Irritating Arguments Homeopaths Use

[skepticalnotcynical]

Hi. I need some 'scientific' COUNTER-ARGUMENTS and/or 'logical arguments' for certain claims homeopaths make. These claims are a bit harder for me to debunk, and I haven't really come upon a decent counter-argument. I'm very skeptical on those claims, and to be fair, I also ask for evidence/explanation if those claims are true.


A few of those 'hard4me2debunk' claims-
1. Distilled water contains no memory of any substance, that's why the water only has the memory of a particular substance after succussion.
(heard this in a talk)

2. Belladonna 30c can make a rat's intestine contract.
(found in homeopathy websites)

3. Ultrahigh dilutions of thyroxine can slow down metamorphosis of tadpoles. (found in homeopathy websites)

4. Numerous tests have been done and proved homeopathy works.
(found in homeopathy websites)

5. Western science is biased.
(common argument)

6. Science is evolving, so scientists will come to know on how homeopathy works.
(common argument)


*You can also post other 'hard to debunk claims' (the deeper stuff), and their counter-arguments if possible.

 

[Rasmus]

The JREF MIllion dollar challenge:

IF homeopathy worked, anyone who knows how it works could easily claim the price money.

In fact, all they would have to do is apart water from a properly made homeopathic solution - it doesn't even have to be medicalyl effictive.

I am confident I could easily tell the difference between aspirin and a placebo. I just have to take one or the other whenever I get sick, and log the results. After enough trials, I am sure I could give an answer that was most likely accurate.

For a million dollars, and something comparatively harmless as asperin, I wouldn't have to wait to get sick, even: Take the pill, measure the effects. (Thickness of blood, e.g.) Repeat.

If homeopathy was in any way effective, anyone could easily claim the money.

 

[welshdean]

Hi. I need some 'scientific' COUNTER-ARGUMENTS and/or 'logical arguments' for certain claims homeopaths make. These claims are a bit harder for me to debunk, and I haven't really come upon a decent counter-argument. I'm very skeptical on those claims, and to be fair, I also ask for evidence/explanation if those claims are true.


A few of those 'hard4me2debunk' claims-
1. Distilled water contains no memory of any substance, that's why the water only has the memory of a particular substance after succussion.
(heard this in a talk)

2. Belladonna 30c can make a rat's intestine contract.
(found in homeopathy websites)

3. Ultrahigh dilutions of thyroxine can slow down metamorphosis of tadpoles. (found in homeopathy websites)

4. Numerous tests have been done and proved homeopathy works.
(found in homeopathy websites)

5. Western science is biased.
(common argument)

6. Science is evolving, so scientists will come to know on how homeopathy works.
(common argument)


*You can also post other 'hard to debunk claims' (the deeper stuff), and their counter-arguments if possible.

1) Using that same logic of 'water memory', then why isn't tap water a 'cure-all?
2) Rubbish, unless of course they can point you to a double blind, peer reviewed study, which of course they can't.
3) See 2.
4) See 2.
5) What is 'Western' science? If they mean 'science', then they are correct. Science is biased to where the current evidence leads us. Evidence gained from carefully controlled, double blinded, peer reviewed tests. Google/youtube 'Horizon, Benveniste, Randi' for a relevant example.
6)Science has 'evolved' far enough to know that banging a phiall of water on a leather bound bible is futile as a cure for a pilonidal sinus.
They have nothing to base their claims on, not a thing. Anecdotes and baseless claims for medicines are best left in the 18th century. When any alternative medicine has been tested under rigourous clinical trials and found to be efficacious it becomes simply medicine, homeopathy still (and always will) carries the alternative label.

 

[Mojo]

3. Ultrahigh dilutions of thyroxine can slow down metamorphosis of tadpoles.

That is from a paper which found that tadpoles that were more developed at the start of the experiment were more developed at the end of the experiment. See Linda's comment about it here (there is also discussion of it somewhere on the forum).

 

[skepticalnotcynical]

Yes Rasmus, I agree.

But these people would probably get defensive and say-we don't have to enter the challenge, or, we don't need the money, or, Randi will not give the million dollars because he cheats, or, we already have evidence but science doesn't accept it.

That's why I asked for some concrete arguments. Maybe not super-scientific, but somewhat logical.


For example:
1. Like treats like, so caffeine makes you sleepy.

2. The more dilute the solution, the more powerful it is.

3. Using this logic, one should be dead, sleepy or drowsy after consuming a bottle of homeopathic medicine for insomnia.

4. Nobody died, felt sleepy or even drowsy.

5. Therefore homeopathy doesn't work.


Plus, my favourite way to tackle these people is by the 'questioning method'. Really fun to see them tongue-tied. But not so fun when they run out of topic or play dirty (consciously/unconsciously) by giving fallacious arguments. Really pisses me of.

 

[Careyp74]

The biggest argument against it is this:

A guy made it up without any prior scientific testing to draw his conclusions. That makes it more of a religion than a science.

http://www.coccyx.org/treatmen/homeo.htm

 

[skepticalnotcynical]

1) Using that same logic of 'water memory', then why isn't tap water a 'cure-all?
2) Rubbish, unless of course they can point you to a double blind, peer reviewed study, which of course they can't.
3) See 2.
4) See 2.
5) What is 'Western' science? If they mean 'science', then they are correct. Science is biased to where the current evidence leads us. Evidence gained from carefully controlled, double blinded, peer reviewed tests. Google/youtube 'Horizon, Benveniste, Randi' for a relevant example.
6)Science has 'evolved' far enough to know that banging a phiall of water on a leather bound bible is futile as a cure for a pilonidal sinus.
They have nothing to base their claims on, not a thing. Anecdotes and baseless claims for medicines are best left in the 18th century. When any alternative medicine has been tested under rigourous clinical trials and found to be efficacious it becomes simply medicine, homeopathy still (and always will) carries the alternative label.

1. Note, I said distilled water. Tap water isn't distilled. (It's a new argument from those people)
2. I agree and already knew this, but the people I'm challenging aren't well-versed in the scientific method. So, we have to tackle this differently.
3. See 2.
4. See 3.
5. Western science is simply western science. I come from Asia, and most of the people here superstitiously think that the west is against eastern science (which are mostly woo-woo), such as acupuncture or vedic astrology. (and I know homeopathy is not eastern)
6. I strongly agree. But as I mentioned earlier, these people don't appreciate hard evidence. It's hard to argue with ignorant people.


*Overall, I agree with you-no doubt.

 

[skepticalnotcynical]

Yeah, HAHA!!! I'm definitely with ya Careyp74. They are soooo blinded with their 'religion' till they think it's true. Sad.

 

[Baloney]

Also, point them to these websites:

http://www.phrenology.org/
http://www.happehtheory.com/HappehH...ur-life-experience-proves-phrenology-is-true/

Oh, wait... wrong crack-pot quackery.

 

[skepticalnotcynical]

Baloney..What's that got to do with homeopathy??? Owh, I understand. This is the 'use their own poison against them technique'.

Yeah...But heck!! What if they believed in that too??

 

[Mojo]

A few of those 'hard4me2debunk' claims-
1. Distilled water contains no memory of any substance, that's why the water only has the memory of a particular substance after succussion.
(heard this in a talk)

2. Belladonna 30c can make a rat's intestine contract.
(found in homeopathy websites)

3. Ultrahigh dilutions of thyroxine can slow down metamorphosis of tadpoles. (found in homeopathy websites)

4. Numerous tests have been done and proved homeopathy works.
(found in homeopathy websites)

5. Western science is biased.
(common argument)

6. Science is evolving, so scientists will come to know on how homeopathy works.
(common argument)


*You can also post other 'hard to debunk claims' (the deeper stuff), and their counter-arguments if possible.

You forgot:

7. "Big Pharma".

 

[X]

Hi. I need some 'scientific' COUNTER-ARGUMENTS and/or 'logical arguments' for certain claims homeopaths make. These claims are a bit harder for me to debunk, and I haven't really come upon a decent counter-argument. I'm very skeptical on those claims, and to be fair, I also ask for evidence/explanation if those claims are true.

The first thing to understand is that the burden of proof lies with the person claiming homeopathy "works", not with the skeptic demanding evidence. If they cannot produce the evidence for their claims (personal anecdotes, unsupported claims and "tests" which are never subjected to scrutiny are not acceptable as evidence), then the skeptic can dismiss their position until such time as the evidence is presented. They can rant and roar about "closed-mindedness" all they want; it's just a way to convince themselves that the weakness lies with the skeptic, not their evidence.

1. Distilled water contains no memory of any substance, that's why the water only has the memory of a particular substance after succussion.
(heard this in a talk)

This sounds like an attempt ad post-hoc rationalization to deflect the "tap water must be loaded with the essence of ______" argument.
And arguing against it is pointless; it forces you to accept their a-priori assumption that water has memory. If you're interested, the logical fallacy at play here is "Begging the question".
Before they can prove that distilled water has been "neuralyzed"[url], they first need to prove that water has memory. To date, they have not. So when you hear this claim, challenge them to prove that water has memory first, before addressing the claim that distillation purges water's memory.

2. Belladonna 30c can make a rat's intestine contract.
(found in homeopathy websites)

Until and unless they present the paper, and it is shown to be free of errors, biases, misinterpretation and data-fudging, this claim can be ignored.
Challenge them to present a peer-reviewed paper from a proper scientific journal showing this claim to be true.
Beware the traps here: there are many "peer-review" sites that begin with the bias of assuming the conclusion. This is why I specified "proper scientific journal". Something from American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine, or some-such thing, is not an unbiased review source and should be treated as suspect until proven otherwise.

ETA: You mentioned that you are challenging people who are not familiar with the scientific method. Very well, try this: Ask them if they would believe the following:
An article claiming radiometric dating is inaccurate, published in Answers Research Journal (a "peer-reviewd" creation science journal).
An article claiming that the alignment of Pluto affects their bank balance, published in Correlation (a "peer-reviewd" astrology journal).
An article claiming that a certain frequency of vibration in a crystal will make you feel happier, published in The Healing Journal (which does not appear to claim peer review status).
Ask them why or why not?

3. Ultrahigh dilutions of thyroxine can slow down metamorphosis of tadpoles. (found in homeopathy websites)

See my answer to point 2.

4. Numerous tests have been done and proved homeopathy works.
(found in homeopathy websites)

See my answer to point 2.

5. Western science is biased.
(common argument)

This is a meaningless claim unless they specify how it is biased. I'm not going to claim that fraud and bias have never crept into science. They have. And sometimes it takes a while to work the problems out. But science, as a process, is self-correcting and truth-seeking. Mostly this argument, like the close-mindedness claim, is nothing more than homeopathic practitioners trying to convince themselves that the reason their methods are not vetted by real scientists is because the scientists are biased against them, and not because of inherent problems in homeopathy.
Challenge them to explain why they think "Western science" is biased. And to define "Western science".

6. Science is evolving, so scientists will come to know on how homeopathy works.
(common argument)

Sure. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if]Iff evidence is presented that it works.
Challenge them to present the evidence.

 

[RationalVetMed]

You could have a look here where a few of the old familiar arguments are discussed. Also some of the reasons for scepticism about homeopathy are given in this piece.

Otherwise:

1. Distilled water contains no memory of any substance, that's why the water only has the memory of a particular substance after succussion.

Distilled water isn't completely pure - on the scale of dilutions homeopathic remedies work at even a single molecule of, say silica, dissolved oxygen, nitrogen etc is a massive level of contamination and would be sucussed and diluted along with whatever base ingredient was deliberately added.

2. Belladonna 30c can make a rat's intestine contract.

3. Ultrahigh dilutions of thyroxine can slow down metamorphosis of tadpoles.

4. Numerous tests have been done and proved homeopathy works.
(found in homeopathy websites)

There are very many papers around which claim to support the effectiveness of homeopathy. Without exception they are all of poor quality, just not valid evidence. Some of the 'usual suspects' which homs claim are their best evidence are dealt with here.

5. Western science is biased.

This is pure distraction - have a look at the first section of the first reference I gave. If the establishment was deliberately suppressing something which is claimed to be as effective as homeopathy is it just wouldn't work. Homeopathy has been around for 200 years, somebody other than 'counter-culture' types would have noticed if it worked, it wouldn't have to still be confining its 'research' papers to its trade press, the homeopathic journals and they still wouldn't need to be arguing the toss on forums like this. "Western science" or "The Establishment" is totally rubbish at doing cover-ups; sooner or later everything leaks!

6. Science is evolving, so scientists will come to know on how homeopathy works.

Great, it hasn't happened yet, despite having had 200 years to make their case. They've been saying that vindication is just around the corner for centuries - it won't happen until it has happened. You might as well say that next week scientists will be able to prove that I can levitate. Sure, you can't prove a negative, I might be able to prove my powers of levitation in a couple of days - but I wouldn't hold my breath

Hope that helps but remember no homeopath worth their salt will accept any of these counter arguments - they always know that homeopathy works and take it as a personal insult, sometimes by becoming very insulting themselves, if you disagree.

Yuri

PS - All your posts have changed into a tiny, red font and are very hard to read. Any chance of changing this?

 

[Gao]

1. Distilled water contains no memory of any substance, that's why the water only has the memory of a particular substance after succussion.

So then wouldn't it mean that the other substances in the water that have memory, not the water itself?

 

[RationalVetMed]

You forgot:

7. "Big Pharma".

I think that might be the same as:

5. Western science is biased

Always amusing that homeopaths like to claim homeopathy isn't "Western Medicine" - well it is if you live in large parts of Europe to the right of Germany!

Also, by that definition in relation to say the USA, the UK and Europe practice Eastern Medicine: Bayer, Glaxo Smith Kline, Roche, Boehringer... all Eastern medicine.

If you're on the Western coast of the USA then Western Medicine is... China; acupuncture, TCM & all!

Problem solved, no more 'big pharma'

Yuri

 

[JoeMorgue]

The biggest most ludicrous argument that homeopaths use is... homeopathy. It breaks down from every possible angle... medical, chemical, physical, hell even business.

 

[Ian]

skepticalnotcynical,

Understand that some people are so far over the rainbow that no amount of rational argument and evidence will change their minds. There are people, who do not have a diagnosed mental illness, who will insist that the earth is flat no matter how much evidence you provide. Also, Rasmus and others here are correct that the onus probandi rests on the person who says "it is" because it is impossible to prove a negative.

 

[Weak Kitten]

skepticalnotcynical could you please turn the red text to something less eye straining? If you need it to be another color could you please use purple or blue? Thank you.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Don't water down my whiskey.

 

[Baloney]

Don't water down my whiskey.

I'm positive it's been posted before, but...