What is paranormal in Homeopathy
- Thread starter Dr. MAS
- Start date
-
- Tags
- homeopathy
Rolfe
Adult human female
D'you think Mas has gone? It's mid-week, and there's been no sign of the homoeopaths during office hours (I'd guess they're posting from "work" computers, whatever that means).
I thought I'd have a quick trawl through the thread and see what they were really on about. Syed was pretty straightforward in a way, he says he can show that a homoeopathic remedy has an effect, either on a healthy person (to make them ill) or a sick person (to make them better). No response to suggested protocol for proving this beyond the influence of subjectivity.
Mas seems to have stuck on two basic points which are difficult to relate to each other - essentially his statements seem to refer either to the assertion that chemical reactions take place during dilution and succussion and so the number of molecules present at each dilution step will not be according to the simple calculation, or to the implication (not apparently asserted directly) that a significantly non-representative portion of the molecules in the solution may be aspirated when the subsequent dilution is being prepared.
So I thought I'd try to address them again, in the (pretty vain) hope that he'll pick up on them if he comes back.
To take the first point, here is one of his statements relating to that assertion.
We've all acknowledged several times that when a salt dissociates in solution, the total number of moles (of everything together) increases. For example, sticking to the great hepatitis cure, Na<SUB>2</SUB>SO<SUB>4</SUB>, this salt contains three ions. So, if you start with a mole of sodium sulphate salt, and dissolve it, you do end up with two moles of sodium ions and one mole of sulphate ions.
Is it possible that Mas's extensive studies of chemistry have simply got as far as this elementary fact, and he has seized on it as "proof" that moles multiply as substances are diluted? Without actually understanding anything further?
It is of course perfectly obvious to anyone who got anywhere near O grade chemistry that such an assumption is nonsense. The dissolution which multiplies the number of moles present by three occurs once only, and after that the number remains constant. The number of atoms of the original substance is always constant, no matter how they are arranged in macromolecules or small molecules, salts or ions. Without new atoms essential for the remedy constituents (sodium and sulphur in this case) being introduced to the process, no further sodium sulphate can ever be produced, even if it were possible to rob some of the water molecules of their oxygen.
He speaks airly of "each chemical build up and breakdown" without seeming to realise that nothing can "build up" out of nothing, so no further molecules or ions of the actual remedy substance can ever be produced. If the remedy substance contains elements other than hydrogen, oxygen and carbon (those which are added in the solvent, assuming that's a water/alcohol mixture), then the building blocks to form more of the substance simply do not exist.
Regarding "breakdown", once the ions have dissociated, they cannot break down further. Again, homoeopathy does not split the atom (or so far as we know Mas is not claiming this), therefore if he started with two moles of sodium (albeit derived from one mole of sodium sulphate), two moles of sodium is all he will ever have.
Even Kumar seemed to catch on at one point. If it is asserted that significant chemical reactions are taking place between solvent and solute, it is essential to show the exact reaction(s) in detail for each different solute you're talking about. As we know, for many of the materials homoeopathy uses, no such reaction occurs. Geni mentioned the most obvious, helium. Unfortunately, though, I don't expect Mas ever to address these points, he'll simply continue to ribbit on about unspecified "chemical changes" without explaining himself.
And then he'll move to his other (and apparently unrelated) point, evenness of distribution in solution. Here is his statement about that.
Now, remember that Mas is claiming to relate all this to probability theory. In a part of his writing from another source quoted by Geni he seemed to have a degree of understanding of probability. However, the way he expressed this query allowed no room for the application of it.
Badly Shaved Monkey covered this, but I'll recap.
Supposing you have a mole of remedy particles in your first-stage preparation. That is 602,214,199,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles (molecules, ions, whatever form it is in, in this particular solvent). Well, you can see even now from the string of zeros at the end that this is an approximation. There are nine significant figures, so it's a pretty damn good approximation, but the last 18 orders of magnitude are space-fillers.
So, you take 1% of this. To be exact, this would mean (as far as the accuracy of the available figures goes) 6,022,141,990,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. Dr. Mas asks us whether we can guarantee exactly that number of molecules. We agree, no. But Mas is trying for the false dilemma here.
He seems to think that if he can get us to agree that it probably won't be exactly 6,022,141,990,000,000,000,000,000 molecules, then it's just as likely to be all 602,214,199,000,000,000,000,000,000, or none!
No, Mas. We point out that the probability theory you yourself invoke dictates that the further from the 6,022,141,990,000,000,000,000,000 figure you go, the less likely it is that this will be the number of molecules transferred.
I myself have done experiments to check pipetting accuracy. It's simple. You just pipette out your aliquot, then measure what is in it to see if it's close enough to what it should be. I did it with radioactive isotopes, so that all I had to do was measure the radiation to see whether I had what I was supposed to have. I can tell you that a good, careful bench-worker should be able to achieve less than 2% variation in pipetting precision, and that even a slap-dash worker will manage 5% variation.
So, if we assume that the 6,022,141,990,000,000,000,000,000 is absolute, rather than a nine-significant-figure approximation, a careful worker could guarantee to get between 6,142,584,829,800,000,000,000,000 and 5,901,699,150,200,000,000,000,000 molecules, while a slap-dash operator would still manage between 6,323,249,089,500,000,000,000,000 molecules and 5,721,034,890,500,000,000,000,000 molecules.
Therefore, I would assert that yes, if you take 1% of a mole of molecules, you will definitely have somewhere between 6,323,249,089,500,000,000,000,000 molecules and 5,721,034,890,500,000,000,000,000 molecules at an outside estimation.
Mas, even if you assume that every time you do this, you are going to get the higher of these numbers (which is itself highly improbable, just as getting heads 30 times in a row if you toss a coin is highly improbable), you still run out of molecules round about where we said you did, about the 12C region. Playing around the edges of the caculation like this can't alter that point by more than a couple of dilution steps, at the very outside chance.
Aha, I hear you say, but you are assuming that mixing of the solution is complete and uniform. Indeed I am. You mentioned ten "jerks" as the mixing process. Well, that's as may be, I've seen film of homoeopathic remedies being prepared where they used a vortex mixer at each stage, and that's guaranteed to give complete mixing of a solution. Never mind, stick with your "ten taps".
Ten (brisk) taps is easily sufficient to ensure even mixing of any true solution. I can prove this by experiment if required. So for soluble remedies, end of argument.
Suspensions are slightly different, in that they will settle out under the influence of gravity. Yes, some homoeopathic remedies are prepared as suspensions, when the starting material is insoluble. If you were very careful to keep the container upright, and not to tap too hard, and/or then left the container for some time in the upright position, yes, under these special conditions you could get a long way from the figures above.
I know a lot about this, because it's similar to preparing blood samples for blood cell counting. Blood cells are in suspension, and tend to settle if left standing. All one does, however, is invert the container up and back about six times, before immediately pipetting out the aliquot. You can get machines that do this for you. YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO TRY QUITE HARD TO SCREW THIS UP.
So, do we know for a fact that when preparing remedies from suspensions, homoeopaths deliberately leave the container to stand for several minutes before pipetting out the aliquot? And then, rather than take material from the top of the container (the easy, obvious move), they deliberately delve down into the bottom of the container with the point of the pipette?
Now, how come that isn't ever made clear on homoeopathic web sites which boast about how carefully remedies are prepared?
So, no way at all a 30C potency of a soluble remedy can possibly have any molecules left in it, even if the operator is really remarkably cack-handed. We might concede some presence of insoluble remedies in suspension, however, only if it can be shown that the protocol for preparation is deliberately designed to give an unrepresentatively high pick-up of particles at each stage. And in fact all the evidence we have from other homoeopaths suggests the contrary, that pains are taken to ensure as even mixing as possible.
To suggest that anything else is theoretically possible, is pretty much like suggesting it's possible that a brick might fall upward because of the random Brownian motion of the air particles all hitting it in the right orientation at the same time. Would you leave your foot under a brick on this probability?
And even once one has disposed of all that silliness, it's still necessary to point out that Mas didn't just suggest it might be that the 1% drop contained 50% or 99% of the molecules (and the brick might hover in mid-air....), he also conceded that
Now, Dr. Mas, did you understand all that? If not, is there anything you would like to have explained more clearly? If you did understand it, would you care to come back on any points in relation to your own theories?
Even if all this is a bit much for you, could you at least answer these two very simple questions?
I thought I'd have a quick trawl through the thread and see what they were really on about. Syed was pretty straightforward in a way, he says he can show that a homoeopathic remedy has an effect, either on a healthy person (to make them ill) or a sick person (to make them better). No response to suggested protocol for proving this beyond the influence of subjectivity.
Mas seems to have stuck on two basic points which are difficult to relate to each other - essentially his statements seem to refer either to the assertion that chemical reactions take place during dilution and succussion and so the number of molecules present at each dilution step will not be according to the simple calculation, or to the implication (not apparently asserted directly) that a significantly non-representative portion of the molecules in the solution may be aspirated when the subsequent dilution is being prepared.
So I thought I'd try to address them again, in the (pretty vain) hope that he'll pick up on them if he comes back.
To take the first point, here is one of his statements relating to that assertion.
I wonder if this is down to a simple misunderstanding?
We've all acknowledged several times that when a salt dissociates in solution, the total number of moles (of everything together) increases. For example, sticking to the great hepatitis cure, Na<SUB>2</SUB>SO<SUB>4</SUB>, this salt contains three ions. So, if you start with a mole of sodium sulphate salt, and dissolve it, you do end up with two moles of sodium ions and one mole of sulphate ions.
Is it possible that Mas's extensive studies of chemistry have simply got as far as this elementary fact, and he has seized on it as "proof" that moles multiply as substances are diluted? Without actually understanding anything further?
It is of course perfectly obvious to anyone who got anywhere near O grade chemistry that such an assumption is nonsense. The dissolution which multiplies the number of moles present by three occurs once only, and after that the number remains constant. The number of atoms of the original substance is always constant, no matter how they are arranged in macromolecules or small molecules, salts or ions. Without new atoms essential for the remedy constituents (sodium and sulphur in this case) being introduced to the process, no further sodium sulphate can ever be produced, even if it were possible to rob some of the water molecules of their oxygen.
He speaks airly of "each chemical build up and breakdown" without seeming to realise that nothing can "build up" out of nothing, so no further molecules or ions of the actual remedy substance can ever be produced. If the remedy substance contains elements other than hydrogen, oxygen and carbon (those which are added in the solvent, assuming that's a water/alcohol mixture), then the building blocks to form more of the substance simply do not exist.
Regarding "breakdown", once the ions have dissociated, they cannot break down further. Again, homoeopathy does not split the atom (or so far as we know Mas is not claiming this), therefore if he started with two moles of sodium (albeit derived from one mole of sodium sulphate), two moles of sodium is all he will ever have.
Even Kumar seemed to catch on at one point. If it is asserted that significant chemical reactions are taking place between solvent and solute, it is essential to show the exact reaction(s) in detail for each different solute you're talking about. As we know, for many of the materials homoeopathy uses, no such reaction occurs. Geni mentioned the most obvious, helium. Unfortunately, though, I don't expect Mas ever to address these points, he'll simply continue to ribbit on about unspecified "chemical changes" without explaining himself.
And then he'll move to his other (and apparently unrelated) point, evenness of distribution in solution. Here is his statement about that.
Now, just as an aside, I noticed a striking resemblance between this and an earlier post from Steenkh:
No, surely it would be quite unworthy to suspect that Mas actually dreamed up this entire load of nonsense after reading Steenkh's tongue-in-cheek comment. Surely not?
Now, remember that Mas is claiming to relate all this to probability theory. In a part of his writing from another source quoted by Geni he seemed to have a degree of understanding of probability. However, the way he expressed this query allowed no room for the application of it.
(My italics.) Well, if we were able to count molecules, theoretically, no. However, that's not the same as agreeing that there is any realistic probability that we might get either no molecules or all the molecules in the relevant drop.
Badly Shaved Monkey covered this, but I'll recap.
Supposing you have a mole of remedy particles in your first-stage preparation. That is 602,214,199,000,000,000,000,000,000 particles (molecules, ions, whatever form it is in, in this particular solvent). Well, you can see even now from the string of zeros at the end that this is an approximation. There are nine significant figures, so it's a pretty damn good approximation, but the last 18 orders of magnitude are space-fillers.
So, you take 1% of this. To be exact, this would mean (as far as the accuracy of the available figures goes) 6,022,141,990,000,000,000,000,000 molecules. Dr. Mas asks us whether we can guarantee exactly that number of molecules. We agree, no. But Mas is trying for the false dilemma here.
He seems to think that if he can get us to agree that it probably won't be exactly 6,022,141,990,000,000,000,000,000 molecules, then it's just as likely to be all 602,214,199,000,000,000,000,000,000, or none!
No, Mas. We point out that the probability theory you yourself invoke dictates that the further from the 6,022,141,990,000,000,000,000,000 figure you go, the less likely it is that this will be the number of molecules transferred.
I myself have done experiments to check pipetting accuracy. It's simple. You just pipette out your aliquot, then measure what is in it to see if it's close enough to what it should be. I did it with radioactive isotopes, so that all I had to do was measure the radiation to see whether I had what I was supposed to have. I can tell you that a good, careful bench-worker should be able to achieve less than 2% variation in pipetting precision, and that even a slap-dash worker will manage 5% variation.
So, if we assume that the 6,022,141,990,000,000,000,000,000 is absolute, rather than a nine-significant-figure approximation, a careful worker could guarantee to get between 6,142,584,829,800,000,000,000,000 and 5,901,699,150,200,000,000,000,000 molecules, while a slap-dash operator would still manage between 6,323,249,089,500,000,000,000,000 molecules and 5,721,034,890,500,000,000,000,000 molecules.
Therefore, I would assert that yes, if you take 1% of a mole of molecules, you will definitely have somewhere between 6,323,249,089,500,000,000,000,000 molecules and 5,721,034,890,500,000,000,000,000 molecules at an outside estimation.
Mas, even if you assume that every time you do this, you are going to get the higher of these numbers (which is itself highly improbable, just as getting heads 30 times in a row if you toss a coin is highly improbable), you still run out of molecules round about where we said you did, about the 12C region. Playing around the edges of the caculation like this can't alter that point by more than a couple of dilution steps, at the very outside chance.
Aha, I hear you say, but you are assuming that mixing of the solution is complete and uniform. Indeed I am. You mentioned ten "jerks" as the mixing process. Well, that's as may be, I've seen film of homoeopathic remedies being prepared where they used a vortex mixer at each stage, and that's guaranteed to give complete mixing of a solution. Never mind, stick with your "ten taps".
Ten (brisk) taps is easily sufficient to ensure even mixing of any true solution. I can prove this by experiment if required. So for soluble remedies, end of argument.
Suspensions are slightly different, in that they will settle out under the influence of gravity. Yes, some homoeopathic remedies are prepared as suspensions, when the starting material is insoluble. If you were very careful to keep the container upright, and not to tap too hard, and/or then left the container for some time in the upright position, yes, under these special conditions you could get a long way from the figures above.
I know a lot about this, because it's similar to preparing blood samples for blood cell counting. Blood cells are in suspension, and tend to settle if left standing. All one does, however, is invert the container up and back about six times, before immediately pipetting out the aliquot. You can get machines that do this for you. YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO TRY QUITE HARD TO SCREW THIS UP.
So, do we know for a fact that when preparing remedies from suspensions, homoeopaths deliberately leave the container to stand for several minutes before pipetting out the aliquot? And then, rather than take material from the top of the container (the easy, obvious move), they deliberately delve down into the bottom of the container with the point of the pipette?
Now, how come that isn't ever made clear on homoeopathic web sites which boast about how carefully remedies are prepared?
So, no way at all a 30C potency of a soluble remedy can possibly have any molecules left in it, even if the operator is really remarkably cack-handed. We might concede some presence of insoluble remedies in suspension, however, only if it can be shown that the protocol for preparation is deliberately designed to give an unrepresentatively high pick-up of particles at each stage. And in fact all the evidence we have from other homoeopaths suggests the contrary, that pains are taken to ensure as even mixing as possible.
To suggest that anything else is theoretically possible, is pretty much like suggesting it's possible that a brick might fall upward because of the random Brownian motion of the air particles all hitting it in the right orientation at the same time. Would you leave your foot under a brick on this probability?
And even once one has disposed of all that silliness, it's still necessary to point out that Mas didn't just suggest it might be that the 1% drop contained 50% or 99% of the molecules (and the brick might hover in mid-air....), he also conceded that
So, is he ever going to explain to us how come, even by his own crazy interpretation of the situation, he can assure us that this never happens at any time during any stage of the preparation of any homoeopathic remedy, anywhere in the world?
Now, Dr. Mas, did you understand all that? If not, is there anything you would like to have explained more clearly? If you did understand it, would you care to come back on any points in relation to your own theories?
Even if all this is a bit much for you, could you at least answer these two very simple questions?
- Do you maintain that every bottle of every potency has some remedy substance in it? If not, are the ones without any molecules inactive, and what are my chances of buying an "active" bottle in my local shop?
- if your remedy contains an atom of sulphur, and there is no sulphur in the solvent you are using to make the dilutions (and we recall how insistent several homoeopaths have been about the purity of the materials used), how can you obtain any more of the remedy substance as you make further dilutions?[/list=1]I hope to hear from you very soon.
Rolfe.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Really, it's Hans you should ask that one. He still has the patience to compose sensible replies to Kumar! In contrast, after having had every piece of science I've tried to explain to Kumar dismissed as "this & that type talks" and "vested interest", then seeing him come right back out with his original misconceptions time and time again, I'm afraid I have reached the point of merely being rude to him.Metullus said:
This thread is a little different. The content has become extremely diluted, but Mas' assertions are still there, and he has repeated them several times. I deal with pipetting aliquots of solutions to make further dilutions every hour of every day, including serial dilutions in immunology. I don't handle the pipettes much myself these days, but I have done tests on pipetting accuracy and sufficiency of mixing in the past, and I know the answers. Now, I am responsible for overall quality in the laboratory, and I know very intimately what utter nonsense Mas is claiming, in practical terms in the real world. I come back from a session of working, and I think, how can that guy come out with such patently ridiculous suggetions?
There is no way at all short of very blatant and very deliberate fraud in the preparation that there could possibly, conceivably, be a molecule of the original starting material in any but the most rare of rare bottles of any 30C remedy. That is an undeniable scientific fact, and I will stake my PhD on it.
But I'd still like Mas actually to explain his reasons for thinking otherwise, in detail and sensibly, not vague probabilities surrounding slipshod diluting technique but actual numbers of molecules predicted at each stage of the dilution; and not vague talk of "breaking down and buiding up" remedies, but actual equations of the actual chemical reactions he is suggesting are occurring.
Although, sensibly, I can't see how anyone could be dense enough to think the way he seems to think, and to jump straight from vague misconceptions to hard assertions without even thinking about how one might get there. So really, I'm probably just wasting my time feeding another troll. However, if there are posters here not quite familiar with the argument, I might have achieved something if they follow my explanations.
Rolfe.
Honestly, Rolfe, go watch 'Grand Designs', pour yourself a drink and settle down for 'Desperate Housewives' later.
It's late, the Homeopaths have gone to shine up the centrifuge and this thread is dead.
It is an ex-thread.
It's gone to meet its maker.
It's not even pining for the 200C dilution fjords.
It's late, the Homeopaths have gone to shine up the centrifuge and this thread is dead.
It is an ex-thread.
It's gone to meet its maker.
It's not even pining for the 200C dilution fjords.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Have yourself 20 psychic points. I love Grand Designs. I think the shower was a bit peculiar though, and personally I wouldn't have wanted to cut that old stonework to accommodate the kitchen extension. Couln't they have managed the connection some other way?
Went over to a bit of the news after that though, as I haven't been watching Desperate Housewives. I'm going to continue my journey through the DVDs of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel in approximately the right order rather than stick with the broadcast offerings though.
Sleep well!
Can't promise I won't come back to this for a last word or two though. The premise that a dilution made using glassware will produce the expected concentration of solvent according to the dilution factor is so fundamental to all of laboratory medicine, all the tests we rely on every day to manage our patients, that when I really think about it, I have mountains of evidence that Mas (and Kumar) are simply fantasising.
I used to use a 0.1ml sample in 10ml solvent to measure my plasma electrolytes. That's 1 in 100. I didn't go on, I just made one dilution, but I do know that no matter how often I repeated the exercise with the same sample, I always got the same result to a pretty tight precision. No sign at all that sometimes I was getting 99 times the solvent molecules I expected, and sometimes none at all!
When we're calibrating photometric analyses (see "Beer's Law"), we rely on the demonstrable fact that a linear series of dilutions will have the expected linear series of concentrations. This is completely beyond question. The tests we do by this method are very tightly quality controlled, including samples sent around the country to all the different hospitals to show that everybody gets the same result, to within a tolerance (for the simple tests) of better then 5%. It's a huge area of effort and expertise, and never has anyone ever made an observation that would contradict the basic fact that when you dilute something 1 in 10 the concentration decreases to 10% of the original, or 1 in 100, to a concentration of 1% of the original. It's simply fundamental.
As I said before, serial dilutions are also common everyday procedure, and again the concentration of solute can be shown clearly to decrease exactly as expected, in linear relationship with the dilution ratio.
While Syed was very very wrong about the magnitude of the limits, I would agree that there are limits to the detection of solutes, which are significantly above one or a handful of molecules per litre. However, I can categorically state that whatever the dilution ratio - 1 in 2, 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 - we can show by simple measurements that the relationship between dilution factor and concentration of solute is exactly as our arithmetic would predict, and linear, right down to the limits of sensitivity of the assays.
Therefore, I feel 100% justified in saying that I have personally verified by actual physical measurement that all the diluting procedures carried out by homoeopaths do in fact yield concentrations exactly as predicted by the arithmetic. There is no sign of any significant variation in the accuracy of pipetting suggestive of wild probability fluctuations, the relationship is linear down as far as we can measure, with no reason at all to sugget that there is any change to these rules beyond these limits. There is also no suggestion whatsoever of unexpected formation of new molecules, either of the original solute or anything else, due to unforseen chemical reactions. Results also support the assertion that insofar as there is imprecision in the pipetting, this tends to even out in serial operations - you don't always get more (or less) than you expect unless your instruments are wrongly calibrated, any more than you'd expect a run of 30 heads when tossing a coin.
So, Mas, if you're still listening. I believe homoeopathy is a fraud. I do not believe the remedies have any effect. This is entirely according to scientific theories, and not paranormal at all. However, the reason it is eligible for the "paranormal challenge" is indeed that there are no molecules of the original solute in the commonly-used potencies, such as 30C. Is that good enough for you?
And not only can I do the sums that demonstrate that, I can demonstrate by actual laboratory measurements that the solutions really do behave as the arithmetic predicts, and that there is nothing (other than blatant cheating) that homoeopaths can possibly be doing which would alter that behaviour.
Therefore, if you believe that there are indeed original solute molecules in a 30C preparation, it is not up to me to show by measuring an actual 30C solution that there is nothing there, it is up to you to show that there is something there. Either by actual measurements (including seeing molecules through an electron microscope if you actually think that's possible), or by demonstrating where the flaw is in the extrapolation to sub-detectable concentrations of data verified multiple times on measurable concentrations.
If you ever come back to this thread, please carry on.
If you don't, I think we'll all know why.
(Sorry, Andycal. Angel season 1 awaits....)
Rolfe.
OK, OK, I know Mas is probably a troll. Bite me.
Went over to a bit of the news after that though, as I haven't been watching Desperate Housewives. I'm going to continue my journey through the DVDs of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel in approximately the right order rather than stick with the broadcast offerings though.
Sleep well!
Can't promise I won't come back to this for a last word or two though. The premise that a dilution made using glassware will produce the expected concentration of solvent according to the dilution factor is so fundamental to all of laboratory medicine, all the tests we rely on every day to manage our patients, that when I really think about it, I have mountains of evidence that Mas (and Kumar) are simply fantasising.
I used to use a 0.1ml sample in 10ml solvent to measure my plasma electrolytes. That's 1 in 100. I didn't go on, I just made one dilution, but I do know that no matter how often I repeated the exercise with the same sample, I always got the same result to a pretty tight precision. No sign at all that sometimes I was getting 99 times the solvent molecules I expected, and sometimes none at all!
When we're calibrating photometric analyses (see "Beer's Law"), we rely on the demonstrable fact that a linear series of dilutions will have the expected linear series of concentrations. This is completely beyond question. The tests we do by this method are very tightly quality controlled, including samples sent around the country to all the different hospitals to show that everybody gets the same result, to within a tolerance (for the simple tests) of better then 5%. It's a huge area of effort and expertise, and never has anyone ever made an observation that would contradict the basic fact that when you dilute something 1 in 10 the concentration decreases to 10% of the original, or 1 in 100, to a concentration of 1% of the original. It's simply fundamental.
As I said before, serial dilutions are also common everyday procedure, and again the concentration of solute can be shown clearly to decrease exactly as expected, in linear relationship with the dilution ratio.
While Syed was very very wrong about the magnitude of the limits, I would agree that there are limits to the detection of solutes, which are significantly above one or a handful of molecules per litre. However, I can categorically state that whatever the dilution ratio - 1 in 2, 1 in 10 or 1 in 100 - we can show by simple measurements that the relationship between dilution factor and concentration of solute is exactly as our arithmetic would predict, and linear, right down to the limits of sensitivity of the assays.
Therefore, I feel 100% justified in saying that I have personally verified by actual physical measurement that all the diluting procedures carried out by homoeopaths do in fact yield concentrations exactly as predicted by the arithmetic. There is no sign of any significant variation in the accuracy of pipetting suggestive of wild probability fluctuations, the relationship is linear down as far as we can measure, with no reason at all to sugget that there is any change to these rules beyond these limits. There is also no suggestion whatsoever of unexpected formation of new molecules, either of the original solute or anything else, due to unforseen chemical reactions. Results also support the assertion that insofar as there is imprecision in the pipetting, this tends to even out in serial operations - you don't always get more (or less) than you expect unless your instruments are wrongly calibrated, any more than you'd expect a run of 30 heads when tossing a coin.
So, Mas, if you're still listening. I believe homoeopathy is a fraud. I do not believe the remedies have any effect. This is entirely according to scientific theories, and not paranormal at all. However, the reason it is eligible for the "paranormal challenge" is indeed that there are no molecules of the original solute in the commonly-used potencies, such as 30C. Is that good enough for you?
And not only can I do the sums that demonstrate that, I can demonstrate by actual laboratory measurements that the solutions really do behave as the arithmetic predicts, and that there is nothing (other than blatant cheating) that homoeopaths can possibly be doing which would alter that behaviour.
Therefore, if you believe that there are indeed original solute molecules in a 30C preparation, it is not up to me to show by measuring an actual 30C solution that there is nothing there, it is up to you to show that there is something there. Either by actual measurements (including seeing molecules through an electron microscope if you actually think that's possible), or by demonstrating where the flaw is in the extrapolation to sub-detectable concentrations of data verified multiple times on measurable concentrations.
If you ever come back to this thread, please carry on.
If you don't, I think we'll all know why.
(Sorry, Andycal. Angel season 1 awaits....)
Rolfe.
OK, OK, I know Mas is probably a troll. Bite me.
Perpetual Notion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 406
Rolfe,
I agree that you take patience pills! I thank you for your posts because I'm relatively new to the world of homeopathy, (despite having tried it in my shameful past), and I've learned a huge amount from you. Please don't feel it was all a waste.
Enjoy Grand Designs . I'm assuming it's a home makeover show. I got addicted to them when I lived in Oxford last year. One show I watched was always painting the rooms lilac. I think they had gotten a great price on a huge amount of it, so every show at least one room got the treatment and the homeowners always oohed and ahhed over it.
I agree that you take patience pills! I thank you for your posts because I'm relatively new to the world of homeopathy, (despite having tried it in my shameful past), and I've learned a huge amount from you. Please don't feel it was all a waste.
Enjoy Grand Designs . I'm assuming it's a home makeover show. I got addicted to them when I lived in Oxford last year. One show I watched was always painting the rooms lilac. I think they had gotten a great price on a huge amount of it, so every show at least one room got the treatment and the homeowners always oohed and ahhed over it.
You are using “Stupid, idiot and non-sense etc.†for me. Thanks
I will never use the same for you because I believe that you are not.
But this confirms randi forum member’s frustration stage. When they unable to prove the Para normality behavior of the homeopathic science. They become personal and started shouting on me. Chooooo chooooo
I think, we should not waste time on personal level loathe and to promote healthy discussion “what is paranormal in homeopathyâ€.
Let’s start again: What is paranormal in homeopathy?
(Please I am serious) We have gone off line. Please come to the track.
I will never use the same for you because I believe that you are not.
But this confirms randi forum member’s frustration stage. When they unable to prove the Para normality behavior of the homeopathic science. They become personal and started shouting on me. Chooooo chooooo
I think, we should not waste time on personal level loathe and to promote healthy discussion “what is paranormal in homeopathyâ€.
Let’s start again: What is paranormal in homeopathy?
(Please I am serious) We have gone off line. Please come to the track.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I was thinking about that, when you mentioned it before, and I don't follow the logic. Radioactive labelling, as I understand it (that's what you mean, isn't it?) must rely very heavily on a fairly substantial number of molecules being present. I mean, a single atom of the radio-isotope either decays or it doesn't. To get a significant rate of decay, to get atoms decaying all the time so that you can detect this, surely you need quite a lot? I certainly agree that you could go very low in our own terms this way, probably substantially below the femtomolar sort of level which would be about my limit of detection (using radiolabelled or chemiluminescent reagents though, I have to say). However, single molecules? How? Am I missing something here? Any realistic prospect of asking him to clarify?geni said:
Perpetual Notion: Grand Designs is the Rolls-Royce of property shows; an article a week ago asked if it was property porn! Each programme follows one very big project, either a very unusual and unique new-build, or a large-scale restoration. Always the owners go miles over budget, and sometimes the properties are nowhere near finnished by the time filming ends. This week it was the restoration of a large farmhouse in Gloucestershire, I didn't catch the original date, but it could have been older than America. It ended up costing a fortune and the owners admitted they were mortgaged to the eyeballs by the end of it, but at least it was finished, and very nice it was too.
Rolfe.
PS. OK, I forgot the charcoal-burner's house on the woods built of straw bales. That cost half nothing and was completed with very cheap materials and volunteer labour. Unfortunately planning consent only allowed the charcoal burner to live in it, and he could never sell it - if he no longer wanted to live there it would have to be reinstated as woodland. That house must be quite near where I live, but I never figured out exactly where. It was amazing.
Rolfe said:
Just check, who has done the first. I can't because I was willing to take something from you. If you consider, questioning again and again or asking it bit differently as per other theories, as an insult, i am sorry for that. But still I can't change my style as indicated in my signature. I need to understand a thing clearly & absolutely, not just to discuss formally, do trolling, pass time or increase my posts.
Just respect my efforts not language.
Dear flume and terry.
I am following the discussion in both threads. I will definitly address the issue. For this purpose I have to type above 100 pages which I am writing daily because that is purely technical. I need some time. I am not good typist. I am two finger typist.
I am following the discussion in both threads. I will definitly address the issue. For this purpose I have to type above 100 pages which I am writing daily because that is purely technical. I need some time. I am not good typist. I am two finger typist.
It has nothing to do with language. It has to do with your MO. You ask questions. When you get answers you do two things: dismiss any information that contradicts your theory, and then twist any information that you think supports your theory. Then you ask for the same explanation again, asking for corroboration that the way you twisted the information is right. It usually is wrong. This is pointed out and then you start accusing of "TTTT" and "vested interest."Kumar said:
Kumar, if you were actually honest, this is what one would expect to happen: You ask questions. You get answers and study them. Maybe you do some research on the side to understand them better. You see if your theory fits this new information. If it doesn't, you either change your theory or ask for help making sense of the discrepancy. If a valid point is made showing you that you are wrong, you then dismiss your old theory.
For over a year people have been pointing out again and again where you are wrong, yet your theory remains. You just add, incorrectly, bits and pieces. And the worst part is, since you don't understand the bits and piecs you added, you only make your theory more inconsistent and self-contradictory.
Dear Administrator
Whenever I got connected with this forum. An automatic installation of the program was begin. This is not with other forums. Second observation is, If I am not browsing any page, even then my net connections shows that too many packets are moving around this forum. What is this?
Another problem is, when I send edited post, it displays the same previous post without edition.
The last problem is, my posts display on the next day in main forum. Why it is so?
Whenever I got connected with this forum. An automatic installation of the program was begin. This is not with other forums. Second observation is, If I am not browsing any page, even then my net connections shows that too many packets are moving around this forum. What is this?
Another problem is, when I send edited post, it displays the same previous post without edition.
The last problem is, my posts display on the next day in main forum. Why it is so?
Rolfe
Adult human female
Mas, do you have a problem with reading?Dr. MAS said:
My claim is that if homoeopathic remedies have an effect, this is not explicable by scientific means, and may therefore be classed as paranormal. The important word is "if".Rolfe said:
In fact I have seen no evidence at all to suggest that homoeopathic remedies have any effect at all beyond those of coincidental recovery and wishful thinking. Therefore it is my belief that there is nothing paranormal happening at all. Nevertheless, I claim that if something is happening, it is paranormal, that is cannot be explained by science.
Mas, you are the person who claims that something is happening. So, in effect, it is you who is making the paranormal claim. You have previously offered to explain why this is not so, and that there is in fact a rational scientific explanation. However, you have not in fact done so.
To clarify, the crux of the claim that any action which may occur is paranormal, is indeed that there is no material substance of the original remedy present in the most commonly-used dilutions, for example 30C. This is an absolute fact, and nothing you have hinted at gives even the smallest possibilty that it could be otherwise, except through large-scale dishonesty in the preparation of remedies.
Did you read my long post above? I believe I covered all this, and gave my reasons. You know, it is most disheartening to post extensive explanations, and succinct questions, and have one's posts entirely ignored in favour of a repetition of the original question.
Please read my post, Dr. Mas. If there is anything in it you do not understand, I will be happy to explain it to you further.
Rolfe.
PS. If you want to address an administrator regarding forum working and housekeeping matters, you would be well advised to start a new thread in the "forum management" section. The chances of any admin happening upon that post are not high.
Metullus
Forum ¾-Wit Pro Tem
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 5,260
Dr. MAS said:
Okay, DR. MAS,
1. If a homoeopathic remedy was demonstrated to be efficacious in the treatment of a disease (beyond placebo effect) it would be in violation of the most basic tenants of mathematics, chemistry, and physical science as have been understood and confirmed over the past 100 years or more.
2. This would indeed be a paranormal event.
3. The fact is, however, that no homoeopathic remedy has ever demonstrated such efficacy in a properly executed DBT.
4. This is not surprising and is entirely in accord with our understanding and observations of chemistry and the physical world.
5. There is, therefore, nothing paranormal about homoeopathy.
The mathematics and science that have been explained with commendable forbearance and with remarkable clarity by Rolfe and others are neither arcane nor particularly complex –nothing any halfway educated high school student could not understand. I am troubled that you appear to have difficulty grasping the issues. That you refuse to undertake any reasoned discussion volumes.
Perpetual Notion
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 406
Dr. MAS said:
No. (tm)