Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Do atheists really exist?

2»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    so is it that people just think they are cured then?

    You say that as it that type of thing doesn't happen all the time.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    i believe that most common problems homeopaths cure is for pain related issues (possibly all neurological issues). This is where someone has serious pain that the doc down the road cant help with so the person with bad pain goes to wacko doc who does manage to get rid of pain. Now i can see how neurological pain cant really be tested but just infered and this of course would mean that it cant be proved to have worked quantitatively but qualitavely.
    Alternative medicine talks a lot about "pain". This isn't a coincidence.

    Pain is simply a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. A doctor won't say that a medical treatment or a drug cured your "pain", they will say that they cured what was causing you to be in pain. There is a big difference.

    These alternative medicines say they fix your pain. What that really means is they convinced a person that they weren't feeling the pain anymore, or that they felt less pain afterwards. They, cleverly, very rarely claim they actually cured the cause of the pain, because they probably know they did no such thing, assuming they even know what the cause of the pain is in the first place.

    The fact that a person doesn't feeling as much in pain after as before actually has little to do with whether or not the treatment has cured anything.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    To be honest i dont think these pseudosciences would be so popular if there was not some credibility to their name. do you not think?
    That is very faulty logic, logic shared by lots of religions (if jesus wasn't really the son of God why do so many people believe he is ... if Mohammad wasn't really a prophet for Allah why do so many people believe he is etc etc)

    It is an unfortunate trait of humanity that people rush to embrace easy solutions to difficult problems.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    And again i think saying it is just placebo is quite silly as some of the cures that homeopathy claim to cure can be serious enough.

    Given the choice between the brain some how healing the body and droplets of distilled water some how healing the body I will take the brain every time, no matter how unlikely that is.

    To claim that the placebo effect is some how more unlikely than water having a memory of a molecule that would have no positive effect in curing a person even if it was present in the water in the first place, is frankly ridiculous.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    Personally i have experienced it working on me and trying to convince you guys that it was genuine would be a feat that i dont think im capable of:D

    Well that is the thing. You have absolutely no idea if it was genuine, so you aren't in a position to do so even if you wanted to.

    If it didn't work and you are deluding yourself that it did you won't know you are, and as such are not in a position to tell us. If it did actually work you won't know it did, and again are not in a position to tell what actually worked, the homeopathy or the placebo effect.

    There is a reason why people do scientific studies and proper examinations of the effects of drugs rather than simply giving a patient a pill and asking him

    "So what did that do when you swallowed it?"

    If only it was that easy ....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,821 ✭✭✭18AD


    There're already certain therapies used and tested. Although, homeopathy is not one of them.
    http://www.ahta.org/information/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_therapy

    In any case, I'd say the way these things work is not that they directly cure the disease itself, but rather enhance neaurological functioning and in turn enhance the bodies natural defence system. But with this in mind, you don't need homeopathy to keep your brain healthy and maintain a positive outlook.

    People should utilise the placebo effect as it is beneficial. It'd be handy if this could be done without lies.

    All the best.
    AD.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    Ciaran500 wrote: »
    But we don't have to understand how it works. We just need to see repeatable results, surely that shouldn't be that hard for something that actually works. But no study has produced these results.

    Well there are plenty of results in many peoples eyes when they go to the theraphy and come out cured (or feeling cured but actually not, so the case may be ) like the many people i have read about and heard of. There was a great chat on the Pat Kenny show a couple of weeks ago with this author who had written a book debunking homeopathy and saying it was a scam.

    Loads of genuine callers rang in saying how she was wrong and that they had been cured from different problems through homeopathy and reflexology. Even pat kenny said that he went to a reflexologist who fixed his back pain when the doctor couldnt.
    Now i didnt at the time really care about the arquement going on but one thing i did notice is that the authors view was completely closed minded and when homeopathists (who called in) were trying to explain to her that the pseudoscience of homeopathy is unconventional to normal medicine and the usual ,"this chemical mixed with this chemical gives you a cure" is different to the way they combine their elements and create their cures she was just completely dismissive and citing the same scientific proof phrases over and over.


    As far as current testing goes i believe the knowledge to test these alternative types of medicine is just not there and is being aproached in a very clinical and blunt manner. The phrase "looking in the wrong place" springs to mind.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    The phrase "looking in the wrong place" springs to mind.

    The phrase "wishful thinking" springs to mind also


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You say that as it that type of thing doesn't happen all the time. ....

    well if someone is ill and then gets better from some kind of cure then usually they are cured. i really never did hear of people getting sick, being told that they have been cured (but not really) and going on with their lives healthy "thinking" they are cured and not ever noticing the sickness again. You either are cured or your not. i think your thinking of wacko patients who dont even know what planet their on.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Alternative medicine talks a lot about "pain". This isn't a coincidence.

    Pain is simply a symptom of a problem, not the problem itself. A doctor won't say that a medical treatment or a drug cured your "pain", they will say that they cured what was causing you to be in pain. There is a big difference.

    These alternative medicines say they fix your pain. What that really means is they convinced a person that they weren't feeling the pain anymore, or that they felt less pain afterwards. They, cleverly, very rarely claim they actually cured the cause of the pain, because they probably know they did no such thing, assuming they even know what the cause of the pain is in the first place.

    The fact that a person doesn't feeling as much in pain after as before actually has little to do with whether or not the treatment has cured anything. ....

    I understand the causal nature of pain quite well=) What i am saying is that these hompepaths can cure certain sicknesses be it neurological,physical etc not just get rid of the pain but deal with the problem causing the pain. Since i am talking of the causal nature of pain have you ever heard of downward causation? most scientists portray a very metaphysical assupmtion that there can only be upward causation e.g a patient gets ill so uses physical substances to alter the body to deal with the sickness. Downward causation would be the reversal of this where thought and will alone can bring about physical change in the body. i dont mean in a placebo way but as in a new paradigm.

    Check this for info as it is very ineteresting and can support some of what i say about homeopathy and the fact that scientists are just looking in the wrong place:

    http://www.noetic.org/publications/review/issue04/r04_Sperry.html
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is very faulty logic, logic shared by lots of religions (if jesus wasn't really the son of God why do so many people believe he is ... if Mohammad wasn't really a prophet for Allah why do so many people believe he is etc etc)

    It is an unfortunate trait of humanity that people rush to embrace easy solutions to difficult problems. ....

    i admit i phrased it like a theist would:D But surely you could see through my point. large numbers of people, millions possibly have claimed to be cured by these pseudosciences. That is proof enough for me. Not for you obviously but that is something we can just agree to differ on. I really dont beleive people are being scammed by these alternative medicines. The numbers just dont add up and its not like there is some propoganda trail to follow which leads to some kind of hypno advertising campaign making these people go to homeopathists and believe they have been cured from being a vampire or what not.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well that is the thing. You have absolutely no idea if it was genuine, so you aren't in a position to do so even if you wanted to.

    If it didn't work and you are deluding yourself that it did you won't know you are, and as such are not in a position to tell us. If it did actually work you won't know it did, and again are not in a position to tell what actually worked, the homeopathy or the placebo effect.

    There is a reason why people do scientific studies and proper examinations of the effects of drugs rather than simply giving a patient a pill and asking him

    "So what did that do when you swallowed it?"

    If only it was that easy ....



    well i believe it was genuine. i have experienced a variety of medications throughout my very young life and can tell the differnt side effects and what not. As i said i had the same cough recurring for years and had used different meds previously. They all had their unique tastes and side effects. I really dont trust all these pharmeceuticle products no more as they are corporate scum trying to get their products out there. The one time i try these sugar pills i went from bad chest cough to a huge difference the next day. My lungs felt great and i felt great. No other explanation other than that the pills did most definitely do something. ANd to top that off i have not had the same bad cough in the last two years. But i admit that could be due to the fact that i am living somewhere else.


    SUre can we just say its differences in opinion?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    well if someone is ill and then gets better from some kind of cure then usually they are cured.
    And if they just think they are cured?

    That is the problem with relying on personal diagnosis when assessing alternative medicine. A person will often think they are better after the promise of a cure, even if nothing has actually happened to them.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    i really never did hear of people getting sick, being told that they have been cured (but not really) and going on with their lives healthy "thinking" they are cured and not ever noticing the sickness again.
    I seriously doubt any of the studies you are talking about that claim to demonstrate homoeopathy actually cures have followed any patients long enough to actually determine that they never notice their sickness again.

    As homoeopaths freely admit it isn't supposed to be used to treat really serious disease, such as cancer, that don't just go away.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    You either are cured or your not. i think your thinking of wacko patients who dont even know what planet their on.
    No offence but you seem rather ignorant of this whole subject.

    You are not either "cured or your not" ... there is plenty of evidence that the bodies response to disease fluctuates and can be effected by other asks such as stress. There have been studies that found that simply visiting the doctor, even if he doesn't actually do anything, can relieve symptoms such as pain, suggesting a strong link between the mental state of the patient and how they perceive their symptoms.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    What i am saying is that these hompepaths can cure certain sicknesses be it neurological,physical etc not just get rid of the pain but deal with the problem causing the pain.
    There has never been any evidence that that is actually true beyond mere hear-say.

    Personal testimony is irrelevant because the vast majority of patients cannot themselves assess if the problem has actually been cured. Claiming you were cured is not the same thing as actually being cured.

    Any time this has actually been studied by people who could actually determine if a person is cured they found no statistical effect of homoeopathy beyond simply doing nothing.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    Downward causation would be the reversal of this where thought and will alone can bring about physical change in the body. i dont mean in a placebo way but as in a new paradigm.
    I have heard of downward causation and that isn't what it means. It doesn't say that "thought and will alone" can bring about physical changes, it is a general idea in philosophical science where the macro-functions of a system can effect the micro-functions rather than the more classical view where the micro-functions of a system combine to form the macro-functions of the system.

    An example of this in the area of medicine would be a person getting sick because of the macro-functions of a working environment. The macro-world (the work place made up of trillons of atoms, people, air currents, interacting systems) causes an effect in the micro-world of say the persons liver.

    It is simply a different way of looking at causality, some what related to chaos theory.

    It includes the placebo effect, so I'm not sure what you mean by "[not] in a placebo effect way"
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    Check this for info as it is very ineteresting and can support some of what i say about homeopathy and the fact that scientists are just looking in the wrong place:
    No actually it is the exact opposite.

    Homoeopathy is based on the idea of (very very) micro-functions (the interaction between the water molecules and the body) producing larger macro-functions (the disease is cured and the person gets better)

    The idea of downward causation would actually be used in with the idea that the water molecules are actually doing absolutely nothing and it is the entire macro-experience of the patient (the learning about homoeopathy, going to the homoeopathy, the whole ritual, the belief something has happened etc.) that can have a smaller (downward) function on the human body effecting the either the disease or the perception of the disease.

    In essence the placebo effect.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    large numbers of people, millions possibly have claimed to be cured by these pseudosciences. That is proof enough for me.
    Well it shouldn't be, though if it is I can see why you believe in this stuff.

    Million believe Elvis is still alive. Truth isn't a democracy.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    I really dont beleive people are being scammed by these alternative medicines. The numbers just dont add up and its not like there is some propoganda trail to follow which leads to some kind of hypno advertising campaign making these people go to homeopathists and believe they have been cured from being a vampire or what not.

    You have two things you need, 1) people looking for a quick fix cure, and 2) people willing to sell people a quick fix cure. That is all anyone has ever needed.

    As with psychics, you might want to consider how many homoeopaths work for free?
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    I really dont trust all these pharmeceuticle products no more as they are corporate scum trying to get their products out there.
    Well that could be exactly why you are perfect for people to sell homoeopathy products to you ...
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    ANd to top that off i have not had the same bad cough in the last two years. But i admit that could be due to the fact that i am living somewhere else.

    I don't even think I need to say anything here :)
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    SUre can we just say its differences in opinion?
    Certainly.

    Its your money you can do what you like with. It is simply that if you are going to post that you think it works I'm going to post that I don't.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    Wicknight wrote: »
    And if they just think they are cured?

    That is the problem with relying on personal diagnosis when assessing alternative medicine. A person will often think they are better after the promise of a cure, even if nothing has actually happened to them. .

    It probably depends on the person. Im definitely not one of those people. I just cant see how some1 who is in pain can think the pain is gone be it after 2mins of homeopathy.its either gone or still there. But i do see the logic in what you are saying and that has to do with placebo. People believe that its a cure so it will be a cure...and so on.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I seriously doubt any of the studies you are talking about that claim to demonstrate homoeopathy actually cures have followed any patients long enough to actually determine that they never notice their sickness again.

    As homoeopaths freely admit it isn't supposed to be used to treat really serious disease, such as cancer, that don't just go away. .


    Your doubt is based on your logical opinion and i fully respect that. Though dont you think if some1 who went to get treated by a homeopothist and found to be sick soon after would be shouting out scam. And lets say a million people went to get treated. Surely all of them would be going back complaining bringing about the demise of this so called science.

    Or else the oppiste is happening where people are happy with the treatment and being cured etc.....as i said something has to account for its popularity and you cant compare it to religion cause thats just plain brainwashing and psychological insecurity (or something along those lines). Maybe homeopathy is some new advanced kind of brainwashing though?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    No offence but you seem rather ignorant of this whole subject.

    You are not either "cured or your not" ... there is plenty of evidence that the bodies response to disease fluctuates and can be effected by other asks such as stress. There have been studies that found that simply visiting the doctor, even if he doesn't actually do anything, can relieve symptoms such as pain, suggesting a strong link between the mental state of the patient and how they perceive their symptoms. .


    If i seem ignorant it is merely due to a lack of knowledge.

    Now about being cured or not cured. I was not including placebo effects or mental states of patients and how they perceive their symptoms. I was quite bluntly saying if a person has a problem that problem can be fixed or remain. Man goes to doctor with sickness, doc gives medication, medication cures sickness, man no longer feels sick.

    Now there is other cases where people with certain pain in their body go to doctors to look for a cure and all they give is pain killers-this i would call being not cured as the pain killers are just supressing the pain. Homeopathy on the other hand claims to cure the pain that cannot be cured by doctors and as i have said that is usually the main bulk of their clients (so it appears).

    Now like you mentioned above about the studies of people who "feel better" (not cured) when they go to the doctors. I would just call these psychological affects related to illnesses of the mind or of a certain nature like neurological pain where it is bad neurons in the mind sending false signals or something. It has nothing to do with my blunt statement of "if your cured your cured" because someone who feels better when they go to a doctors office obviously still has the sickness they had before they decided to go there in the first place. It is until the doc deduces what the problem is that he/she can be treated and possibly cured.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    There has never been any evidence that that is actually true beyond mere hear-say.

    Personal testimony is irrelevant because the vast majority of patients cannot themselves assess if the problem has actually been cured. Claiming you were cured is not the same thing as actually being cured.

    Any time this has actually been studied by people who could actually determine if a person is cured they found no statistical effect of homoeopathy beyond simply doing nothing. .


    I do not believe personal testimony is irrelevant at all. especially in what you are saying. people do know if they have been cured. If i have a pain and its still there after treatment then i am not cured and it is most definitely not blocked by some kind of psychological block. Recurring symptoms are usually the sign that the illness is still there and you would need to be a bit messed up in the head to dismiss them and think you are cured.

    It is true that the studies have shown no conclusive proof of homeopathy working through those conventioanl/classical types of testing But homeopathists deal with treating their patients very differently than the way normal docs would treat theirs. And the relationship between patient, doc and the symtoms at that time all seem to be relevant amongst other things like energy physics. Sure have a look at this link and it will save me from explaining it (poorley at that)

    :http://www.hpathy.com/research/bhatia-scientific-research.asp

    Wicknight wrote: »
    I have heard of downward causation and that isn't what it means. It doesn't say that "thought and will alone" can bring about physical changes, it is a general idea in philosophical science where the macro-functions of a system can effect the micro-functions rather than the more classical view where the micro-functions of a system combine to form the macro-functions of the system.

    An example of this in the area of medicine would be a person getting sick because of the macro-functions of a working environment. The macro-world (the work place made up of trillons of atoms, people, air currents, interacting systems) causes an effect in the micro-world of say the persons liver.

    It is simply a different way of looking at causality, some what related to chaos theory. .

    well i know it doesnt say that "thought and will alone" thats just how i stored it in my head.Afterall the first time i read about it was in a Dalai Llama book and then from David Bohm who likes to be very philosophical in his physics.

    I appreciate your explanation of downward causation as it is very informative, thanks, but that is not the only way to describe downward causation. By thought i mean "non-physical" effects on the body bringing about physical changes (which could be considered macro). Not like emotional,psychological,environmental effects but ones of will and thought etc. And downward causation can be explained in this way also, you think of effect or an effect is somehow put in place that brings about the cause. this is the part that i see as being someway relative to the works in homeopathy. It kind of brings into it that whole idea of controlling your wants and the law of attraction.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    It includes the placebo effect, so I'm not sure what you mean by "[not] in a placebo effect way".

    Placebo is one thing, what i am talking about is another thing.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    No actually it is the exact opposite.

    Homoeopathy is based on the idea of (very very) micro-functions (the interaction between the water molecules and the body) producing larger macro-functions (the disease is cured and the person gets better)

    The idea of downward causation would actually be used in with the idea that the water molecules are actually doing absolutely nothing and it is the entire macro-experience of the patient (the learning about homoeopathy, going to the homoeopathy, the whole ritual, the belief something has happened etc.) that can have a smaller (downward) function on the human body effecting the either the disease or the perception of the disease.

    In essence the placebo effect. ".

    Again i appreciate the info. very informative and interesting.My views in its working are like above differnt and more based on quantum physics than classical.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well it shouldn't be, though if it is I can see why you believe in this stuff.

    Million believe Elvis is still alive. Truth isn't a democracy. .


    I dont think i have ever heard anyone be so skeptical of people being able to tell weather they are cured from a pain/illness or not. can you explain how this shroud appears over their eyes,aches and pains so that they think they are cured but not?. Baffled i am.:confused: And you know your elvis comparisson is just unrelated to this patient blindfolding situation. Truth aint a democracy but its sure hard to find.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    You have two things you need, 1) people looking for a quick fix cure, and 2) people willing to sell people a quick fix cure. That is all anyone has ever needed.

    As with psychics, you might want to consider how many homoeopaths work for free?
    .


    Ha, quick fix cure my arse. Homeopaths arent cheap and a panadol in the local shop is usually the quickest way no? besides homeopaths usually work from home and are quite hard to find. i would see an equivilent of the homeopath as being that expensive organic store around the corner.

    And a good point to say about homeopathy is that their medicines and dilutions cannot be mass produced as they have to be administered specific to the symtoms at that moment to the patient. This is to ensure that their medicines/methods work to the fullest.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well that could be exactly why you are perfect for people to sell homoeopathy products to you ... .


    it cured like a charm also=) i would recommend you to try it. next errectile disfunction maybe?:rolleyes:
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I don't even think I need to say anything here :).

    Just trying to show that i am being honest and not biased in my researching. It is still to me very plausible that science has not yet figured out everything in life and the physical/metaphysical world and why not an answer for this homeopath.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Certainly.

    Its your money you can do what you like with. It is simply that if you are going to post that you think it works I'm going to post that I don't.

    Well you have to try it to be a true critic and scientist. as i said when the micky fails again maybe try the witch doctor/homeopathist down the road in the ginger bread house. She might have exactly what you and the missus needs:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 424 ✭✭Obni


    I am just about as skeptical as anyone on this forum.
    A couple of years ago I was brought to A&E with abdominal pain. Before I could be opened up to whip out my appendix, the pain subsided and a barrage of tests showed nothing out of the ordinary. After a period of observation I returned to work and had no further symptoms for about 2 months. Then a letter arrived informing me of a standard follow-up out-patients visit, to check the status of my complaint. Within an hour I began to have sporadic minor twinges, which continued until about 5 seconds after my appointment ended. Psychosomatic pain. I suspected it was such; I was aware that the imminent visit was the source of minor stress inducing this vague pain; yet despite my understanding of the situation the pain (minor thought it was) persisted.
    The fact that you understand ideas like psychosomatic pain or placebo treatments, doesn't necessarily reduce their effect. Comprehension at a concious level can be over-ridden by ingrained anxieties or expectations.
    bogwalrus wrote: »
    I just cant see how some1 who is in pain can think the pain is gone be it after 2mins of homeopathy.its either gone or still there.
    [clipped]
    Placebo is one thing, what i am talking about is another thing.
    [clipped]
    it cured like a charm also=) i would recommend you to try it.

    Arrogance is a word often thrown at athiests, and perhaps it is, at times, warranted.
    However, nothing compares to the staggering arrogance regularly shown by supporters of such drivel as homeopathy.
    Why do so many people admit the existence and effectiveness of the placebo effect, yet proceed to state that in their particular case it was something else entirely?
    What makes them immune to the vagaries of the human mind, to which the rest of us are still subject?

    The fact that pain stops following treatment, especially low-level pain, nausea, digestive complaints, or minor depression, with no clear trauma or disease related cause, does not prove the efficacy of such treatment.
    For centuries physicians have been dispensing sugar-pills, bread-pills, foul-tasting medicines with no active ingredient, and administering water injections. All to relieve stress and anxiety and to convince the patient that their concerns were being considered, and that they were being appropriately treated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 418 ✭✭stereoroid


    I saw a great example of the Placebo effect on the Mythbusters show a while ago. They were testing seasickness cures, and a placebo was sneaked in to the test. One subject exhibited a placebo effect, and the other didn't. This matches other research I've seen (example), which concludes that while the effect has its uses, it's not going to work on everyone equally, and is not a substitute for proper medical treatment.

    What is interesting is that, even after the placebo effect was eliminated, they still found a natural cure (ginger) that worked better than the pharmaceutical product, and with less of a side-effect (drowsiness).

    (Insert standard "Mythbusters is not rigorous enough / it's only a TV show" remark here.)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    stereoroid wrote: »
    What is interesting is that, even after the placebo effect was eliminated, they still found a natural cure (ginger) that worked better than the pharmaceutical product, and with less of a side-effect (drowsiness).

    Medicial science has nothing against "natural" cures, when it can be demonstrated properly (double blind tests) that they actually do something.

    Any time anyone has tried to demonstrate properly that homoeopathy does something they have failed to find any statistical evidence it does.

    On the other hand studies on the effects of ginger have found that it can ease nausea.

    Just because something is natural doesn't mean it won't work. The issue is that people want certain treatments to work so they convince themselves that they do. If homoeopathy worked it should be easy to demonstrate that it does. The claim that it works but there are all these convoluted excuses as to why it cannot be demonstrated to work, is simply silly.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Any time anyone has tried to demonstrate properly that homoeopathy does something they have failed to find any statistical evidence it does.

    On the other hand studies on the effects of ginger have found that it can ease nausea.

    Just because something is natural doesn't mean it won't work. The issue is that people want certain treatments to work so they convince themselves that they do. If homoeopathy worked it should be easy to demonstrate that it does. The claim that it works but there are all these convoluted excuses as to why it cannot be demonstrated to work, is simply silly.

    Yes this is typical of woo logic, when defending Homoeopathy they'll switch in some natural cure which "Big Farmer" doesn't like. Nobody is denying that the active ingredient of aspirin naturally occurs in willow bark, nor that lots of plants such as poppies, cannabis, coca etc contain drugs which affect humans. And who knows how many more will be discovered?

    None of this has any relevance to the central claims of homoeopathy.

    1 - Like cures like - Something that makes you cough will (in a small enough dose cure your cough) - It's laughable, it's more like a children's game than medicine.

    2 - Dilute it until nothing is left - Now you dilute the active substance until there's none of it left. Homoeopaths see the problem here and now present "the memory of water" which basically requires all of chemistry and physics to be rewritten for it. However they now have another problem in that at the dilution levels they're talking about all water on the planet should pretty much remember all other substances. They now try and get round this problem by telling us they shake it in a very special way!

    It's all silly beyond words, and really shows that people will pretty much believe anything.

    Bogwalrus is not interested in reading the link to the ebook on how to construct a clinical trial, and to be fair this isn't that surprising.

    I'd suggest reading :

    Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking by Thomas E. Kida, which covers :

    Mistake #1: We prefer stories to statistics. Even a bad story is preferred over great statistics, and this shouldn’t be surprising. We’re social animals, so whatever seems to connect us to others will have a bigger impact than cold, impersonal numbers. This leads us to making decisions based upon a single story which may not be representative of larger trends while ignoring the statistics that tell us about those trends.

    Mistake #2: We seek to confirm, not to question, our ideas. Everyone wants to be right and no one wants to be wrong. This may be the primary driving force behind the fact that when people look at neutral evidence before them, they almost invariably focus on what seems to confirm what they already believe while ignoring what might count against their beliefs.

    Mistake #3: We rarely appreciate the role of chance and coincidence in shaping events. Odds are that any randomly chosen person has no idea how odds, chance, and randomness affect their lives. People think that unlikely events are very likely while likely events are very unlikely. For example, people forget how large the numbers around them are — an event with a million to one odds against it will happen given a million tries. In New York City alone, this means that several such events could happen every day.

    Mistake #4: We sometimes misperceive the world around us. We simply don’t perceive things happening in our vicinity as accurately as we think or might like. We see things that aren’t really there and we fail to see things that are. Even worse, our level of confidence in what we have perceived is no indication of just how likely we are to be right.

    Mistake #5: We tend to oversimplify our thinking. Reality is a whole lot more complicated than we realize. Indeed, it’s more complicated than we can deal with — every analysis we make of what goes on must eliminate lots of factors. If we don’t simplify, we’d never get anywhere in our thinking; unfortunately, we often simplify too much and thus miss things we need to take into account.

    Mistake #6: Our memories are often inaccurate. To be fair, this isn’t a mistake because we can’t help the fact that our memories are unreliable. The real mistake is in not realizing this, not understanding the ways in which our memories can go wrong, and then failing to do what we can to make up for this fact.

    (from http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/DontBelieve.htm )

    Here's a brief overview in the form of an interview with Kida:
    http://libsyn.com/media/pointofinquiry/7-14-06.mp3
    (Kida's bit starts about 9 minutes in)


Advertisement