The "Successful Homeopathic Trial" thread has now been viewed nearly 6,000 times; it seems quite likely that hundreds of lurkers have been following it. I'm interested in how the thread has influenced the views of these lurkers (IMO, people who have participated in the thread will be unable to give an impartial assessment on whether the thread made homeopathic remedies seem more or less plausible...).
The poll considers two points: what your view/stance on homepathy was before reading the thread, and whether the thread inspired more confidence in homeopathy, less confidence, or had no impact.
PLEASE READ ALL DEFINITIONS BEFORE RESPONDING TO POLL:
---------------------------------------
-- Thread impact
-- (W, NE, DNW)
---------------------------------------
After reading the thread,
W) I am more confident that homeopathy WORKS.
NE) it had NO EFFECT on my views on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of homeopathic remedies.
DNW) I am more confident that homeopathy DOES NOT WORK.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-- Your stance prior to reading the thread
-- (NL, EHP, HP, FS, HS, EHO, O)
-----------------------------------------------------------
NL) Non lurker : I posted 3 or more times in the thread (or have spent more than 30 minutes posting in that thread, trying to advance my views).
EHP) Extreme Homeopathic Proponent: I know homepathic medicine works. No tests, no arguments, no personal experience, and no other opinions (expert or otherwise) can influence this - I have simply seen too much success from homeopathic treatment to even be able to consider arguments that something else might explain what I've observed homeopathic remedies to do (at least, nothing short of God himself playing tricks on me). If I'm being perfectly honest, if if I never see a homeopathic remedy cure another person for as long as I live, even if in many cases the remedies seem to make the symptoms worse, I'd not be swayed in my belief that homeopathy works - I'd simply believe there was a massive conspiracy afoot, or massive, gross incompetence in practicing homeopathy correctly, etc.
HP) Homeopathic Proponent : I think homeopathic medicine works, and entrust it for primary treatment of any afflictions I might have (barring, of course, catastrophic/severe occurances - I wouldn't treat a fractured skull with homeopathy). I actively recommend the homeopathic philosophy to family and friends. I *guess* it's possible that homeopathic medicine doesn't work, but I'd need to see some pretty compelling evidence, on a very large scale, to even begin questioning the regular successes I've already observed homeopathic remedies to have.
FS) Fence sitter : I'm not sure if homeopathy works or not. I might have tried it once or twice, on a whim or a friend's recommendation, with inconclusive results. I kind of understand the logic of "like cures like", I've met people who have claimed success, and it seems that there must be *something* (although who knows what) to this homeopathic idea, just given its popularity. On the other hand, I find many things about homeopathy to be very suspect: the "extreme dilution" (beyond Aggravado's limit) which would seem to make homeopathic remedies no different than ordinary tap water; its consistent failure to produce effects in controlled trials; the way its proponents seem to rely on pseudo-scientific terminology, anectdotal stories, and blanket dismissal of skepticism; or just a general gut feeling of "snake-oil" salesmanship permeating the entire industry (and a strong desire to not be a fool quickly parted from my money).
HS) Homeopathic Skeptic: I do not think homeopathy works (or, perhaps, that it even can work as described). I've read the theory, and strongly suspect it is simply a set of pseudoscientific beliefs largely perpetuated by well-known flaws of human perception and cognition as well as fallacies of logic. I've examined many of the alleged successes, or "provings", of homeopathic remedies, and found them to do nothing but confirm these suspicions. Based on my personal knowledge and life experience, I believe the notions of "water memory", "like cures like", and other such homeopathic notions belong in the same categories as dowsing, perpetual motion machines, and astrology. I suppose it is *possible* (though extremely unlikely based on what I've seen so far) that the act of creating a homeopathic remedy can result in *something* which has an effect beyond that of placebo in treating certain human ailments- HOWEVER, it would require incredibly strong evidential support (e.g. a fixed protocol starting from raw materials, tested in clinical trials involving randomization, double blinding, extensive baselining, and placebo controls, carried out by several independent, certifiably-unbiased labs, with large sample sizes (n > 100)consistently resulting in statistically significant (p<.025) positive effect determinations)... and even then, only after the evidence had been critically examined and accepted as legitimate by trusted medical authorities (e.g. AMA and FDA).
EHS) Extreme Homeopathic Skeptic: The HS description doesn't go far enough. I know homeopathic medicine does not work. If any evidence is presented for the success of homeopathic remedies; by definition, the evidence is flawed (finding the flaw is like doing a crossword puzzle... even if it's a hard puzzle, and I can't fill in all the blanks; there is a solution somewhere).
If I am being perfectly honest, even the example evidence described under HS wouldn't sway my opinion - if left with no alternatives, I would simply hold on to implausible, but technically possible, naturalistic explanations such as gross incompetence, grand conspiracies, massive fraud, personal psychosis, etc.
O) Other / Not Applicable: My outlook on homeopathy is not described above - I may post below to bitch about the inadequate or biased choices above (or just explain my vantage point)... or not.
But know this: this poll is flawed, as it utterly fails to account for my position!
The poll considers two points: what your view/stance on homepathy was before reading the thread, and whether the thread inspired more confidence in homeopathy, less confidence, or had no impact.
PLEASE READ ALL DEFINITIONS BEFORE RESPONDING TO POLL:
---------------------------------------
-- Thread impact
-- (W, NE, DNW)
---------------------------------------
After reading the thread,
W) I am more confident that homeopathy WORKS.
NE) it had NO EFFECT on my views on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of homeopathic remedies.
DNW) I am more confident that homeopathy DOES NOT WORK.
-----------------------------------------------------------
-- Your stance prior to reading the thread
-- (NL, EHP, HP, FS, HS, EHO, O)
-----------------------------------------------------------
NL) Non lurker : I posted 3 or more times in the thread (or have spent more than 30 minutes posting in that thread, trying to advance my views).
EHP) Extreme Homeopathic Proponent: I know homepathic medicine works. No tests, no arguments, no personal experience, and no other opinions (expert or otherwise) can influence this - I have simply seen too much success from homeopathic treatment to even be able to consider arguments that something else might explain what I've observed homeopathic remedies to do (at least, nothing short of God himself playing tricks on me). If I'm being perfectly honest, if if I never see a homeopathic remedy cure another person for as long as I live, even if in many cases the remedies seem to make the symptoms worse, I'd not be swayed in my belief that homeopathy works - I'd simply believe there was a massive conspiracy afoot, or massive, gross incompetence in practicing homeopathy correctly, etc.
HP) Homeopathic Proponent : I think homeopathic medicine works, and entrust it for primary treatment of any afflictions I might have (barring, of course, catastrophic/severe occurances - I wouldn't treat a fractured skull with homeopathy). I actively recommend the homeopathic philosophy to family and friends. I *guess* it's possible that homeopathic medicine doesn't work, but I'd need to see some pretty compelling evidence, on a very large scale, to even begin questioning the regular successes I've already observed homeopathic remedies to have.
FS) Fence sitter : I'm not sure if homeopathy works or not. I might have tried it once or twice, on a whim or a friend's recommendation, with inconclusive results. I kind of understand the logic of "like cures like", I've met people who have claimed success, and it seems that there must be *something* (although who knows what) to this homeopathic idea, just given its popularity. On the other hand, I find many things about homeopathy to be very suspect: the "extreme dilution" (beyond Aggravado's limit) which would seem to make homeopathic remedies no different than ordinary tap water; its consistent failure to produce effects in controlled trials; the way its proponents seem to rely on pseudo-scientific terminology, anectdotal stories, and blanket dismissal of skepticism; or just a general gut feeling of "snake-oil" salesmanship permeating the entire industry (and a strong desire to not be a fool quickly parted from my money).
HS) Homeopathic Skeptic: I do not think homeopathy works (or, perhaps, that it even can work as described). I've read the theory, and strongly suspect it is simply a set of pseudoscientific beliefs largely perpetuated by well-known flaws of human perception and cognition as well as fallacies of logic. I've examined many of the alleged successes, or "provings", of homeopathic remedies, and found them to do nothing but confirm these suspicions. Based on my personal knowledge and life experience, I believe the notions of "water memory", "like cures like", and other such homeopathic notions belong in the same categories as dowsing, perpetual motion machines, and astrology. I suppose it is *possible* (though extremely unlikely based on what I've seen so far) that the act of creating a homeopathic remedy can result in *something* which has an effect beyond that of placebo in treating certain human ailments- HOWEVER, it would require incredibly strong evidential support (e.g. a fixed protocol starting from raw materials, tested in clinical trials involving randomization, double blinding, extensive baselining, and placebo controls, carried out by several independent, certifiably-unbiased labs, with large sample sizes (n > 100)consistently resulting in statistically significant (p<.025) positive effect determinations)... and even then, only after the evidence had been critically examined and accepted as legitimate by trusted medical authorities (e.g. AMA and FDA).
EHS) Extreme Homeopathic Skeptic: The HS description doesn't go far enough. I know homeopathic medicine does not work. If any evidence is presented for the success of homeopathic remedies; by definition, the evidence is flawed (finding the flaw
If I am being perfectly honest, even the example evidence described under HS wouldn't sway my opinion - if left with no alternatives, I would simply hold on to implausible, but technically possible, naturalistic explanations such as gross incompetence, grand conspiracies, massive fraud, personal psychosis, etc.
O) Other / Not Applicable: My outlook on homeopathy is not described above - I may post below to bitch about the inadequate or biased choices above (or just explain my vantage point)... or not.
But know this: this poll is flawed, as it utterly fails to account for my position!
)
.
.
.