Home
Molecules are not sentient, nor are cells.
A molecule/cell need not be sentient for "messages" to be possible. Computer networks are not sentient, although you could argue they are part of an overall "sentient" system which "decides" what to do with the messages. But then so is the human body.
Have they done studies on homeopathic practices? I mean if you take a shark out of the water when you try to prove he is the greatest predator on earth you won't end up with much of a result. As long as there is room to argue that homeopathy was not used in its "natural environment" people will believe the studies were performed by skeptics or had underlying confounding factors. What I suggest would simply be the gathering of data from homeopathic practices and follow up on patients to analyse the overall effectiveness of a clinic. In this way a practitioner who may have spent the month seeing the positive effects would see the true numbers of what occurred and realise, and then this information could spread that way. Although I am probably naive to believe that this would have any effect outside of the practice itself.
I'll debate it so the fence sitters that may not have thought about one thing or another will see another perspective and perhaps be persuaded to consider that the claims may not be as they appear.
A very good point. I do concede this. If people do not have this information before they go in they are more likely to be fooled when they don't realise how unbelievable homeopathy is. I do believe in balance though, so just as you can explain your reasons against, so too can they explain their reasons for, leaving the decision ultimately up to the patient.
The rest of that post I am in complete agreement with. The government should never even have considered funding or supporting a treatment that has not been proven to be efficacious. It is irresponsible and for all the reasons you have listed here. This doesn't mean it should be illegalised or anything though, IMO.
For your extra post of the "memory of water". Yes, the scientific community can quickly begin to exclude mechanisms by which homeopathy could work within known science. I do not necessarily agree though that for it to work it would require chemistry and physics to be overturned. Sugar-pill homeopathy to me though sounds even more ridiculous than the orginal premise itself.
Just an interesting thought if you care to discuss it. What if homeopathy could be classed as a sub-branch of placebos. I am just thinking that the difference between homeopathy and a regular placebo is that a regular placebo you are told that it is a medicine designed to heal you. Whereas if you are being honestly explained what homeopathy is, then you will be told that the placebo contains a substance that would effectively cause similar feelings to what you are having now, in effect logic would say it would make you feel worse. Could it be possible that different tacts of describing a placebo could have different effectivenesses? Perhaps this "negative" placebo could be a more effective method of placebo.... just a thought. Whether this is relevant or not is arguable as we shouldn't not be administering placebos, but it would be an interesting study to find out the results from.
A molecule/cell need not be sentient for "messages" to be possible. Computer networks are not sentient, although you could argue they are part of an overall "sentient" system which "decides" what to do with the messages. But then so is the human body.
Have they done studies on homeopathic practices? I mean if you take a shark out of the water when you try to prove he is the greatest predator on earth you won't end up with much of a result. As long as there is room to argue that homeopathy was not used in its "natural environment" people will believe the studies were performed by skeptics or had underlying confounding factors. What I suggest would simply be the gathering of data from homeopathic practices and follow up on patients to analyse the overall effectiveness of a clinic. In this way a practitioner who may have spent the month seeing the positive effects would see the true numbers of what occurred and realise, and then this information could spread that way. Although I am probably naive to believe that this would have any effect outside of the practice itself.
I'll debate it so the fence sitters that may not have thought about one thing or another will see another perspective and perhaps be persuaded to consider that the claims may not be as they appear.
A very good point. I do concede this. If people do not have this information before they go in they are more likely to be fooled when they don't realise how unbelievable homeopathy is. I do believe in balance though, so just as you can explain your reasons against, so too can they explain their reasons for, leaving the decision ultimately up to the patient.
The rest of that post I am in complete agreement with. The government should never even have considered funding or supporting a treatment that has not been proven to be efficacious. It is irresponsible and for all the reasons you have listed here. This doesn't mean it should be illegalised or anything though, IMO.
For your extra post of the "memory of water". Yes, the scientific community can quickly begin to exclude mechanisms by which homeopathy could work within known science. I do not necessarily agree though that for it to work it would require chemistry and physics to be overturned. Sugar-pill homeopathy to me though sounds even more ridiculous than the orginal premise itself.
Just an interesting thought if you care to discuss it. What if homeopathy could be classed as a sub-branch of placebos. I am just thinking that the difference between homeopathy and a regular placebo is that a regular placebo you are told that it is a medicine designed to heal you. Whereas if you are being honestly explained what homeopathy is, then you will be told that the placebo contains a substance that would effectively cause similar feelings to what you are having now, in effect logic would say it would make you feel worse. Could it be possible that different tacts of describing a placebo could have different effectivenesses? Perhaps this "negative" placebo could be a more effective method of placebo.... just a thought. Whether this is relevant or not is arguable as we shouldn't not be administering placebos, but it would be an interesting study to find out the results from.
