What really interests me is how science could accept something as mind-blowing as quantum physics.
Quite simply because its reproducible and supported by evidence. It also does not rely upon anecdotal evidence.
And yet . . . homeopathy? Ghosts? The healing power of prayer? Bigfoot? These are dismissed as delusion?
Evidence. Continued belief in something that has no evidence to support it, has evidence against it, and relies on the testimony of believers as its only basis of support is
something. Delusion is perhaps a slightly condecending title, but it does fit.
Maybe they are rejected in this way because they can't (to our knowledge) be mathematically modelled the way quantum physics can be.
Exactly. And they have no evidence.
And my point was that a materialistic reductionist, which describes much of the modern scientific establishment, would never consider homeopathy worthy of study to begin with.
Don't you find it odd that scienctists can "believe" in something so counter intuitive as quantum mechanics, but reject something as testable as homeopathy? Tests have been done, so to claim it is rejected out of hand is incorrect. The fact is that science does not automatically reject something that is counter intuitive but does reject something that not supported with evidence.
The idea of energy or memory somehow being transmitted in the water is dismissed out of hand.
Not true. You are attempting to put forward a mechanism for something that has not been shown to be effective. The mechanism (energy or memory) is not being "somehow transmitted", its simply not being transmitted at all. Its easy to dismiss this out of hand, because you have not shown that there is anything supported by evidence that would
require a mechanism.
The second link calls for "further high quality studies." I agree. Bring 'em on.
The question then becomes - when does it stop? All results that have been put forward so far you have rejected out of hand. You demand more studies into a topic that has produced no results. These tests are not cheap and the proponents of these type of
remedies have shown that they will never give up. No test will ever change the minds of the believers, so I ask you - how many tests would be enough before science can move on to the next psuedo science that demands more and more testing?
How much credibility should be handed over to the long line of people with such claims? The more testing that is done simply bolsters the proponents claims that its a topic worth investigating!
™ Version 4.2
