Understanding homeopathy

[Donks]

People's experiance is best evidance. DO SURVEY. Every scientific introduction is subject to mass...approvals but mass.. approval may not be subject to science because things are meant for mass..people not for science.

People's experience is the worst evidence. It's anecdotal evidence and it is worthless. Scientific knowledge is not subject to approval by mass bunch of idiots. It is subject to rigorous testing using proper protocols.

Several scientific introductions, medicines etc. do fails & so banned on mass....people practical experiances inspite of all advanced & DPBC testings. WHY????

Safety testing and efficacy testing are not the same thing. When you actually give a drug, you run a risk, unlike when giving water. Of course there is a reward, that the patient will actually get better.

 

[Kumar]

People's experience is the worst evidence. It's anecdotal evidence and it is worthless. Scientific knowledge is not subject to approval by mass bunch of idiots. It is subject to rigorous testing using proper protocols.

Why then several medicines are banned after precticla experiances on mass...people? Why these are not continued just on science testings?

Safety testing and efficacy testing are not the same thing. When you actually give a drug, you run a risk, unlike when giving water. Of course there is a reward, that the patient will actually get better.

The issue is not just its efficiency, the issue can also be related to its safety. Study DBI, COX....

The essence of healing is that 'patient gets better' irrespective of type of effect. Side/adverse/toxic effects are measurable effects but it does not mean these are healing effcts. Anyway few people are trying to take out that much quantity & type of allopathic medicines by potentizing these, which will show real effects minus side/adverse/toxic effects--may succeed probably.

 

[Carn]

People's experience is the worst evidence. It's anecdotal evidence and it is worthless.

Sorry, but this is not correct. Anectodal evidence is certainly among the worst type of evidence, but it is not worthless.

Anectodal evidence is sometimes correct and can help to get an idea in which direction to speculate for an idea or what a possilbe experiment could look like. Therefore it is not worthless.
E.g. apples falling from trees or people coming from the west and saying the always sailed east are examples where the scientific knowledge was helped by anectodal evidence.

But alone anectodal evidence often does not prove anything, because many possible theories fit the evidence.
E.g. the case studies of homeopaths fit the theory of hoemopathy, but they also fit the theory, that human observation bias can flaw seriously conclusions and beliefs about nonsense and homeopathy is a big example for that.

The case studies do not allow to distinguish between the 2 theories, though i think they are enough to exclude the possiblity, that drinking diluted stuff alows to communicate telepathically with not memory erasing aliens, so for something their evidence is good, though it is not good enough to show that diluted substances are differant from water,sugar,...

Carn

 

[Zep]

The problem for Kumar, Carn, is that he believes that the more anecdotal evidence exists, no matter how unreliable, the more likely the story MUST be true. Kumar has no need of the step between anecdotal evidence and the evaluation of that evidence and of the phonomena itself. Enough anecdotes = good enough for Kumar.

I have a table somewhere I can drag out that Kumar agreed was right that shows that if enough people believe in something for long enough, it's absolutely certainly true. Like the notion of a flat earth, or the sun revolving around the Earth.

[edit: post too soon!]

 

[Carn]

Enough anecdotes = good enough for Kumar.

I just wanted to correct the statement, because many homeopaths think we are simply mean by labelling the things they worked so hard for as anectodal evidence and forget. Then they show up with some rare event where anectodal evidence actually was useful and valid and think they scored a point. So it is safer to state, that the presented evidence does not prove homeopathy, as it is perfectly explainable by other concepts.

What seems to be diffcult to have them understand, is that their all case studies can be explained by the same mistake, so adding a few thousand or a million does not help much, wrong is still wrong.

I have a table somewhere I can drag out that Kumar agreed was right that shows that if enough people believe in something for long enough, it's absolutely certainly true. Like the notion of a flat earth, or the sun revolving around the Earth.

[edit: post too soon!]

I read this notion first in some fanatsy book("the mist of avalon") at the age of 14 or so and i got realy fed up by it, because even ifnthat book it does not make sense:
If it is real what people believe(or more precisely, what people on average believe, if 1000 belive in A, 500 believe in B and A contradicts B, then most often A will happen but sometimes still B), then it is impossible for new believes to replace old ones, because if a believe is dominant, then anyone inspecting the relting subject, will find evidence, that that believe is true.

If he gets lucky and comes along one of those rare events, where some of the lesser believes gets hold of reality, he will find evidence for that, but the distrust he is met with(he is challenging the dominant believe), will cause further investigations, which then likely will yield proof to the dominant belief, the other opinion will be shown to be wrong.

And in reality there are enough things, where the mass believes something totally wrong, so disprove is easy.

But not for Kumar.

Carn

 

[Gavinimurthy]

Where are we going?

There was only one point worth answering regarding these two postulates.

Somebody asked,whether Hannemann was against research,as per his note in the first postulate.

No.Not at all.He is against the grand theories,the doctors were proposing at that time.He never said anything about proper research and investigative methods.

Murthy

 

[Carn]

Where are we going?

The fast ones are already at the "where is the proof part?" - "It's mass existing ..."

No.Not at all.He is against the grand theories,the doctors were proposing at that time.He never said anything about proper research and investigative methods.

Murthy

Sorry, i came in late, i see no serious problem with aphorism 2, except why has it to be simple explanations, though i take that as simple explanations are preferable, which is fine.

But i still have a problem with footnote aphorism 1:
"nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed)"

Ok, physican should not waste his time with explanations, while the patient needs treatment, but why "(which must ever remain concealed)"?
I mean after the patient is fine again and before the next one comes in, it would be a good time to think about what was the proximate cause and what was the not so proximate cause of the disease.
Hahnemann does not say anything about not so proximate causes, but he explecitely says, that the proximate cause must remain ever concealed.
That does mean, that even if we can perfectly heal all diseases and understand all the rest of universe perfectly, we still may not try to understand what the proximate cause for a certain disease is.

Why?

Carn

 

[MRC_Hans]

Where are we going?

There was only one point worth answering regarding these two postulates.

Somebody asked,whether Hannemann was against research,as per his note in the first postulate.

No.Not at all.He is against the grand theories,the doctors were proposing at that time.He never said anything about proper research and investigative methods.

Murthy

OK fine! Let's cut the finesses, then: So, let's accept that Hahnemann was not against research as such, he just raged against his contemporary academics, some of whom indeed did spend their time with idle speculations without deighning to even look at a patient. .....Come home Samuel, all is forgiven .

So, since we have now established that Hahnemann was FOR scientific research, I assume that so are you, Murthy, right?

Given that, what is your comment to the fact that the last 200 years of scientific research has not yielded on single shred of support for Hahnemann's theories, and has indeed contradictd them in several ways?


Hans

 

[Gavinimurthy]

Dear Carn

I think it is 'Clarke' who said that, whatever Hannemann said positively,is to be given the highest importance,and he is of the opinion that many times,Hahnemann's negative comments are not to be taken seriously.

I think Clarke is right.

Do I have to say more?

Dear Hans

It may take another hundred years,for science to be able to reach the stage,where homeopathy can be proved 'scientifically.'

Science keeps on learning new things,and it is unfortunate that,as on now,there are not enough brains to prove homeopathy scientifically.Till science catches up,you have to wait,but meanwhile the cure by homeopathy continues,however hard you people may try to stop its progress.

Have you ever heard of' Kirlian photography'?

Murthy

 

[Carn]

Dear Carn

I think it is 'Clarke' who said that, whatever Hannemann said positively,is to be given the highest importance,and he is of the opinion that many times,Hahnemann's negative comments are not to be taken seriously.

I think Clarke is right.

Do I have to say more?

Then why hasn't clark written a better version, where all the statements, that are not to be taken seriously are left out?
Do you think it makes underssxtanding easier, if one is greeted, with a couple of direct insults and nonsense statements?

Have you ever heard of' Kirlian photography'?

Murthy

Yep, the "auras" of needles and coins are especially nice, i'm sure someone can provide pictures.

Carn

 

[Ribbitalu]

Another 100 years?

Can you accept the possibility that even with 100 year's worth of scientific advances, homeopathy will still not be supported by scientific research?

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

her about Wim Padaan, the dimwitted, confused and angry vet!

Point of order, Mr Chairman. Wim Pardaan is an ignorantly self-satisfied layman playing illegally with animals' health in a jurisdiction that doesn't bother to pursue that particular illegality.

 

[Gavinimurthy]

O.K.Carn

That gives me an idea.Shall we cut out all the negative comments of Hahnemann,and concentrate on the positive aspects only?

Murthy

 

[Gavinimurthy]

Did anybody thought it possible to 'see' the inside body parts with 'MRI scan', a hundred years back?

Why do you people ridicule the possibility of a machine seeing the 'disease' as a whole?

Instead of parts,which is being done presently?

Murthy

 

[geni]

Point of order, Mr Chairman. Wim Pardaan is an ignorantly self-satisfied layman playing illegally with animals' health in a jurisdiction that doesn't bother to pursue that particular illegality.

Hmm have we confirmed that he exists yet?

 

[Jeff Corey]

O.K.Carn

That gives me an idea.Shall we cut out all the negative comments of Hahnemann,and concentrate on the positive aspects only?

Murthy

Then we would have nothing to discuss. Or maybe a homeopathically miniscule amont to discuss.

 

[geni]

Did anybody thought it possible to 'see' the inside body parts with 'MRI scan', a hundred years back?

They would not have had a vclue what you were talking about

Why do you people ridicule the possibility of a machine seeing the 'disease' as a whole?

Getting that kind of rage (from attometers to meters) would be tricky.

 

[Gavinimurthy]

I strongly object to bringing in names of people,who can't defend themselves here.

If you people want to play the game fairly,pl.stop this nonsense.

I hope better counsel will prevail,and people will not stoop to such low levels.

Is this the culture you people have here?

Murthy

 

[geni]

I strongly object to bringing in names of people,who can't defend themselves here.

1. he could open an account here if he wants

2. Posting that at hapthy would ne an imediate banning offence

If you people want to play the game fairly,pl.stop this nonsense.

This is not a game.

 

[Gavinimurthy]

Even in a discussion, the attitude of criticising a non participating member,is sheer madness.

I don't want to discuss with mad people.

If you people can't discuss in a straight manner,and have to sneer,ridicule,insult,and try to snub people,who are not in a position to defend themselves, I will call it a day.

Murthy