Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
mentalgongfu2 » 24 Feb 2021 08:12 wrote:Were one to bite on this "look at the evidence" attitude for a practice so thoroughly debunked in the past, it would perhaps help if we focused on one study in mammals and looked at the whole thing, from start to finish, instead of this effort to overwhelm with numbers.Such an effort of "look how many studies I have" could be easily countered, but if one's goal was to actually consider and evaluate, one might be better to take the most convincing study involving something close to humans if not on them directly and expose it to detailed examination. Examination, mind you, not argument. Comparison with studies that are accepted by standard medical science would be valuable as well. Unless the OP is willing to consider something along those lines, this thread is just begging for a shouting match with a specific poster who has wisely already declined to participate.
stickdog99 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:12 am wrote:lol. So that's how "science" works today.
Right? No reason to evaluate the actual experimental observations when you already have your mind made up. In fact. you don't even have to see if your favorite "skeptics" have actiually noticed any of these studies yet because you know for a fact that when and if they do that their only possible response will be to villify the non-corporate scientists who had the gall to actually make these observations when we all ALREADY know that homeopathy simply MUST be pure quackery no matter what any observational data may say. Right?
Can you EVER simply exanine the data objectively and allow yourself to be suprised at the results or is that just too heretical for a religious Church of Corporate Medicine zealot like you?
DrEvil » 24 Feb 2021 19:45 wrote:stickdog99 » Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:12 am wrote:lol. So that's how "science" works today.
Right? No reason to evaluate the actual experimental observations when you already have your mind made up. In fact. you don't even have to see if your favorite "skeptics" have actiually noticed any of these studies yet because you know for a fact that when and if they do that their only possible response will be to villify the non-corporate scientists who had the gall to actually make these observations when we all ALREADY know that homeopathy simply MUST be pure quackery no matter what any observational data may say. Right?
Linking the first five hits off a Google search isn't science, and neither is me responding to it.
Let's say I spend some tedious hours going through the studies you posted and manage to debunk them, then what? You'll just go "Aha! but what about these?", and post the next five hits. Rinse and repeat.
The simple truth of the matter is that I don't particularly want to discuss this with you right now. This doesn't help convince me otherwise:Can you EVER simply exanine the data objectively and allow yourself to be suprised at the results or is that just too heretical for a religious Church of Corporate Medicine zealot like you?
stickdog99 » Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:01 am wrote:mentalgongfu2 » 24 Feb 2021 08:12 wrote:Were one to bite on this "look at the evidence" attitude for a practice so thoroughly debunked in the past, it would perhaps help if we focused on one study in mammals and looked at the whole thing, from start to finish, instead of this effort to overwhelm with numbers.Such an effort of "look how many studies I have" could be easily countered, but if one's goal was to actually consider and evaluate, one might be better to take the most convincing study involving something close to humans if not on them directly and expose it to detailed examination. Examination, mind you, not argument. Comparison with studies that are accepted by standard medical science would be valuable as well. Unless the OP is willing to consider something along those lines, this thread is just begging for a shouting match with a specific poster who has wisely already declined to participate.
(1) Why? Why should we look at complicated human clinical studies that inherently have multiple confounding factors when trying to answer the basic scientific question of whether homeopathic preparations can have any biological effects whatsoever?
(2)And how in the hell am I begging for a shouting match by merely posting a series of interesting scientific studies with results that surprised me?
dada » Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:21 pm wrote:I don't mean to interrupt, but I have a genuine question. Say before I sleep, I drink a glass of water that has spent some time in moonlight, and I find that it improves my capabilities to dream lucidly.
Where does my lucid moon water fit in? It isn't technically magic, certainly isn't science, maybe a bit of psychology to it, maybe a lot. So I don't know, I'm thinking that a homeopathy proven scientifically would maybe miss the greater point.
dada » 25 Feb 2021 20:21 wrote:I don't mean to interrupt, but I have a genuine question. Say before I sleep, I drink a glass of water that has spent some time in moonlight, and I find that it improves my capabilities to dream lucidly.
Where does my lucid moon water fit in? It isn't technically magic, certainly isn't science, maybe a bit of psychology to it, maybe a lot. So I don't know, I'm thinking that a homeopathy proven scientifically would maybe miss the greater point.
dada » Fri Feb 26, 2021 4:24 pm wrote:I'm starting from the premise that there is no scientific basis for a connection between the light and the water, and the lucidity of the dreaming. Therefore I'm positing an unscientific connection between them to begin with. If science demonstrates that there is a connection, it in no way detracts from the unscientific connection that is already posited. As well if science cannot demonstrate that there is a connection.
Isn't the placebo effect kind of an admission by science of irrational effects. These types of irrational effects are so prevalent, the have their own category, placebo effect, and a key place within the scientific method. Not a magical effect, there's no conscious intention behind the irrational effect. But magical to the extent that it is irrational. So magical, in a sense.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 51 guests