Dr. MAS said:
Ok, come on this point. You declare on this forum that this is actuall part which is paranormal in homeopathy then we can make arrangement to prove our view point.
Is this paranormal to you? A real in your sense (allopathic medicine) cannot cure a patient but a homeopathic medicine can cure that patient. Yes, I claim and I can prove it. But first verify that this is paranormal part of homeopathy.
Dr. Mas, please clarify why you are so concerned about this word "paranormal".
Are you intending to apply for the JREF Million Dollar Challenge? If so, speaking only as an interested bystander, I can tell you that Mr. Randi has stated many many times that homoeopathic claims are indeed eligible for the Challenge. If you read through the back issues of the Commentary you will find several places where this is confirmed.
As I understand it, all you have to do to win the money is to show that you can tell the difference between a potentised homoeopathic preparation (above 12C or 24X) and the stock carrier material. (For example, if your test homoeopathic material was sugar pills immersed in a Belladonna 30C potency, the material you'd have to distinguish it from would be some of the same batch of stock sugar pills immersed in some of the diluent from the same stock bottle as that used for the remedy preparation.) If you want that to be confirmed by a JREF representative, the best thing to do would be to ask them by email.
How you do this is entirely up to you. Showing that you could cure more patients with the potentised remedy than the stock material would certainly be one way to do it, but it is by no means the only way, and indeed quite a difficult test to organise to the degree of certainty required. Other people have suggested using proving effects to tell the difference. Any sort of physical or chemical analysis would also be permissible.
However, you said you were
not an applicant for the Challenge. In that case, what does it matter whether or not you or we or anyone else calls homoeopathy "paranormal"? It's nothing but semantics.
We have already explained to you several times our reasons for using this terminology. Namely, that you claim that a substance which has had a magic spell performed on it (the diluting and succussing) has properties which are not present in an identical substance which has not had the spell performed on it; and that the theory of homoeopathy is a prime example of Sympathetic Magic (the "like cures like" is the part called Imitative - or, hysterically, Homoeopathic - Magic, and the idea that the potentised preparation retains some of the qualities of the remedy it was once in contact with even when none of the actual molecules are left is the part called "Contagious Magic"). You have entirely failed even to acknowledge these answers, instead merely coming back and repeating your original question.
So, if you are not an applicant for the Challenge, why does it matter whether or not we or you consider homoeopathy to be paranormal? The only relevant question is whether it works or not.
Rolfe.
Still I have not followed what exactly the paranormal in homeopathy is. 
