one person decides when to stop, so I guess society as a whole does.

 

[TLN]

Well, no one person decides when to stop, so I guess society as a whole does.

So wrong I'm flabbergasted.

T'ai Chi, should we continue to test that the Earth is flat, yes or no? Why or why not?

 

[Ed]

botox: I can devise a study to show plain water will have a statistically significant effect.

Herein lies the problem. How do you know plain water is homeopathically, er, plain? I guess also if you can do what you say above, we can start comparing your water against every drug in the materia medica and find, statistically, that they are no better or no worse or does therapeutic endpoint have to then come into play?

Therefore you cannot develop a null (or falsafiable) hypothesis. This is sort of akin to the nonsense that somehow "attitudes" toward PK (or whatever) will interfere with the effect. You cannot do an experiment so just believe.

 

[Ed]

So wrong I'm flabbergasted.

T'ai Chi, should we continue to test that the Earth is flat, yes or no? Why or why not?

No, I am flabbergasted. I invented that term and it is mine. I have started two threads that state that I, EdGod am flabbergasted ergo I have primacy and you can only be flabbergasted(c) once you have applied for, and have been granted, permission.

I grant you permission to be flabbergasted(c) along with me.

Methinks T'ai Chi=Lucianarchy. Far too similar in pseudo reasonableness. What thinks you, Claus?

 

[thaiboxerken]

TLN, I noticed you ignored this:

"I guess the Royal Society, Randi, Randi's statistician, and a host of other competent people are all "idiots" then."

To quote Randi, 'if there is something there, I want to know about it.'

[/b]

Societal forces have already determined that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. [/B]

Society doesn't get to vote on what is reality and what is not. Homeopathy has been found to not work by scientific method. It does not work, and no matter how many people vote, it will never work.

 

[RichardR]

Society doesn't get to vote on what is reality and what is not. Homeopathy has been found to not work by scientific method. It does not work, and no matter how many people vote, it will never work.

What, an appeal to popularity doesn't count?

Ken, TLN, others

Just fyi, experience has taught me that there comes a time when there is no point debating further with Whodi… er Sherlo… no, er T'ai Chi, any more. I believe that time has come, and just like testing on homeopathy, no more useful information is likely to emerge. Remember the saying about wrestling with a pig? You both end up covered in ◊◊◊◊, but the pig likes it? That's what's happening here.

Just my opinion, of course. Don't let me stop anyone.