Homeopathy is everywhere!

[athon]

In my opinion, Tai Chi is somewhat right - it is up to those testing if they want to keep testing. And that's good for science - even if it's been done a billion times, if somebody else wants to do it, then perhaps they'll look at it all another way. Or they'll simply learn for themselves. Funding is another matter, which is more political than scientific.

If money was no issue, then anybody who wants to test if the world is flat should do it by principles of science. If the evidence mounts against the hypothesis, all the better.

My point is this - why continue to utilise medical technology that has no quantified evidence, hence no data exploring contraindicative effects on common medicines, on effects on age, or on effects on different conditions? If this was a drug, it would be dangerous.

Oh, hang on, homeopathy is by definition a drug-based technology.

Athon

 

[thaiboxerken]

Oh, hang on, homeopathy is by definition a drug-based technology.

No it is not, it is water-based witchcraft.

 

[TLN]

I simply don't have to answer you. It is fun to see how long you will continue to ignore this point.

I'm not ignoring it; it's painfully clear to me.

But tell me why won't you answer the question? You're correct, you're free not to, but why not? It's not a particually hard question. You just don't know the answer. That's also fine, but why not simply say so? Do you not want to learn anything new?

Yes, you're free to not answer, but that only makes you look like child with his fingers in his ears screaming "la, la, la, la, la, la... I can't hear you!"

 

[T'ai Chi]

But tell me why won't you answer the question? You're correct, you're free not to, but why not?

I'm not going to play your childish games.

I'd like to stick to scientifically examining homeopathy, and that is about it.

 

[TLN]

I'm not going to play your childish games.

I'm playing no game. I understand that framing it as such makes it easier for you to ignore, safeguarding your paranormal belief systems, but it doesn't make it true. My question is valid and goes to the heart of your assertion that we should continue to test homeopathy.

Redirecting this into a conversation about my behavior is a typical believer dodge. Unable to address the science, you turn to personalities.

I'd like to stick to scientifically examining homeopathy, and that is about it.

That's going to be difficult as you've demonstrated that you have unequivocally no understanding of the scientific method. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time.

 

[T'ai Chi]

I understand that framing it as such makes it easier for you to ignore, safeguarding your paranormal belief systems,

Yeah.. my "paranormal belief systems". I'd sure like to know what those specifically are. Here is what I "believe" in: Testing things scientifically.

I'm guilty!

My question is valid and goes to the heart of your assertion that we should continue to test homeopathy.

I've already answered your question. One person doesn't decide when to stop testing something. There is no magic stopping rule. Larger groups of people decide that. The entire scientific community (in this case, medical) is such a group. Long ago they collectively decided that the Earth's shape had been scientifically determined.

Unable to address the science, you turn to personalities.

If I recall correctly, your post started out by talking about my "paranormal belief systems". I guess we are both guilty on that note.

That's going to be difficult as you've demonstrated that you have unequivocally no understanding of the scientific method. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time.

The vague "no understand of the scientific method" is just that, a vague dismissal tactic. Fine, testing hypotheses is part of the scientific method. Gee, I guess I just disproved you since I demonstrated I know something about the scientific method.

If you do not want to scientifically study homepathy, fine. Just don't make the mistake of lumping those who want to as homepathy believers.

 

[thaiboxerken]

[

Yeah.. my "paranormal belief systems". I'd sure like to know what those specifically are. Here is what I "believe" in: Testing things scientifically.

I'm guilty!



You also happen to believe in Chi energy. I'm sure you believe in homeopathy but you just don't want to say you do. You completely ignore that there has not been ANY credible evidence that homeopathy works. Like Clancie, you say you don't believe in the thing that you feverently defend.


I've already answered your question. One person doesn't decide when to stop testing something. There is no magic stopping rule. Larger groups of people decide that. The entire scientific community (in this case, medical) is such a group. Long ago they collectively decided that the Earth's shape had been scientifically determined.



They've also decided that homeopathy doesn't work, yet you still want to believe it.



The vague "no understand of the scientific method" is just that, a vague dismissal tactic. Fine, testing hypotheses is part of the scientific method. Gee, I guess I just disproved you since I demonstrated I know something about the scientific method.

You have yet to demonstrate that you understand the scientific method. You are unscientific in your belief that homeopathy should be further tested because it's been tested numerous times with NO significant results.


If you do not want to scientifically study homepathy, fine. Just don't make the mistake of lumping those who want to as homepathy believers.

Those that want to "scientifically" study homeopathy are usually believers, or just those ignorant of the fact that science has long ago debunked homeopathy.

 

[FutileJester]

I'm not going to play your childish games.

Yeah, well, I've tried to have a mature conversation with you before. I spent time addressing real issues in the "Meta-analysis of JREF tests" thread - in fact I was the only one still willing to do so with you by the last page. Yet this still all got buried, with barely any response at all, in the "Days of Our Sock Puppets" script that so held your attention.

Oh well, fool me once and all that. Now I know you're unconcerned with issues, even in threads you start, so enough said and I'm outta here...

 

[T'ai Chi]

You also happen to believe in Chi energy.

What what what? I do?? (You mean "ch'i", by the way, not "chi").

I'm sure you believe in homeopathy but you just don't want to say you do.

We'll, you'd be incorrect then. I've already said that because I wish to scientifically study homeopathy, that doesn't make me a homepathy believer.

You completely ignore that there has not been ANY credible evidence that homeopathy works.

There have been some studies, that while are far from convincing, warrant further study.

Like Clancie, ..

We are talking about me, not Clancie.

You have yet to demonstrate that you understand the scientific method.

That is your opinion.

Those that want to "scientifically" study homeopathy are usually believers, or just those ignorant of the fact that science has long ago debunked homeopathy.

If science has so long ago debunked homepathy, why are many very competent scientists scientifically examining homepathy?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah, well, I've tried to have a mature conversation with you before. I spent time addressing real issues in the "Meta-analysis of JREF tests" thread - in fact I was the only one still willing to do so with you by the last page. Yet this still all got buried, with barely any response at all, in the "Days of Our Sock Puppets" script that so held your attention.

Sorry, FJ. I do appreciate your comments on meta-analysis and on other topics.

Unfortunately, the signal tends to get buried by the noise, and I probably spent too much time responding to these types of posts rather than to posts like yours. I'll try and do better next time.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

If science has so long ago debunked homepathy, why are many very competent scientists scientifically examining homepathy?

Besides the fact that, like usual, you make no mention of who these scientists are.

But why are some scientists examining homeopathy (you can't even spell it right)? Many people believe in it, that's why. And thus it falls under scientific scrutiny. Guess what? No evidence supports it. It's bogus.

 

[thaiboxerken]

As usual, Tai Chi/Whodini is making claims and not backing them up. The fact, the reality, the absolute truth is that homeopathy has been debunked almost as soon as it was fabricated and has been debunked many times over. It only takes one debunking to show that it doesn't work. There is no science to homeopathy. There is no scientific method applied in homeopathy. There is no evidence that homeopathy works. It's just a big, giant scam.

Prove us wrong, Tai, get a homeopath to demonstrate that it works for the JREF challenge.

Heck, you don't even need the homeopath, just bring a homeopathic solution and show us yourself.

You stupid troll, go back to your cave.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

As usual, Tai Chi/Whodini is making claims and not backing them up.

Don't you get it? You're supposed to back up Whodini's claims for him!

The fact, the reality, the absolute truth is that homeopathy has been debunked almost as soon as it was fabricated and has been debunked many times over. It only takes one debunking to show that it doesn't work. There is no science to homeopathy. There is no scientific method applied in homeopathy. There is no evidence that homeopathy works. It's just a big, giant scam.

Prove us wrong, Tai, get a homeopath to demonstrate that it works for the JREF challenge.

Heck, you don't even need the homeopath, just bring a homeopathic solution and show us yourself.

You stupid troll, go back to your cave.

Whodini probably doesn't believe in homeopathy either, or at least care about it. He just wants to oppose anything a skeptic says or thinks. He doesn't even seem to understand the issue.

 

[TLN]

The entire scientific community (in this case, medical) is such a group. Long ago they collectively decided that the Earth's shape had been scientifically determined.

But how did they know when to stop?

This is the question you avoid and that demonstrates your lack of understanding of the scientific method.

 

[T'ai Chi]

But how did they know when to stop?

I suppose they found enough evidence to convince them they knew what the shape was.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

I suppose they found enough evidence to convince them they knew what the shape was.

And we have determined in the exact same way that we know homeopathy is completely ineffective as a medicinal cure.

So what is your beef with those of us who reject it in the exact same way we reject flat-earth theories?

It it because you don't like skeptics?

 

[TLN]

I suppose they found enough evidence to convince them they knew what the shape was.

I'm sorry T'ai Chi, I don't mean to hound you but you still haven't answered the question.

How did we know when enough evidence was enough?

 

[T'ai Chi]

How did we know when enough evidence was enough?

You're drifting into philosophy of science here.

 

[T'ai Chi]

How did we know when enough evidence was enough?

You're drifting into philosophy of science here.

 

[TLN]

You're drifting into philosophy of science here.

Totally wrong. Maybe you should ask one of the scientists here.