Veterinary homoeopathy illegal?

Barbrae said:
I have repeatedly said that I CAN NOT prove homeopathy's efficacy ACCORDING to your standards, if I come right out fromt he beginning and say that, why do you continue to try to ask me for the proof, you even ask in odd round about ways - don't you listen?
Click to expand...

And you have been repeatedly told why those standards are are used in the first place. If a treatment can't stand up consistently, it's not much of a treatment. You continue to try to say that homeopathy works, but all the reliable studies have shown otherwise. You can't win playing the game the scientfic way; you won't win trying to play it your way here- hope you're listening.
 
Barbrae said:
SO your repeated questioning of the definition was just a little ruse and youreally didn't care what my definition was? okay, thanks for wasting my time ther with that one.
Click to expand...

It's called developing an argument, Barb. Of course we wanted your definition, so it could be tested. The reason you end up backed into a corner is because there are so many corners for us to back you into. Why? Because you are arguing in supporting of something that is simply wrong.

Let's look at your current problem. Why does giving a simple definition of what is true homeopathy get you into trouble? It's because there are so many mutually contradictory viewpoints that no single coherent definition can include them all. But, and this is the killer, all the adherents to these various versions of homeopathy all claim to be backed by experience. You can't all be right! So what must we conclude? Your clinical experience is no basis on which to judge the truth of the questions at hand.

From a technical point of view, we cannot say that no homeopath is correct from this argument alone. It cannot exclude the possibility that there is one homeopath or class of homeopaths that is correct while all the others are wrong. This is because in this particular argument we are looking only at your internal contradictions, not testing what you say against external reality. It is those checks that show there is not such a thing as a 'correct' homeopathy.

Having lost this argument, the honest thing to do would be to revisit your basic assumptions about what your "experience" tells you and admit you are wrong. What you do instead is sense that you've been backed into a corner and complain about how you got there. Listen, Barb, if your illogical worldview didn't have so many blind alleys and corners we couldn't back you into them so easily. It's a lesson about the nature of your worldview. Your problem, not ours.

The fact that you sense you have been 'caught out', but cry foul instead of looking at why you got there is revealing of your motivations. You're very quick to snuff out any glimmer of insight into the difficulties you get yourself into.
 
Barbrae said:
I have repeatedly said that I CAN NOT prove homeopathy's efficacy ACCORDING to your standards, if I come right out fromt he beginning and say that, why do you continue to try to ask me for the proof, you even ask in odd round about ways - don't you listen?
Click to expand...

Barb, again you are misunderstanding what is going on here. We know you cannot produce evidence. Whereas we cannot absolutely exclude the possibility that some usable evidence migt one day be produced by someone, the aim of this exercise is to show to someone who starts from the "I know it works, I've seen it works, I believe it works" is holding an untenable position even in their own terms.

We have shown you why you cannot reasonably cling to your opinion, so you choose to cling to it unreasonably.
 
Barbrae said:
I have repeatedly said that I CAN NOT prove homeopathy's efficacy ACCORDING to your standards, if I come right out fromt he beginning and say that, why do you continue to try to ask me for the proof, you even ask in odd round about ways - don't you listen?
Click to expand...
Barb, the problem is that you cannot prove homeopathy's efficacy according to ANY standards, not even your own. If I give you 20 randomly numbered bottles of lactose pills, half of which are, say, Arnica 30C, and the other half are blank pills, you will not be able to tell me, with any better result than pure chance, which bottles contain which.

Even according to your own standards, the absolute minimum requirement must be that you can discern a remedy from a non-remedy, unless you will concede to be working with pure belief.

Hans
 
Barbrae said:
I have repeatedly said that I CAN NOT prove homeopathy's efficacy ACCORDING to your standards, if I come right out fromt he beginning and say that, why do you continue to try to ask me for the proof, you even ask in odd round about ways - don't you listen?
Click to expand...
Yes, we listen. I don't think some of us can quite believe our ears though.

Now, first, whose standards CAN you prove homoeopathy's efficacy to? Remember, we're not talking about a single questionable treatment or dubious drug here, we're talking about something that is touted as "a complete and scientific system of medicine" (Sarah), and yet we cannot find one single instance of self-evident effect.

So, although Sarah says that homoeopathy is scientific, you reject scientific standards of proof. Now, scientific investigation is no more than the application of logic to try to find out how the world really is. So if you reject the standards we are working to, it seems to me that you have to reject logic entirely.

Which leaves superstition, gut feeling and pure, blind belief.

Am I right here, or do you have better "standards" to judge against?

Yes, I realise you're not going to change, and you're not going to re-evaluate your practices, but you really are one of the most immoral parasites I've ever come across. Taking people's money for something you have admitted several times is wholly without rational foundation is simply sickening exploitation.

Rolfe.
 
One of the most simple protocols of science is the statement of an accepted fact, and then the theories behind why that fact is the way it is.
Homeopathy can't even get the first statement down. Yet the practioners are throwing their theories right, left, upside down, leftside right, etc.
 
Barbrae said:
Did you miss my definition of homeopathy? If a remedy given matches the totality of the case - is the similimum - and produces an amelioration because it has the ability to produce said symptoms in a healthy individual then that homeopathy.
Click to expand...
"And produces an amelioration".

So, if whatever you do the patient doesn't improve, then by definition you have not been practising homoeopathy. Thus, by the same definition, homoeopathy always works!

Hey, I'm convinced, sign me up for the next course!

Rolfe.
 
Excellent Hpathy Quote

This is the leading paragraph of an article entitled, Absence of Evidence - Evidence of Absence? New Age Jingoism by Dr. Chic Schissel that I found in the Long Island Secular Humanist newsletter. I post it here because I think the last sentence is pertinent...and so well put.

============================
The alternative fringe has embraced the trendy catchphrase: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. It's cute, it sounds impressively philosophical, and, in extreme absolute terms, it actually is true. But it can be deceptive, misinterpreted, and misused. The alternative fringe, which interprets lack of evidence as positive support, in effect expands the slogan: “absence of evidence is evidence of presence”. And the peddler of homeopathic nostrums has it thus: “absence of presence is evidence of evidence”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom