And who do you think I am-an anonymous trolling alien from outer space? Would you treat/doubt me the same way if I was in front of you and talking you through the evidence? Do you think I have nothing better to do (I'm NOT a homeopath btw) than 'convert' you? Do you think I'm self-deluded and/or a liar. These are the questions you really need to ask yourself before you are so sure about your illformed (by biased others, I might add) view of an incredibly effective medicine.I don't know how you got that from this:
Regarding being even-handed, rational and progressive.Perhaps you could enlighten me in the comments section below, but I assume it stems from "Not all opinions are equal. The weight of an opinion is proportional to its supporting evidence and the expertise of the opiner." Is that correct, wawei67?
Objective != Even-handed. I do strive to be objective, rational and progressive. That said, I will argue on the side that I see as having the most supporting evidence. Ergo, I cannot be even-handed in such an unevenly divided debate.
Not all opinions are equal. The weight of an opinion is proportional to its supporting evidence and the expertise of the opiner.
I'm not insulting you there. In the scheme of things the opinions of yourself and I are insignificant next to the scientists doing the research. The fact of the matter is that there is so much evidence that supports the efficacy of Modern Medicine (and I'm not just talking about Pharmaceutical drugs either) and there's really nothing that supports the efficacy of Homeopathy. This renders our debate rather one-sided unfortunately.
I'd also like to remind you that I did not begin by being rude to you, in fact I've been quite civil to you. You haven't practiced as much restraint, but then you are sixteen. I try not to take offense.
That said, you want to prove the efficacy of Homeopathy? Do you doubt that Modern Medicine is very effective? Good, doubt is always the first step in scientific inquiry! I would encourage you to persue a science education, get into medical research and try to falsify the claims of Modern Medicine.
I'm not mocking you wawei67, this is how science is done. In those clinical trials in the peer-reviewed literature, the researchers are trying to falsify the efficacy of the drug. The researchers are trying to demonstrate that the drug has no more efficacy than placebo. If the efficacy of the drug is not statistically significant from the placebo effect then the efficacy of the drug is considered inconclusive. If the efficacy of the drug is statistically significant from the placebo effect then the researchers have been unable to falsify it and the drug is considered to work.
Do I think that you have nothing better to do than convert me? I don't know, you seem to work pretty hard at convincing me I'm wrong though I question your methods. I'd find verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence much more convincing than trashing science, peer-review and scientists. In fact, that's what I've been asking you to do from the start; take me through the evidence you believe supports Homeopathy. I probably will look for flaws in your conclusions of what your evidence says, I may even try to find flaws in the evidence itself. This doesn't mean you shouldn't try as long as you've read the evidence that you're presenting yourself then you should at least have a ready answer to my questions if nothing else.
Self-deluded, you? Perhaps, but that's just Cognitive Dissonance. Interesting phenomena that Cognitive Dissonance, we're all subject to it, it's even a survival trait. Science is the only system we have that actually runs counter to Cognitive Dissonance as science's very existence is about questioning everything, even it's own conclusions.
Feel free to answer below. I think you'll find talking about this on the blog a better experience than trying to cram everything into a less-than 500 character limit text-box.
hi, I'm not 16 lol--sorry about that, I just type in whatever is needed for those net things so I can get the access I need to post. I'm 45 haha. I've tried a variety of appraoches with the anti-homeopathy crowd after making the mistake of posting favourably about said medicine. I didn't quite understand the violent opinions that would come thick and fast The terrible thing for me has been I know homeopathy works, know how it works and use it for myself and others with incredible success. Before I needed to use it I thought it was absolute BS haha--and this is from a person who has never touched mainstream medicine! It just seemed too good to be true in its reported miraculous effects and too mindbendingly complicated/stupid? in its methodology. But i was wrong haha--DEAD WRONG! I had forget everything I though I knew (you ever tried that?, do you think you would be able to do that in the face of new evidences?--that's where "cognitive dssonance" really comes to the fore, when we have to re-wire our brains based on what is actually happening in front of us haha)about medical "science" after using it extensively. But then it became the same with chinese Medicen (an AWESOME medical system that makes western medicine look like what it really is:baby steps forced by a too controlling and non-understanding and overbearing parent haha, ok, it does surgery and technology well, but healing, no!)
ReplyDeleteOk, so I have had to rethink some things to put it mildly...Then I discovered healing with the mind and with my hands (anyone can do it--it's just physics, NOT religion etc) there is nothing in the body that has been detected such as electro-magentic frequencies etc that could give clinical healing results like I and others can attain, whereas I can achieve that. If you know contemporarty physics you will unsderstand that this type of thing (and homeopathy)is well within the paradigm of possibilities of modern science(lets face it-what isn't).The medical system as it exists is an ingrained, slow-to-change, cabal that does not want the market "corrupted" by non-patentable, cheap and easy access medicines/DIY healing modalities-this is simply the way big-business works across the board in whatever field So there is a lag between not just the theoretics of modern science and praxis but between the FINDINGS of science and its practice. No mega-billion dollar industry will take kindly to being outmoded and outgunned by something that costs essentially nothing to 'produce' and apply.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of understanding of people who consider themselves "rational" "scientific" and "objective" (when I hear someone describe themselves or the world they live in in this way "I reach for my gun" haha--but more about that later perhaps...)of HOW what we call physics is actually played out in the universe is quite shocking to me--it always has been. It simply proves that the cognitive dissonance thing is very deep with those doing science--that's why physicists are traditionally a little wacky I imagine haha, cause they may go to work the next morning and find their whole world-view blown to hell by some tiny tiny particle haha. They most always see themselves as inherently privileged in this world (well they are following the dominant ideology of the age!)and that belonging to the club makes one inherently sane, rational and trustworthy! Like Americans and 'their' "democracy", they are always wanting to ram it down the throats of the rest of the world and tell them its the best thing going, even when others don't want it. Of course the parrallels with religion are too obvious here--chosen ones, dominant thought, they who brook no other p.o.v., emotional immaturity ( i.e.scared of real life and its endless complexities) All in all I find "science" types to be small-minded, bigoted, and judgemental to the extreme--all things they were suppossedly trying to escape when the ideology of science took power from religion. And there lies another deep truth-those who usurp on emotional grounds become worse than what they were calling an end for in the first place! I find dominant-paradigm science people to be almost all scattered, emotional, just plain nuts (Randi, Singh, Dawkins and that whole crowd). Their ability to lie to themselves and to go to great lengths to support the non-existent edifice (it's really quite fractured) of some almost mythological whole we like to call science is really just the basic human/civilised psychology of denial. Social psychologists have shown that modern people's BASE STATE of existence is encompassed in the act of denial. The world is simply too complex now for peole to cope with all that information -most of it conflicting deeply with other 'informations' available. One doesn't need those guys to tell us that though, one only needs to spend one day being aware of our own and others' reactions/thoughts re the world to see this fact. Usually when I point this out to someone their first response is "no it isn't" which is exactly what I'm looking for for validation of the fact lol
You wrote 'Modern Medicine' in the main text--why do you think you did that and what could it really mean, as scientific ideology I mean, not 'objective' science? accept my post
Jones 05 Jan 22:51 - pt 2
Delete"HOW what we call physics is actually played out in the universe is quite shocking to me--it always has been. It simply proves that the cognitive dissonance thing is very deep with those doing science--that's why physicists are traditionally a little wacky I imagine haha, cause they may go to work the next morning and find their whole world-view blown to hell by some tiny tiny particle haha."
I think that scientists learn to deal with Cognitive Dissonance by accepting the evidence for what it is and following the evidence wherever it leads. Again, peer-review here helps as scientists who's Cognitive Dissonance has lead them down a false trail and misinterpret the evidence get it pointed out to them, especially when the results are not verifiable.
Physicists are often seen as "wacky" by laypeople for the simple reason that they deal with concepts that often run counter-intuitive to our experiences. The fault lays in our limited perceptions and how our brains model our perceived reality. The fact is Physicists are quite rational, but their understanding of the fabric of reality far exceeds our own.
Scientists who are unable to deal effectively with their Cognitive Dissonance in time find themselves in disrepute. Instead of following the evidence wherever it leads, they ignore any evidence that conflicts with the fantasy they're stuck in. When other scientists are unable to verify their results in the peer-review literature, they insist that they are still correct.
"They (skeptics?) most always see themselves as inherently privileged in this world (well they are following the dominant ideology of the age!)and that belonging to the club makes one inherently sane, rational and trustworthy!"
I honestly don't think that skeptics have the patent on feeling superior. I grant that many skeptics do feel that they are smarter then non-skeptics. However, it's not intelligence that determines if a skeptic right on an issue, facts and being right determine that. Some skeptics conflate "being right" to "superior intelligence". This does, however, make the typical skeptic more rational than an non-skeptic though there are some very rational non-skeptics out there. I think that you'll find that these rational non-skeptics are probably skeptical to some degree on various issues.
"Like Americans and 'their' "democracy", they are always wanting to ram it down the throats of the rest of the world and tell them its the best thing going, even when others don't want it."
Science isn't an ideology. Science questions everything, even its own conclusions. Science always changes to better match known reality, sometimes smoothly, sometimes dramatically. Science holds that reality is ultimately knowable, though some aspects may never be perfectly known.
Skepticism is at the core of science, that is why science questions everything and tries to understand reality. Most skeptics probably believe that the world would be a better place if people would be a little more skeptical. I don't know if this is true, but my suspicion is that there is some truth to that notion.
I honestly don't think that skeptics want to "ram skepticism down people's throats", that would never work. Skeptics don't appreciate being told to "just believe" something, be asked to accept substandard evidence, or attempts convinced them on the eloquence of your argument. So skeptics aren't trying to ram anything down your throat when you argue with them, they're expecting you to defend your position with verifiable evidence! Expect a critical review of any evidence you do present and if your evidence is sound the skeptic will accept it, even if grudgingly. (Apparently the evidence-based arguments of physicists would pale any argument that you've seen on YouTube, so that's something we can both be grateful for.)
Jones 05 Jan 22:51 - pt 3
Delete"All in all I find "science" types to be small-minded, bigoted, and judgemental to the extreme--all things they were suppossedly trying to escape when the ideology of science took power from religion."
"Science types" as you so abhorrently call them, are not "be small-minded, bigoted, and judgemental to the extreme" due to being science types, if they are that way at all. "Science types" are not going to take kindly to claims that cannot be verified, claims that are obviously ridiculous and people wrongly interpreting their work.
Science is not a religion and to equate science as such is to demean it. All the things that science is religion is not. Conflating one with the other is as grievous as it is inaccurate a slight.
"I find dominant-paradigm science people to be almost all scattered, emotional, just plain nuts (Randi, Singh, Dawkins and that whole crowd)."
Randi and Singh (Simon Singh?) are skeptics. Dawkin is biologist of high-regard. You wish to believe that they are "scattered, emotional, just plain nuts" then you are welcome to hold that belief. The evidence that I have seen is that they are focused, level-headed and very sane. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please present it now.
"The world is simply too complex now for peole to cope with all that information..."
I suspect a kernel of truth in that statement, but it doesn't necessitate that one become a contrarian. It will mean, however, that one will find themselves being a contrarian every once and an odd while. The question is; "What are you going to do when someone shows you verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence?"
"You wrote 'Modern Medicine' in the main text--why do you think you did that and what could it really mean, as scientific ideology I mean, not 'objective' science?"
Fair question. I was under the impression was that we were discussing "Modern Medicine versus Homeopathy".
I guess there's nothing a true-believer can't convince themselves of. I guess he gets points for not saying "quantum" or "vibration" directly, though it's in there. The fact that he thinks it's science makes me despair.
ReplyDeleteI did invite him. Perhaps arguing with him is the wrong approach?
Deleteoh fuck! WSS can't you ban this troll for the time being so we can talk? You must understand--people like this are dead wrong about homeopathy and much else and there is no point in letting them in on such an important subject of discussion. I understand you are 'on his side' but in the interests of "objectivity" I think the playing field needs to be levelled a bit with regards these interruptions and thought-bombs messing up continuity of argument etc. Thanks
ReplyDeleteMurdoch is not a troll and I don't have those sort of admin rights at this time anyhow. Murdoch is free to comment as is anybody else. If a flame war breaks out on my blog, or ad hominems are used I will delete offending comments with a warning to the offender. If it continues I'll enforce moderation.
DeleteMurdoch's comment, to be frank, was not an ad hominem though it could be seen as mildly inflammatory by some. What Murdoch offered was a critique of your reply in the form of ridicule. He sees your position as ridiculous and, ergo, not worthy of respect. It would help if you assembled your thoughts before posting.
Excuse my naivete in expressing myself in the previous posts--I realise you don't have the frame of mind to consider most of what I've said and that you are quite closed minded on all this sort of 'stuff' (I'm not judging you btw, just stating what I've observed from the beginning).
ReplyDeleteI would like to ask you directly what you think of all the deadly dangerous medicines currently available, from psychtropic drugs which promote suicide and depression for psychiatric disorders to statins which kill and cause such abberations as extreme memory loss to diabetes drugs/insulin that make diabetes worse and the flu vaccine which has never had any science behind it and recently has been found to be extremely compromising on the "immune system" etc---these have all been peer-reviewed, 'researched', mass marketed and effectively and aggressively (as in FEAR campaigns) promoted by the medical establishment/governments as the only available medical answers to their concomitant health problems? I've been unable to get a response in regards real medical/scientific concerns like this from the youtube posts (funny that!) cause the health and safety of poeple is not the concern of those who are posting--it is purely emotional 'disorder' that runs the anti-homeopathy /anti-healing mind. Hope you can prove different? Thanks
Wow, I just read your mission statement for this site and some of the "homeo tards" stuff etc. This is a scary/fanatical place to be--I feel like I'm being manipulated in a cult setting (really!) I see why you asked me on here, to perhaps make a fool of me? That's certainly what you're doing to others here and it seems you've had this place loaded in advance against me...like I say, scary! Anyways, I'm such a genial chap that even if you want to still 'talk' intelligently about things then that's still ok with me. Try a little humility (which translates into openness in discussions)and you could learn about yourself and the world too...
ReplyDeleteHello WSS, I found you over at the Ben Goldacre youtube posts (you seemed quite rational compared to some others lol) and decided to follow you over here in order to give you some information on the much discussed meta-analyses regarding homeopathy. You should be interested in this work, which I suggest you read if you would like to have a fuller picture of the homeopathy debate and on how to deal with those who support it.
ReplyDeleteHomeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs---Bornhoft, Matthiessen
It's 200 pages is freely available online as PDF files from university libraries that hold it.It was published in german in 2006 and has only been translated into english as of last November Let me know what you think.
@Jones 05 Jan 22:01
ReplyDeleteSorry for taking so long to get back to you, I've been busy.
I think part of the problem that we have here is a difference in the definition of "evidence". For you, evidence is apparently what you experience. In science evidence is also experienced on some level, but great care is taken to filter the signal from the extraneous noise. This is why it is so important to set up your experiment properly and why it must be reviewed by others in the scientific community.
The evidence you are using is called anecdotal evidence and you expect me to accept it. Your evidence is not falsifiable and regarding your cancer I think you are a victim of the inductive reasoning fallacy. You assume that since healing followed taking some Homeopathic remedy that the Homeopathic remedy caused the healing.
Since you now believe that Homeopathy heals, you experience Cognitive Dissonance whenever you don't see Homeopathy resulting in healing. To ease the Cognitive Dissonance you succumb to Confirmation Bias and only look at instances where healing follows the use of Homeopathy or you rationalize that the Homeopath didn't practice h(is|er) art properly.
New evidence shouldn't cause a person to "forget everything they know", but instead should first be examined under the Null Hypothesis. Essentially, you ask yourself if you can explain the evidence based on everything we already know minus the new hypothesis. If you can then you continue using what we already know.
So, based on everything that we already know can you explain how you were able to beat your throat cancer if Homeopathy weren't used?
Why do you bring up Chinese Medicine? We're talking about Homeopathy. Before I drop this subject let me say that I'm sorry, but ground up Rhino Horn will not cure your impotence.
I will continue my responses to your other replies as I have time.
I don't base my reasoning on experience alone-though that would be enough for me from what I've been through. There is a lot of research into homeopathy and you know none of it....yet you continue to cite your and others' opinion and bias as evidence for its lack of efficacy. I know rhino horn won't cure impotence (why choose this out of the vast pharmacopeia of CM--trivialise? and to show you have no knowledge of Chinese Medicine)
ReplyDeleteYour 'reasoning' on homeopathy and science is just looking silly--a lot of words and hypotheses but little actual substance e.g. showing the studies on homeopathy are wrong.They are ususally conducted at a higher standard of control than conventional medicine for example. This is just a case of your prejudice of course. The book recommended above blows your suppositions out of the water regarding the oft-repeated fraudulant meta-analyses of homeopathy and its now mythical lack of trials and efficacy--great stuff there! I'll expect an apology soon hehe. Interesting to see what you'll come up with this time refuting science yet again! As I've said before--what you say regarding "alternative" medicine is sophistry-there is no substance to it (to pun a homeopathic metaphor!)
@Jones 11 Jan 02:20
ReplyDeleteYou're the one making the claim that Homeopathy works, you're the one who'll have to post evidence. I'm explaining that I won't accept anecdotal evidence. I'm also stating how your position, without verifiable, peer-reviewed evidence, appears to me.
I don't understand why you want to keep bringing up Chinese Medicine (though that has been demonstrated, for the most part, to be no better than placebo either). I think that might be an interesting study in psychology, but that's outside any of my training.
On what basis do you claim that studies on Homeopathy are of higher quality than that of pharmaceutical drugs? Again, I'm going to need evidence on this. Are the majority of drug studies of lower quality than Homeopathy studies? I disagree, but again, You are making the claim, you have to back it up.
As for the recommended book I haven't had a chance to read it yet, have you? Perhaps you have an electronic version you could make available? That said, books are printed by editors to make money, but they aren't peer-reviewed so they aren't necessarily scientifically valid. So a book blowing my considerations "out of the water" is a dubious claim at best.
"Interesting to see what you'll come up with this time refuting science yet again!" That's an interesting comment. I get similar claims when arguing with Creationists, yet somehow they always end up being the contrarians. This has happened continuously with my interactions with Homeopaths (ie. Bandershot).
"As I've said before--what you say regarding "alternative" medicine is sophistry-there is no substance to it" Here again you make a claim. Provide the evidence that I'm being a sophist. I back up all my claims against the efficacy of Homeopathy with evidence, verifiable and peer-reviewed. I'm afraid claiming that peer-review is corrupt and that the scientists are biased is, in itself, sophistry.
Jones 05 Jan 22:51 - pt 1
ReplyDelete"Then I discovered healing with the mind and with my hands (anyone can do it--it's just physics, NOT religion etc) there is nothing in the body that has been detected such as electro-magentic frequencies etc that could give clinical healing results like I and others can attain, whereas I can achieve that. If you know contemporarty physics you will unsderstand that this type of thing (and homeopathy)is well within the paradigm of possibilities of modern science(lets face it-what isn't)"
Some facts:
1) All things emit EMR
2) This EMR makes up what is known as "Background Radiation"
3) This Background Radiation is randomized "noise"
4) This idea that EMR can contribute to healing is a testable claim
5) High-energy EMR has demonstrated efficacy in killing cancerous cells
a)This is of limited duration
b)This is used over a limited area
6) Low-energy EMR has not demonstrated efficacy in curing any diseases or conditions.
7) Homeopathy, as it's administrated, would not deliver the EMR of its contents to a specific location of the body
8) Homeopathy, as its produced, could not deliver a high-enough intensity of EMR of its active agents to have any effect on the body
You'd have to detect a level of EMR in a homeopathic remedy that is higher than the background radiation found in its solvent and have some sort of mechanism where the body can detect the correct EMR, get the signal to where it's supposed to be and apply it.
As Homeopathy hasn't shown efficacy beyond placebo there isn't much incentive to look for such things. However, those are the kinds of things you'll have to look for assuming Homeopathy ever demonstrates efficacy.