Mojo
Mostly harmless
Not including this condition gives him more chance of winning by means that have nothing to do with whether there is material from the MT in the preparation. It needs to be included.
Traces found in homeopathic Potency 14c
- Thread starter Dr. MAS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy
Let me add that my protocol doesn't contain any double-blinding either, which I'm sure would be required. I imagine JREF will have some suggestion as to how to achieve this in the final protocol, but didn't want to go imposing anything that would make things more difficult than they need to be. There are a number of ways THE OBSERVER could achieve double-blinding without an additional party, or it might be easier to include an additional party, depending on how THE OBSERVER is selected.
For example, if THE OBSERVER is selected from a local skeptics group, it might be just as easy to get a second person to help out with the double-blinding. If someone has to be flown in from somewhere else, I'd imagine Dr. MAS wouldn't want to pay for two tickets when one would suffice.
For example, if THE OBSERVER is selected from a local skeptics group, it might be just as easy to get a second person to help out with the double-blinding. If someone has to be flown in from somewhere else, I'd imagine Dr. MAS wouldn't want to pay for two tickets when one would suffice.
I was going to leave the decision on whether or not it was necessary to JREF. If Dr. MAS wishes to increase his chances of rapid acceptance, I agree it should be included. My goal is first and foremost to encourage him to apply.
What we were interested in proving, has been proved and accepted by everyone here. We were interested to prove the existance of molecules in 13c or 14c potency for which you claim it does not have any molecule. Now most of you have confirmed that molecules other than solvent are exist in all homeopathic potencies. What we have to compete for now?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
You have to prove that there are molecules originating from the mother tincture in the preparations. Molecules that are there as a result of impurities in the solvent or contamination from incompetent preparation methods do not count, as these will not have been properly potentised, as they will have been introduced to the process at a later stage.
It might also be a good idea if you were to carry out some properly conducted double blinded clinical trials that show that homoeopathy actually works, of course. In fact, Sheikh has promised to do this or quit homoeopathic practice.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,967
So, after you have completed this irrelevant and uninteresting derail of the whole discussion, would you explain how a few molecules of some substance that you don't kow what is can give a medicinal effect?
And will you explain how your above "proving" changes the fact that there is no possibility to distinguish between blank solvent and remedy in high potencies? -- You see, your precious molecules will be equally present in a preparation made from pure solvent, without any mother tincture from the start.
Hans
Really what he has failed to grasp is that we claim he is not capable of producing an "ideal" 13c or 14c potency which would have non-solvent molecules.
We further point out that if he were to attempt to create a 13c potency, it is likely there would be contaminants at each stage and in the final result. Therefore, what he has created is not an "ideal" 13c potency, but a 13c potency with contaminants.
Therefore, for all his professed homeopathic knowledge, Dr. MAS has now admitted he is incapable of even creating an ideal 13c potency.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Do you mean knowledge present in vanishingly small (or even non-existent) amounts?
So Drs Sheikh and Mas were actually playing a game with us on the JREF forum? This is news to me, and to many other posters on the JREF forum. The impression we got was that both learned Drs were making it up as they went along. Dr Mas did not seem to appreciate or acknowledge the validity of the arguments put to him; and when asked to qualify or clarify his position, such as it was and it was largely absurd, he was unwilling or unable to do so. I simply don't think they knew enough to troll this forum, let alone set a trap for skeptics. Perhaps the best demonstration of Dr Mas' abject ignorance was his claim on the NCH board that if he directly added 10-47 kg of belladonna to a solvent (without dilution), then that solution must indubitably contain belladonna. As all of us would recognize, 10-47 kg is a non-existent amount, it does not represent a single hydrogen, oxygen, or nitrogen atom, nor even a single electron. Dr Mas never addressed this apparent problem; he simply ignored it; he apparently thought he could divide and dilute chemical mass indefinitely, orders of magnitude below a molecular limit. Chemistry was also not Dr Sheikh's strong suit, as witness his witless argument on mass multiplication of a mother tincture with ethyl alcohol.
It is a matter of record that neither Dr ever approached the JREF with a specific claim of any paranormal phenomena. Throughout their "arguments" it was pointed out to them (certainly they did not point this out themselves) that the contaminant in a 20C, 30C, or 200C potency, be it fly poo or dandruff or dust or natrium or something, was in vast excess to the actual quantity of mother tincture in solution, which had diminished to a submolecular level by the 13C level. The persistence of mother tincture in high potencies seemed to be their claim all along, but they did not have the required background to realize the absurdity of it all.
It is a matter of record that neither Dr ever approached the JREF with a specific claim of any paranormal phenomena. Throughout their "arguments" it was pointed out to them (certainly they did not point this out themselves) that the contaminant in a 20C, 30C, or 200C potency, be it fly poo or dandruff or dust or natrium or something, was in vast excess to the actual quantity of mother tincture in solution, which had diminished to a submolecular level by the 13C level. The persistence of mother tincture in high potencies seemed to be their claim all along, but they did not have the required background to realize the absurdity of it all.
Belz...
Fiend God
Mas, if you have found molecules in 13c potency solutions, then they are NOT at 13c.
Belz...
Fiend God
Perhaps we could not rate knowledge in potency ? How much would you assign Mas ? 12c ? 14c ?
Dr. A Sheikh
Muse
- Joined
- May 18, 2005
- Messages
- 612
petrer,
Dr. MAS already said, before finalizing a "challenge" for him you have to justify the challenge / demand what exactly you want to prove and why?
Dr. MAS already said, before finalizing a "challenge" for him you have to justify the challenge / demand what exactly you want to prove and why?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
You're not familiar with formal debate are you? In offering the challenge, JREF is taking the position of the status quo, in this case that homeopathy does not work. Those accepting the challenge take the role of the proponant for change. The burden of proof lies on the proponant. It is up to the proponant to define what they will prove, and then procede to prove it.
I find his challenge ill-defined and of dubious veracity, and thus have little interest in it. I was just trying to assist any homeopath that might wish to validate their profession by taking the JREF challenge, since it seems to be a difficult task (there are so many, and so few have tried).
If you're not interested (it would be a really nice way to prove homeopathy with a double-blind test and continue practicing without violating your vow), perhaps you know of a homeopath with enough knowledge and skill to identify the effects of a homeopathic substance vs. the solvent? If so, they might make good use of my information.
AnotherSillyAlias
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,522
AW said it rather nicely but I will simplify it for you.
If YOU want to prove YOUR claims by means of the challenge then it is up to YOU to propose the test method and protocols.
It is NOT up to JREF to disprove your claims.
If you require any further clarification do not hesitate to let me know.
I don't know about the meaning of contimination of medicine. I was talking about the potencies available in the market. As sheikh said, we have to prove what we are using. For proving something we cannot make a special potency for you.
But nobody has ever promised you that you could use just anything you found on the market for winning a million dollars! If you remember, when the idea came up that I or other skeptics should prove a homoepathic remedy, I rejected because I do not trust homoeopathic pharmacies. Your ignorance of contaminations make that rejection fully justified!I don't know about the meaning of contimination of medicine. I was talking about the potencies available in the market. As sheikh said, we have to prove what we are using. For proving something we cannot make a special potency for you.