How's our sub-continent homeopath doing?

[Ducky]

I was reading the FAQ in depth, and came across this:

"JREF will NOT accept claims of the existence of deities or demons/angels, the validity of exorcism, religious claims, divine healing, cloudbusting, causing the Sun to rise or the stars to move, etc."

Source


So, maybe I'm missing something, but wouldn't homeopathy fall under this?

Given this guy's test protocols are very loose, and I am sure KRAMER will do his best to reign it in (I am actually pretty sure that the homeopath in question will never agree on a protocol), why would this claimant be different than a divine healer?

Guess I'm missing something.

 

[Drostie]

I have the impression that divine healing is theoretically a valid claim for the JREF, but that none of the regular proponents who sign up to be tested have a valid claim themselves.

That is, if your claim is "If I do X, Y, and Z, my deity will heal a person of my choice," then that would be a perfectly valid claim. But most divine-healing people are going to say something like, "if anyone in our church gets cured of cancer, we succeed" or "hey, I got cured of this and there was a priest around." You know, typical stuff that can't be verified.

In a parallel way to my original claim-statement, "If I give this person a homeopathic drink, they'll be healed" should be valid and testable.

 

[Ducky]

I have the impression that divine healing is theoretically a valid claim for the JREF, but that none of the regular proponents who sign up to be tested have a valid claim themselves.

That is, if your claim is "If I do X, Y, and Z, my deity will heal a person of my choice," then that would be a perfectly valid claim. But most divine-healing people are going to say something like, "if anyone in our church gets cured of cancer, we succeed" or "hey, I got cured of this and there was a priest around." You know, typical stuff that can't be verified.

In a parallel way to my original claim-statement, "If I give this person a homeopathic drink, they'll be healed" should be valid and testable.

So would that statement need to be reworded then if the JREF does take those claims?

I guess I personally don't see a difference between homeopathy and healing touch, as they both are woo and completely unfounded in science. If the JREF does take those claims, (which apparently in the case of our homeopath, they apparently do) then that statement needs to be amended. Though, how would any of these claims be tested if a valid claim is given without putting the patient at risk?



edited to fix spelling.

 

[Bronze Dog]

There is one proposed test concept dealing with homeopathy: Can they tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy and an identical, untreated placebo?

 

[Ducky]

There is one proposed test concept dealing with homeopathy: Can they tell the difference between a homeopathic remedy and an identical, untreated placebo?

Well, my answer would be, no better than chance at guessing, but unfortunately this isn't the test the JREF is reviewing with the homeopath.

 

[Beleth]

I guess I personally don't see a difference between homeopathy and healing touch, as they both are woo and completely unfounded in science.

The difference is in the purported root cause.

Homeopathy says the root cause is that water has memory (or something like that), an explanation which is extremely testable in a scientific manner.

Any method of healing that involves a divine source has, by definition, a divine source, and therefore cannot be tested.

If healing-touchers want their claim to be tested, they need to couch their claim in such a way that they are not attributing the root cause to a divine source. They can even leave the whole root cause out of it.

There are many, many different kinds of woo, and lumping them all into one bucket is not a good way to debunk them.

 

[Ducky]

The difference is in the purported root cause.

Homeopathy says the root cause is that water has memory (or something like that), an explanation which is extremely testable in a scientific manner.

Any method of healing that involves a divine source has, by definition, a divine source, and therefore cannot be tested.

If healing-touchers want their claim to be tested, they need to couch their claim in such a way that they are not attributing the root cause to a divine source. They can even leave the whole root cause out of it.

There are many, many different kinds of woo, and lumping them all into one bucket is not a good way to debunk them.

Very good distinction, thanks. I appreciate it.

I wouldn't lump all woo into once catagory for the purpose of debunking, just for the purpose of my regards of it.