Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homeopathy
subbie
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 89 of 142 (456336)
02-17-2008 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 8:52 AM


That isn't to say that it can't be investigated by science. But science first has to accept that something exists to investigate, and some people seem to think that anything which does not fit the materialistic reductionist paradigm is delusional and therefore unfit for study.
Several people here have described and linked the results of several scientific studies, so let's dispense with the "science ignores what it doesn't believe in" arrow from the crackpot's standard quiver, shall we?
Anyone with a closed mind, anyone from a pharmaceutical company who wants to eliminate some competition, etc etc can produce a negative study.
And anyone whose mind is already made up regardless of the evidence can ignore any study they want to.
What about all the people who attest that these things exist?
What about all the people who attest that bigfoot, Nessie, engrams, or UFOs really exist? Or those who believe in tarot, phrenology, palmistry or kinoki foot pads? The fact that people believe it is hardly proof that it's legitimate.
Maybe this applies to some but I think it's insulting to humanity in general to lump them all in this category and tell them that they are wrong, every last person.
So instead you lump together all the scientists who have tested homeopathic claims and all the rational people who have rejected homeopathic claims and tell us that we are wrong, every last person. What's the difference? To me, it's more insulting to say to those who have systematically investigated it that they were fools in doing so than to suggest that those who haven't systematically investigated it are fools for not doing so.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 8:52 AM Kitsune has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 10:58 AM subbie has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 93 of 142 (456349)
02-17-2008 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Kitsune
02-17-2008 10:58 AM


Just because some studies were done that show negative results? If I looked into this seriously, I would want to know who did the studies and what their interests were, who paid for the studies, and I'd want to read the studies themselves to discover the methodoligies, how subjects were selected, etc. All of these things are relevant and can affect results.
Well, have you done any of those things or not? I suspect not. Instead, you have fastened on to the notion that perhaps all of the studies that have ever been done all suffer from questionable methodology, and, if it's possible that they do, then you can dismiss them all and cling to your cherished belief.
When scientists decide to investigate any of these things in a proper organised, well-funded way, let me know.
You are hereby put on notice, based on Granny Magda's message 90, immediately above yours, that many studies and at least two meta studies have been done that found negative results. Now the ball's in your court. You can choose to completely ignore them and go on your merry way.
The one good thing you have going for you is that all you are going to be doing is drinking water, which at least can't do any harm. However, I'd strongly suggest that if you want medical help for anything more serious than a hangnail, that you talk to a real physician instead of relying on Dr. Moist.
Does that mean that someone who uses homeopathy is "irrational"?
Sometimes. Sometimes they're nothing more than dupes. It's not necessarily irrational to be taken by a con man. It could be a simple mental mistake, which we all make from time to time. However, if one is aware of studies which show the ineffectiveness of a discipline and one ignores those studies based on the reasoning that "It works for me so it must be legitimate," I'd say that that at least approaches irrationality, particularly if one is also aware of how often and how easily people fool themselves into believing something that just ain't so simply because they want to believe it.
Wouldn't you use something that was safe and made you feel better, if that was what you discovered it seemed to do?
In other words, would I pay good money to benefit from the placebo effect? Well, I certainly wouldn't if I had a genuine medical problem that could actually be helped or cured by someone who knew what he was doing.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Kitsune, posted 02-17-2008 10:58 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024