Homeopathy & critical non-thinking

[Peter Morris]

In http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html#7]his lastest commentry[/url] Randi comments on a failed test for homeopathy.

Well, I'm no believer in homeopathy, but I do believe in giving extraordinary claims a fair test. With just a little bit of logical thought, it is obvious that the test described was grotesqely unfair, so poorly designed that homeopathy would fail the test whether it worked or not.

Here's the problem: they ignore one of the fundamental principles of homeopathy, namely the claim that like cures like. So, if homeopathy is true, a dilution of snake venom would be an antidote to a smakebite.

Another flaw in the logic - Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely.

I repeat that this is not an endorsement of homeopathy. I see supporters spouting pseudoscientific babble to support their belief, and opponents spouting equally dodgy pseudoscientific claptrap to discredit it. I see no difference between them. The one is as bad as the other, IMHO.

Randi claims to be a critical thnker. Not so at all. He's highly critical, but not at all skilled at thinking. He'll believe anything you tell him, as long as you are speaking against the paranormal.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Here's the problem: they ignore one of the fundamental principles of homeopathy, namely the claim that like cures like. So, if homeopathy is true, a dilution of snake venom would be an antidote to a smakebite.



You are failing to include that concept of prvoing in your statement. Also what you are describing is isopathy not homeopathy (a sutle difference that homeopaths will tend to pull out as a last resort).
There are legit homeopathic reasons this wont work (provings have to be done over a peroid of time, some indivduals don't prove etc...) but the ones that are being used as an excuss here are not very good.

As for psudoscience how about this lot:

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract

A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of a homeopathic treatment of neonatal calf diarrhoea was performed using 44 calves in 12 dairy herds. Calves with spontaneously derived diarrhoea were treated with either the homeopathic remedy Podophyllum (D30) (n = 24) or a placebo (n = 20). No clinically or statistically significant difference between the 2 groups was demonstrated. Calves treated with Podophyllum had an average of 3.1 days of diarrhoea compared with 2.9 days for the placebo group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract

We conclude that this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of placebo. The improvement in both conditions was substantial. Improvement of such magnitude may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract

Swelling and use of analgesic medication also did not differ between arnica and placebo groups. Adverse events were reported by 2 patients in the arnica 6C group, 3 in the placebo group and 4 in the arnica 30C group. The results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo in reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in patients undergoing elective hand surgery.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

See plent of real science

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Another flaw in the logic - Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely.

"Often"?

I could only find one reference, and Randi is far from categoric:

"That fellow Kirti Betai, who claims I refused to test him, obviously has science at his fingertips. I looked him up in our files, and found that we'd refused his application because he wanted to do a thing involving eating food poisoned with snake venom. Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds."
Source (http://www.randi.org/jr/121203jref.html)

"isn't necessarily dangerous". Those were the words.

Perhaps you could show exactly where Randi "often" has claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed?

[Peter Morris]

geni said:
You are failing to include that concept of prvoing in your statement. I don't understand what you mean by that, please explain.
Also what you are describing is isopathy not homeopathy (a sutle difference that homeopaths will tend to pull out as a last resort). You might be right, I don't know a lot about homeopathy, and I've never heard of isopathy before. However, term 'homeopathy' is derived from two Greek words: homeo (similar) and pathos (suffering).

There are legit homeopathic reasons this wont work (provings have to be done over a peroid of time, some indivduals don't prove etc...) but the ones that are being used as an excuss here are not very good. Again, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

As for psudoscience how about this lot:
Once again, let me point out that I am not supporting homeopathy, I am just pointing out the flaws in one particular test. You can show me a thousand other tests, it won't change the flaws in this particular test. The only thing demonstrated by that test is Randi's lack of critical thinking ability.

CFLarse said:
Perhaps you could show exactly where Randi "often" has claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed? Here's a couple of other articles where Randi comments on snake handlers, snake venom and swallowing poison.
http://www.randi.org/jr/040502.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/042602.html

I'm sure I've seen a few similar comments from him on other occasions

Would you settle for 'several times' instead of 'often?'

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Here's a couple of other articles where Randi comments on snake handlers, snake venom and swallowing poison.
http://www.randi.org/jr/040502.html

This deals with a Peter Himmelreich, who tells of drinking rat poison. Randi says nothing about snake poison not being poisonous when swallowed.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
http://www.randi.org/jr/042602.html

This deals with a Tanith Tyrr, who tells of snake bites. Randi says nothing about snake poison not being poisonous when swallowed.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I'm sure I've seen a few similar comments from him on other occasions

I'm sure you're sure. However, that does not constitue proof.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Would you settle for 'several times' instead of 'often?'

No. So far, I have not seen just one single example. The one example where Randi does speak of ingesting snake poison, he says very clearly that "ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous".

That's a far cry from your claim - that "Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed".

Would you agree that you claim is, so far, entirely unfounded?

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I don't understand what you mean by that, please explain.

One of the central theories of homeopathy is like cures like. In order to use this you need to find out what symptoms are produced in a healthy person by the stuff you are going to use. So what homeopaths do is get a small (8 or less is typical) group of people to take the remedy see what symptoms are being produced and then claim the remedy can cure thoes symptoms. In short a remedy that can cure something will produce the symptoms of the thing being cured if given to a healthy person or so homeopaths claim (studies show otherwise)


You might be right, I don't know a lot about homeopathy, and I've never heard of isopathy before. However, term 'homeopathy' is derived from two Greek words: homeo (similar) and pathos (suffering).

The simplest way of thinking about this is that homeopathy is like cures like while isopathy is same cures same. Isopathy would involve making up a remedy from the thing that caused the illness. Homeopathy involves giving a remedy that is made up from something else that homeopaths thinks cause the same symptoms as the illness.

Again, I don't understand what you're trying to say.

A single does will have no effect on most people acording to homeopathic principles. It is multiple does over a length of time that will have an effect.


Once again, let me point out that I am not supporting homeopathy, I am just pointing out the flaws in one particular test. You can show me a thousand other tests, it won't change the flaws in this particular test. The only thing demonstrated by that test is Randi's lack of critical thinking ability.

The test was legit as far as it goes. It just doesn't go very far. Also the homeopath doesn't know his homeopathy. PRoving does not need to be indivdualy taliored.
[/B]

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Would you agree that you claim is, so far, entirely unfounded?

No, of course not.

In links posted already, we've seen :
Randi commenting DIRECTLY that one may safely drink snake venom.
Another comment about handling snakes, and drinking other types of poison.
another comment about how even direct snake bites may not be lethal.

All of them back up my original comment, that "So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely"

If I quoted a hundred examples of such, you would still deny it. You are just desperately grabbing at straws, making trivial objections because you can't stand criticism of your hero.

How about this, then:

"Randi has commented on at least three occasions that you can drink snake venom or other poisons safely, and even being bitten by a snake isn't nearly as dangerous as many people think."

Satisfied?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, of course not.

In links posted already, we've seen :
Randi commenting DIRECTLY that one may safely drink snake venom.

He does no such thing. He says "Since ingesting this (snake venom) substance isn't necessarily dangerous". He even went on to say that "and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth".

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Another comment about handling snakes, and drinking other types of poison.

But not snake poison.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
another comment about how even direct snake bites may not be lethal.

But not about drinking snake poison.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
All of them back up my original comment, that "So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely"

No, your original comment was about snake poison:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Another flaw in the logic - Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely.

You have not been able to show where Randi has claimed this just once.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
If I quoted a hundred examples of such, you would still deny it. You are just desperately grabbing at straws, making trivial objections because you can't stand criticism of your hero.

First, Randi is not my "hero". Second, I have yet to see you quote just one example.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
How about this, then:

"Randi has commented on at least three occasions that you can drink snake venom or other poisons safely, and even being bitten by a snake isn't nearly as dangerous as many people think."

No, not "safely".

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Satisfied?

It's not a question about me being satisfied, it's a question of you providing evidence of your claims. So far, you have been entirely unsuccessful.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by geni
One of the central theories of homeopathy is like cures like. In order to use this you need to find out what symptoms are produced in a healthy person by the stuff you are going to use. So what homeopaths do is get a small (8 or less is typical) group of people to take the remedy see what symptoms are being produced and then claim the remedy can cure thoes symptoms. In short a remedy that can cure something will produce the symptoms of the thing being cured if given to a healthy person or so homeopaths claim (studies show otherwise) ... The simplest way of thinking about this is that homeopathy is like cures like while isopathy is same cures same. Isopathy would involve making up a remedy from the thing that caused the illness. Homeopathy involves giving a remedy that is made up from something else that homeopaths thinks cause the same symptoms as the illness.

So you mean that instead of saying: "So, if homeopathy is true, a dilution of snake venom would be an antidote to a smakebite " I should have said "A dilution of snake venom would treat diseases with symptoms similar to those caused by a snake bite" Is that right?

Thank you for clarifying that point.

[Rolfe]

What is needed is for the homoeopaths themselves to come up with a test they agree is valid. Strangely, they never do.

Randi has made it very simple, and he repeated this in the latest commentary:Simply show us that you are able to differentiate between homeopathic and non-homeopathic preparations, by any means, and you win the million-dollar prize. By "any means," we mean chemical (qualitative or quantitative analysis), biological (in vivo or in vitro), physical (polarization, spectroanalysis, microanalysis), or metaphysical (Tarot cards, intuition, vibrations, auras, Kirlian, I Ching, guessing, spirit communication), or any other means.By "non-homeopathic" I presume he means the stock solvent - the chemically identical material which just hasn't had the dilute-and-shake mojo applied.

This actually leaves the door wide open for any design the homoeopath likes. (I'm surprised nobody mentioned dowsing, because some homoeopaths skip the tedious symptom-matching bit and dowse for the right remedy, and they claim that works just as well. I'm sure it does! :D )

The problem is that homoeopaths have over the years developed a sufficiently sophisticated "theory" that no matter what happens it can be accommodated within their belief system. This is easily seen in their approach to their "patients". Patient improves, great, homoeopathy triumphs again. Patient deteriorates, well, this was expected because homoeopathic aggravations are often a feature of the treatment and this shows that the remedy is doing something. Patient stays the same, must not have got the right remedy, start again, repeat until some change occurs (as it always does). Long-term failure is usually attributed either to the patient presenting too late, or to irreversible screwing up of the system by any "allopathic" medication tha patient may have taken, going right back to childhood vaccinations if nothing else can be found.

All the in vitro experiments are a waste of time, because every time an alleged effect turns out to be irreproducible (like Benveniste), it's, well, we didn't say that's how homooepathy works, we don't know how it works, must be some other way then.

The "provings", as Geni said, seem to provide the most fruitful avenue for investigation. These are the symptoms supposed to be caused by the magic water in healthy people. Many homoeopaths claim that they are so unmistakable that even a sceptic will be forced to admit there's something going on if they undertake a "proving", in fact many of them claim to be able to make even sceptics ill using the remedies. (Funny, these are the remedies that are so safe they don't need to be regulated in any way....)

However, if a sceptic takes them up on this, and then reports no effect, the backpedalling starts immediately - ask MRC_Hans, he's the one who tried it. Many excuses were offered, but the possibility that the whole thing was a pile of nothing couldn't even be considered as an explanation.

How can Randi possibly agree to a test which essentially states that someone takes a remedy, and anything that then happens is consistent with the theory that homoeopathy works?

So, it has to be up to the homoeopaths. Distinguish between remedy and solvent blank, any way at all. Seems to me that there are two areas where they must be able to do it, 'cos if they can't then their fundamental assertions have been disproved.

Treating patients. Get a bunch of patients with roughly comparable clinical complaints. Get the homoeopaths to agree that homoeopathy should be able to "cure" this problem. Send all the patients to the homoeopaths to be individualised and prescribed any way they like. Then make sure that only half get the prescribed magic water (or magic sugar pills), the other half get the blanks. Monitor the patients very closely, using as many objective tests as possible, and see if there is an obvious differnce between the groups. This has been done once. (http://thorax.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/4/317) Guess what, the homoeopaths (who had originally agreed that the test was valid), picked it to pieces as very poorly designed and proving nothing.

However, it's highly doubtful that a test like this could ever be arranged in such a way as to satisfy the requirements for the JREF prize. The other approach, the "provings", certainly could though.

The obvious design is to give a homoeopath claimant 20 or 30 batches of a remedy of his or her choosing, half of which are the real deal and the other half are shams. All he has to do is sort them out. This ought to be possible by taking the preparations himself and seeing whether or not the characteristic proving symptoms happen. Remember, these provings are the absolute bedrock of homoeopathic theory, the basis for selection of the remedies for patients, and if they're not real, the whole edifice falls apart.

Nobody has ever come forward to do this, though one of the participants in the Homeopathy Home forum did say recently that she'd like to try it. The main excuse (expressed as a serious concern by the possible claimant) is that "proving" a remedy makes you ill, and doing this ten or 15 times is too much to ask, even for a million dollars. Funny, when you read the accounts of actual provings (http://www.hominf.org/proving.htm), nobody seems particularly worried about getting ill - most of the "symptoms" are apparently normal everyday occurrences or psychological things (can you spell "psychosomatic"?) The second excuse is that trying to prove the same remedy again and again will only confuse the system, and it will become impossible to tell what is what before enough repetitions have been done to satisfy the statistical requirements for the prize.

You could cut down the number of real provings by decreasing the proportion of real remedies in the mix, but this would be at the expense of markedly increasing the total number of tests to be done (a lot more blanks). It gets a bit impractical after a while.

So, a friend of mine came up with a better idea. You get 20 or 30 homoeopaths, each of whom is confident that he can prove a remedy of his choice. You give them exactly what they say they can prove - half of them get the real deal, the other half get a chemically identical sham.

I can't see anything wrong with this idea. It seems to answer all the homoeopaths' objections. The only wrinkle is that presumably the prize would have to be split 20 or 30 ways. Still, it would be a reasonable hunk of money each, but not only that, the blow struck for the cause of homoeopathy would be immense.

Why aren't they queueing up to give it a shot? Because they know perfectly well, in their heart of hearts, that they can't do it. Homoeopathy only works when you're allowed to claim any outcome as success. When a falsifiable test is devised you can't see them for dust.

Rolfe.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
He does no such thing. He says "Since ingesting this (snake venom) substance isn't necessarily dangerous". He even went on to say that "and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth".

Yes, exactly. My point proven.

My original statement : "Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely."

Two parts to it :
1) Safe to drink
2) Dangerous if enters the blood through a snakebite.

Now lets quote Randi exactly
"Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds."

Two parts to it:
1) Safe to drink
2) dangerous if enters the blood through a cut in the mouth.

So, Randi said 'ingesting' not 'drinking' and he said 'cut in the mouth' not 'bite' Most people would agree that is this exactly the same.

But to CFLarsen, the two are a million miles apart.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yes, exactly. My point proven.

Huh??

Originally posted by Peter Morris
My original statement : "Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely."

Two parts to it :
1) Safe to drink
2) Dangerous if enters the blood through a snakebite.

Now lets quote Randi exactly
"Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds."

Two parts to it:
1) Safe to drink
2) dangerous if enters the blood through a cut in the mouth.

So, Randi said 'ingesting' not 'drinking' and he said 'cut in the mouth' not 'bite' Most people would agree that is this exactly the same.

Where does Randi say it is "safe" to drink? "Safely" means "free from harm or risk" (Webster).

Originally posted by Peter Morris
But to CFLarsen, the two are a million miles apart.

I simply showed that you are in error. You have been completely unable to show where Randi has actually claimed what you said.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris


So you mean that instead of saying: "So, if homeopathy is true, a dilution of snake venom would be an antidote to a smakebite " I should have said "A dilution of snake venom would treat diseases with symptoms similar to those caused by a snake bite" Is that right?

Thank you for clarifying that point.

Belive me homeopaths will never shut up if you get that on wrong.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Where does Randi say it is "safe" to drink? "Safely" means "free from harm or risk" (Webster).

When he said "Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous"

Not dangerous = safe.

I simply showed that you are in error. You have been completely unable to show where Randi has actually claimed what you said.

Apart from when he said "Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds." which is exactly what I claimed.

And when he talked about drinking rat poison.

And when he talked about handling snakes.

If you ignore those three, then he never said anything about it, other than on a few TV shows, and so on.
But you're right, apart from that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
When he said "Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous"

Not dangerous = safe.

He did not say "not dangerous". He said "isn't necessarily dangerous".

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Apart from when he said "Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds." which is exactly what I claimed.

Nope.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And when he talked about drinking rat poison. And when he talked about handling snakes.

Which was not part of your claim. You never mentioned either of these.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
If you ignore those three, then he never said anything about it, other than on a few TV shows, and so on.
But you're right, apart from that.

I am not "ignoring" them, because they were not part of your claim.

[tommjames]

Rolfe wrote:Why aren't they queueing up to give it a shot? Because they know perfectly well, in their heart of hearts, that they can't do it. Homoeopathy only works when you're allowed to claim any outcome as success. When a falsifiable test is devised you can't see them for dust.

Indeed. That's because the majority of homeopaths are undeniable fraudsters. However, what about honest ones who are merely deluded? Why arn't they breaking down Randi's door? There must be a reason.

My suspicion is that such persons who are stupid enough to actually beleive homeopathy works would find mingling with the likes of Randi incredibly intimidating... These 'skeptics' with all their big long words and clever sounding sentances indeed! And the way they don't let me get away with spouting off ad-hominem nonsense! Oh no no no, must not talk to these people. These skeptics are the enemy. They are the devil. They must be avoided at all costs, even if there's a chance of getting rich. I don't like money really. Money is the root of all evil. Money is the devil.

:rolleyes:

At the end of the day, people can whinge and moan at Randi's technique all day long. It is highly irrelevant. The fact that the only consistent thing about homeopathy is that it ALWAYS fails proper testing speaks for itself, and overrides any transgressions of fairness and objectivity Randi may or may not have made when assesing applications for the million dollar prize.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by tommjames
However, what about honest ones who are merely deluded? Why arn't they breaking down Randi's door? There must be a reason.I think you're pretty close with your explanation.

The other thing that comes into play is the natural "what's the catch?" reaction. Why is this prize still available for something that should be as easy as proving that gravity works? They really don't want to consider the obvious explanation, which is that actually, homoeopathy doesn't work. So they're very open to the other explanation which is that Randi is a fraud, any test they agree to will be falsified, and the million dollars doesn't exist anyway.

Unfortunately I think the thread was deleted in the big Homeopathy Home purge, but there was a sincere believer there, Anna Bryant, who said she'd like to give it a shot. She started asking for details about how often she'd have to do the proving to satisfy the statistical requirements for the definitive test. Then she apparently had a number of PMs from the most devious and underhand proponents, telling her not to associate with the enemy, it would all be faked to make sure she failed, and the money didn't exist.

I think the ordinary people who believe in homoeopathy don't understand a lot of the details of the provings, or even know about the Challenge. Once they really get into it, I suspect there comes a point where doubts begin to creep in, and that's when the religious quality of the belief puts up the barriers to considering anything that might challenge that belief.

The supreme irony is that one of the most blinkered and vituperative homoeopaths on the H'pathy forum actually has a definition of "cognitive dissonance" as her sig line.

Rolfe.

[Peter Morris]

Okay, I stand corrected.

Randi didn't say it's safe to drink snake venom unless it enters the blood directly through a bite.

What he really said was its's not necessarily dangerous to drink snake venom unless it enters the blood directly through a cut.

And on another occasion he said that its safe to drink poison, in an article about handling snakes. That's its safe to drink poison, rather than its safe to drink venom.

Yes, I was wrong, because I quoted Randi as saying its safe, when he really said that it isn't necessarily dangerous.

I'm sure that everyone will agree that's a huge difference there. "not necessarily dangerous" rather than "safe".

I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

sheesh.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Okay, I stand corrected.

Thank you.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
He did not say "not dangerous". He said "isn't necessarily dangerous".

Expanding the contraction, we get: "is NOT necessarily DANGEROUS." Since necessarily here means the same thing as "always" in this useage, and since the modal-logic opposite of always is "sometimes": it means "is sometimes NOT DANGEROUS".

Give it up Larsen, you're wrong on this (silly) point.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


Expanding the contraction, we get: "is NOT necessarily DANGEROUS." Since necessarily here means the same thing as "always" in this useage, and since the modal-logic opposite of always is "sometimes": it means "is sometimes NOT DANGEROUS".

Give it up Larsen, you're wrong on this (silly) point.

I am?

Maybe it's my English which sucks. Isn't the opposite of "always" "never"?

[tommjames]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


Give it up Larsen, you're wrong on this (silly) point.

But is it really just a silly point? Seems to me that adherance to logic and semantical exactness is the only true way to facilitate effective debate.

Just a humble opinion. Please don't pillory me. I'm just a newbie.:)

[geni]

It doesn't matter anyway. The claimed effect of proving don't always match the effects of the stuff when it it is taken in a normal concentration. So belladona won't be halunogenic.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by tommjames
But is it really just a silly point? Seems to me that adherance to logic and semantical exactness is the only true way to facilitate effective debate.

Precisely. (Pun intended :))

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I am?

Maybe it's my English which sucks. Isn't the opposite of "always" "never"?

Always means "every time"; the opposite is "not every time" -- which is "sometimes". Never is the polar opposite: "not any time".

[tommjames]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


Always means "every time"; the opposite is "not every time" -- which is "sometimes". Never is the polar opposite: "not any time".

Weren't you the one who told Larson to "give it up"?

:)

[geni]

I am starting to feel that we need a JREF dictronary: the presise mean of words

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Always means "every time"; the opposite is "not every time" -- which is "sometimes". Never is the polar opposite: "not any time".

Sorry, I really think you are wrong.

"Always" means 100% of the time. So, the opposite must mean "never". 0% of the time.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Sorry, I really think you are wrong.

"Always" means 100% of the time. So, the opposite must mean "never". 0% of the time.

You know what; the only way to solve this is to do a double-blind RCT with n=100; and ask people to rate whether "is not necessarily dangerous" means "is sometimes safe" on a scale of 1 to 10. :) Oh, and we have to make sure they're all native English speakers.

There is a qualitative frequency scale that goes something like:

never::only once:twice:every other time:every third time:half the time:all but a few times:all but once:always.

On the scale; never and always are polar opposites. But "sometimes" covers everything between "only once" and "all but once".

Necessarily means "absolutely every time x, then always y". "Not necessarily" means "not absolutely every time x, then always y".

[Rolfe]

Does it matter?

The bottom line is that no test sceptics can do by themselves will ever disprove homoeopathy. Sceptics try a proving on themselves and nothing happens - oh ask MRC_Hans, it's a waste of time. Sceptics try to replicate an in vitro study homoeopaths claimed as significant? Once they've exhausted the accusations of falsifying the method, the bottom line is that this just means that possible mode of action obviously isn't the right track. Sceptic tries homoeopathic treatment for an ailmant and it doesn't improve? The rational ones just say you need further consultations, and anyway, it doesn't work every time. The less rational ones get closer whan they say it won't work if you don't believe!

The only way to get to the bottom of it is to get the homoeopaths to co-operate in the testing. And they're much too busy seeing patients at $450 an hour.

Rolfe.

[BillyJoe]

Randi said......

".....ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth..."

This doesn't make sense because what he is saying is.....

Ingesting this substance is usually dangerous but not always....it could kill you if you had a cut in your mouth

See, it doesn't make sense.
I think what he meant to say was.....

Ingesting this substance is usually NOT dangerous but sometimes it IS....it could kill you if you had a cut in your mouth

Now this sentence makes sense and, what's more, it is correct.


:)


BillyJoe

[juryjone]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I'm sure that everyone will agree that's a huge difference there. "not necessarily dangerous" rather than "safe".

I'm glad we've got that cleared up.

sheesh.

Driving while drunk is not necessarily dangerous. It can be and has been done with no ill effects for the driver, passengers and others on the road.

Driving while drunk is not safe.

[TheBoyPaj]

Just wading into pedant's corner here...

"Dangerous" can have several definitions:

a) Involving or filled with danger; perilous.
b) Being able or likely to do harm.

(These are from dictionary.com)

Now, taking that second definition I suppose anything can be regarded as dangerous (even cotton balls if you choke on them), so it comes down to a relative assessment of risk. Drunk driving may not always end in disaster, but it is always dangerous, in that it carries a relatively higher element of risk than driving sober (or not driving at all!)

I am sure many parents would agree that running with knives is dangerous, though it can be done with care.

A crumbling cliff can be labelled "dangerous", though not everyone who approaches it will fall to their deaths.

Now, does anyone here actually know the effects of drinking snake venom (with or without cuts?).

[princhester]

The problem here is that in normal everyday communication, there is one person trying to express themselves and others trying to understand. This works reasonably well, despite the vagaries inherent in casual written or spoken English.

But when you have one person who is trying to express themselves and another deliberately trying to find a way to interpret what the other said in a way that will mean that the first person is wrong in some way, the whole normal system of human communication falls apart.

Which is why lawyers writing contracts express themselves in such a pedantic terms but no one else does.

When Randi writes his column he is just participating in normal everyday communication and he writes accordingly. If it were important to Randi that he not be misunderstood by the likes of peter morris, no doubt he would write like a lawyer.

It isn't, so he doesn't.

[The Don]

My two pennorth

If I was in Mr Randi's position I would say

Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds

To prevent something unmiraculous being presented as miraculous

[magicflute]

Entry: always
Function: adverb
Definition: continually
Synonyms: consistently, constantly, eternally, ever, everlastingly, evermore, for keeps, forever, forevermore, in perpetuum, invariably, perpetually, regularly, repeatedly, unceasingly, without exception
Antonyms: at no time, never, temporarily
Concept: permanency
Source: Roget's Interactive Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.0.0)
Copyright © 2004 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by juryjone


Driving while drunk is not necessarily dangerous. It can be and has been done with no ill effects for the driver, passengers and others on the road.

Driving while drunk is not safe.

No, driving while drunk is always dangerous. It won't necessarily be fatal, but there is always a high risk.

When is it ever NOT dangerous?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
The problem here is that in normal everyday communication, there is one person trying to express themselves and others trying to understand. This works reasonably well, despite the vagaries inherent in casual written or spoken English.

That's rich, coming from you, princhester, given your repeated demonstrations that you are unable to understand plain English.

Case in point follows.

[quote]But when you have one person who is trying to express themselves and another deliberately trying to find a way to interpret what the other said in a way that will mean that the first person is wrong in some way, the whole normal system of human communication falls apart.

Oh? And in what way am I doing that, then princhester? How am I "deliberately trying to find a way to interpret what the other said in a way that will mean that [Randi] is wrong in some way?"

Princhester, I am not challenging the accuracy of Randi's statement, far from it. As far as I know, princhester, Randi's statement was accurate.

What I am saying, princhester, is that the homeopathy test in Randi's commentry was badly designed, and proves nothing - like many of Randi's own tests, in fact.

The doctors in the test drank a dilute solution of snake venom, and didn't die. But Randi has commented that drinking pure snake venom "isn't necessarily dangerous."

Do you see, princhester, how useless the test was?

You, princhester, are trying to interpret my words in a way that would make me wrong. I commented on poor test design, you interpreted this as a claim that Randi is wrong.

Readers may decide for themselves whether princhester's misunderstanding was deliberate or intentional.

When Randi writes his column he is just participating in normal everyday communication and he writes accordingly. If it were important to Randi that he not be misunderstood by the likes of peter morris, no doubt he would write like a lawyer.

BillyJoe ithinks Randi meant to say : "Ingesting this substance is usually NOT dangerous but sometimes it IS....it could kill you if you had a cut in your mouth" I understood his words as meaning precisely that.

If you think I've misunderstood Randi, let's hear what you think he said.

[princhester]

Read this thread, peter. See what you've spent much time arguing about. And now since what you've been arguing has been shown to be a load of nit picking bollocks, you are trying to pretend you haven't spent the best part of a page arguing about it.

You are a joke, peter. If only you were funny.

[geni]

Ok lets got through your opening post.


Originally posted by Peter Morris
In http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html#7]his lastest commentry[/url] Randi comments on a failed test for homeopathy.

Well, I'm no believer in homeopathy, but I do believe in giving extraordinary claims a fair test. With just a little bit of logical thought, it is obvious that the test described was grotesqely unfair, so poorly designed that homeopathy would fail the test whether it worked or not.


Only if the effect was fairly boarderline and you could overcome the effcts with the power of the mind. But homeopaths don't claim that.

Here's the problem: they ignore one of the fundamental principles of homeopathy, namely the claim that like cures like. So, if homeopathy is true, a dilution of snake venom would be an antidote to a smakebite.

only if you had been bitten. Otherwise you would experiance proving effects.

Another flaw in the logic - Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely.

Meaningless. Proving effects (which are what homeopaths would claim you would expect) have nothing to do with chemical toxicity


Randi claims to be a critical thnker. Not so at all. He's highly critical, but not at all skilled at thinking. He'll believe anything you tell him, as long as you are speaking against the paranormal.

Your logic is flawed because you don't understand the ideas behind homeopathy. You could take a homeopathic remedy of sodium chloride and homeopaths would cliam that you would experaince some effect. Wether the stuff is toxic or not at normal levels is not signifcant.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The molecules of snake venom are usually too large to pass through the walls of the digestive system, yes?

But water can pass through just fine. If water truly remembered the properties of the snake venom, then drinking diluted snake venom would be much more dangerous than drinking snake venom itself.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris

The doctors in the test drank a dilute solution of snake venom, and didn't die. But Randi has commented that drinking pure snake venom "isn't necessarily dangerous."

So what? You also appear to have forgotten that the mixture contained arsnic so even by the logic you are using your position is not very strong. I have stated above the flaw in your logic.
[/B]

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
Read this thread, peter. See what you've spent much time arguing about. And now since what you've been arguing has been shown to be a load of nit picking bollocks,

you are living in a fantasy world.

you are trying to pretend you haven't spent the best part of a page arguing about it.

Another lie from princhester. I deny nothing. I still say what I said at the start, the test Randi comments on is seriously flawed, and proves nothing - Randi's own words help show that.

The only thing I have changed, is that I have modified slightly is my understanding of homeopathy, thanks to geni's correction. You might have a read of that, princhester, it shows the results of civilised, logical discourse., rather than your usual practice of simply spewing out your obsessive hatred.

You are a joke, peter. If only you were funny.

Once again, princhester has no logical response, and he resorts to insults.

Same old, same old.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
The molecules of snake venom are usually too large to pass through the walls of the digestive system, yes?

You could be right. I don't know the science. I thought I read somewhere that the venom is neutralized by stomach acids, but I wouldn't swear to it.

But water can pass through just fine. If water truly remembered the properties of the snake venom, then drinking diluted snake venom would be much more dangerous than drinking snake venom itself.

Except that homeopaths don't claim that "the water remembers the properties of the snake venom"

What they say is that the water takes the opposite properties of the snake venom. That is an important distinction.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
What they say is that the water takes the opposite properties of the snake venom. That is an important distinction.

Wrong. They make to claim that in health indivdual it will cause some symptoms (not nesscerlary the same as those caused by snake vemon poisening). It is only in sick people that it will have the oposite effect.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Except that homeopaths don't claim that "the water remembers the properties of the snake venom"

What they say is that the water takes the opposite properties of the snake venom. That is an important distinction. No. They do indeed claim that the water takes on properties of the substance in question.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No. They do indeed claim that the water takes on properties of the substance in question. Would you mind posting a reference for that? I've heard a lot of strange explanations, including this amazing carp (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35774), but that precise claim is one I can't immediately place.

Rolfe.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Oh? And in what way am I doing that, then princhester? How am I "deliberately trying to find a way to interpret what the other said in a way that will mean that [Randi] is wrong in some way?"Peter, you said:

"Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely."

Whereas Randi actually said"

"Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds."

Randi didn't say it "wasn't poisonous", he said it is not "necessarily" poisonous. Since Randi then went on to say "and yet might kill the man", I consider you have seriously misinterpreted Randi to imply he said it was "safe". (Unless you have a definition of "safe" that means "might kill".)

You then went on to say:

"Randi claims to be a critical thnker. Not so at all. He's highly critical, but not at all skilled at thinking. He'll believe anything you tell him, as long as you are speaking against the paranormal."

…which fits my definition of "will mean that [Randi] is wrong in some way".

So it seems to me that princhester summed your posts up pretty accurately.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

It was mentioned several times in the John Stossel interview on 20/20 that dealt with homeopathy.

Also see BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2512105.stm)

[Rolfe]

Oh, that's so superficial it's not really true. Finding out what (and how and even if) they really think is a whole new world of surrealism. Try some of these....

Walach, 2000 (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/walach.pdf)
Weingärtner, 2003 (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/weingartner.pdf)
Milgrom, 2002 (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom1.pdf)
Milgrom, 2003a (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom2.pdf)
Milgrom, 2003b (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/milgrom3.pdf)
Walach, 2003 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12972724&dopt=Abstract)
Thoresen, 2003 (http://www.vetlab.co.uk/voodoo/thoresen.html)

The one I linked to in my previous post (direct link here (http://members.ozemail.com.au/%7Edaood/paulc.htm)) seems to incorporate an impressive range of quantumzoid hyperbole.

If you show any of these to a real physicist, however, they're unlikely to stop laughing for long enough to explain the joke.

Rolfe.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Another lie from princhester. I deny nothing. I still say what I said at the start, the test Randi comments on is seriously flawed, and proves nothing - Randi's own words help show that.

Two backflips in four posts. That's pretty impressive, even for you, Peter.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by RichardR
Peter, you said:

"Randi himself has often claimed that snake venom isn't poisonous when swallowed, its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite. So, even if the solution was a poison, the doctors could drink it safely."

Whereas Randi actually said"

"Since ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth, we declined the idea on ethical grounds."[/b]

Randi didn't say it "wasn't poisonous", he said it is not "necessarily" poisonous. [/b]

Its the same thing. You are desperately trying to see trivial differences to try and make me wrong in some way. You are doing the very thing princhester accused me of doing

Since Randi then went on to say "and yet might kill the man", I consider you have seriously misinterpreted Randi to imply he said it was "safe". (Unless you have a definition of "safe" that means "might kill".) [/b]

Please read what I wrote.

Note that I said " its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite"

See, I said in my original post that it's dangerous if it enters the blood directly.

And Randi said "and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth,"

See, the point about having a cut in the mouth is that it allows the venom to enter the blood directly.

Which is what I said.

You then went on to say:

"Randi claims to be a critical thnker. Not so at all. He's highly critical, but not at all skilled at thinking. He'll believe anything you tell him, as long as you are speaking against the paranormal."

…which fits my definition of "will mean that [Randi] is wrong in some way".

So it seems to me that princhester summed your posts up pretty accurately.

except that princhester accuses me of twisting Randi's words to vmake him appear wrong.

What I'm doing is quoting him on what he really did say to show that he really is genuinely wrong.

(wrong about the homeopathy test, that is, not wrong about the snake venom)

I have no need to twist Randi's words.

I quoted him as saying that snake venom is safe to drink, but could be deadly if it enters the blood directly through a bite.

He really said that snake venom is safe to drink but could be deadly if it enters the blood directly through a cut.

You are altering the meaning of what I said, desperately trying to make me appear wrong, and then you accuse me of doing the same as you.

Randi fans are a strange bunch.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester


Two backflips in four posts. That's pretty impressive, even for you, Peter.

In what way did I 'backflip' you liar?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Its the same thing. You are desperately trying to see trivial differences to try and make me wrong in some way. You are doing the very thing princhester accused me of doingLOL, I just pointed out in a totally calm way that you are doing exactly what princhester accused you of.

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Note that I said " its only dangerous when injected into the blood directly through a bite"

See, I said in my original post that it's dangerous if it enters the blood directly.

And Randi said "and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth,"

See, the point about having a cut in the mouth is that it allows the venom to enter the blood directly.

Which is what I said. And you accuse me (twice) of being desperate? - "see" "see" "Which is what I said". "nah nah na nah na". LMAO you betray your own desperation.

I actually find it funny to see you torturing your words and those of Randi, until they have the meaning you require, namely that Randi is "highly critical, but not at all skilled at thinking". Ironically, in doing this, you betray your own lack of critical thinking skills. Face it, you overstretched in trying to turn Randi's words back on him, without checking first what it was he actually said. Claus Larsen called you on it. Now you're in a fix, trying to retrofit Randi's actual words to what you need him to have meant. Give it up. Or not, it makes little difference.

[BillyJoe]

All,

This is what Randi said.....

"ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous, and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth"

"ingesting this substance isn't necessarily dangerous" means the same as "ingesting this substance is ususally dangerous but not always". This is not correct. Ingesting snake venom is NOT usually dangerous. It is usually SAFE. But occasionally it can prove dangerous. Anyway, how does it make sense to follow this with "and yet might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth". I mean, we are waiting for an example of how ingesting snake venom is NOT dangerous but are given instead an example of how ingesting snake venom IS dangerous. This is why I think he should have said something like....

"ingesting this substance isn't necessarily SAFE because it might kill the man if he had a cut in his mouth"

This is correct and it is what Randi meant to say but it is not what he did say.


BillyJoe

[princhester]

Peter, can I start by saying that in my first post in this thread I suggested that you were trying to interpret Randi's comments in a way that made him wrong. In fact that is a simplification in this particular instance. You are trying to interpret his comment in a way that will impeach a particular "stunt" that Randi mentions in a positive light, so as to attempt to work up some sort of suggestion that Randi is being inconsistent. I apologise for the looseness of my criticism. I will try to aim my barbs more accurately, if that's what you would prefer.

Peter, if I told you that you could have unprotected sex with someone with HIV and wouldn't necessarily get HIV unless you had a lesion on your genitals, would you say that I had said that unprotected sex was safe? Would you say that I had said that HIV was only dangerous if you injected it?

That is the equivalent of what you said at the outset. A total distortion. If Randi did such a thing you'd nail him as a fraud and a liar, but you do it all the time.

And by the way matey, you want to accuse me of not understanding English and I'll provide a link for all the girls and boys to a thread in which you argue furiously for a bizarro interpretation of some damn thing that Randi said, only to recant finally when the pressure of opinion (from here and the SDMB) became too great. Do you really want me to do that? Knowing, as you do, that you are quite unable to find a single instance (here or on the SDMB) of any instance at all that you can link to of me being similarly wrong?

Up to you. Raise the stakes if you want to, but you might want to think carefully before you do.

But anyhoo, that is all pretty minor stuff.

The important thing (and I can't believe no one has commented so far) is the totally misleading way in which you stretch from what Randi's column linked in the OP actually says, to some sort of attempt to impeach his tests generally.

The article you link to consists of Randi quoting someone else describing an act by a few doctors that Randi calls, and I quote, a "stunt". I'll repeat that for the terminally thick:

A "stunt".

The relevant definition for "stunt" from the OED is: a "special effort, feat, show performance, display of energy, advertising device". Not a "test". Not an "experiment". Not something that Randi administers when homeopaths are trying out for the prize. Just a "stunt".

And yet you comment

Randi comments on a failed test for homeopathy.
Well, I'm no believer in homeopathy, but I do believe in giving extraordinary claims a fair test. With just a little bit of logical thought, it is obvious that the test described was grotesqely unfair, so poorly designed that homeopathy would fail the test whether it worked or not.

[My emphasis]

And then later you say

What I am saying, princhester, is that the homeopathy test in Randi's commentry was badly designed, and proves nothing - like many of Randi's own tests, in fact.

You probably know as well as I do what Randi's standing test offer is in relation to homeopathy and the million dollar prize. It has nothing to do with some "stunt" involving swallowing dilute snake venom and not dying. And yet you seriously attempt to segue from a "stunt" that Randi mentions, to an implied impeachment of Randi's testing techniques.

You criticise him for mentioning the "stunt" that these doctors did without pointing out the obvious flaws in it as a test

Did it not occur to you that the reason Randi didn't point out the flaws the "stunt" had, when considered as a "test" was because it was a "stunt" and not a "test", and Randi only considered it as such?

If Randi told a joke involving a ghost, a unicorn and a nun, would you start a thread pointing out that Randi is clearly a complete hypocrite because he's on record as saying there's no such thing as ghosts or unicorns?

Given that you are merely a fair and unbiased commentator, and not a rabid Randi hating malcontent, why did you pull this sort of nonsense, Peter?

And another thing. You will note from the passage that Randi quoted that the homeopaths objection to the "stunt" was that "the venom and poison had no effect, because homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual"

So once again, Peter, we see you in a role in which you have placed yourself before: finding excuses on behalf of the proponents of the paranormal that even they don't raise.

Remarkable.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
Peter, can I start by saying that in my first post in this thread I suggested that you were trying to interpret Randi's comments in a way that made him wrong. In fact that is a simplification in this particular instance. You are trying to interpret his comment in a way that will impeach a particular "stunt" that Randi mentions in a positive light, so as to attempt to work up some sort of suggestion that Randi is being inconsistent. I apologise for the looseness of my criticism. I will try to aim my barbs more accurately, if that's what you would prefer.

Which is what I've been pointing out all along.

At last, you tell the truth (almost) about what I actually said.

In fact, my criticism was somewhat stronger than that, but at least you have stopped directly lying.

Peter, if I told you that you could have unprotected sex with someone with HIV and wouldn't necessarily get HIV unless you had a lesion on your genitals, would you say that I had said that unprotected sex was safe? Would you say that I had said that HIV was only dangerous if you injected it?

No, Princhester, if you said that I would say that you were seriously misinformed.

In any case, that is totally different. The words "You wouldn't neccessarily get HIV" are not the same as saying "it's safe."


Lets have a better example.

If you had said "Unprotected sex isn't neccessarily dangerous but it might kill you if you have a lesion on your genitals" I would make the following comments:

1) your statement is factually incorrect,
unprotected sex always carries risks, for one STD or another. (I'll just qualify that by saying there are ways of reducing the risk, such as monogomy)

2) your statement is the same as saying "It's safe for anyone without a lesion on his genitals"

That is the equivalent of what you said at the outset.

No.

Princhester, this is very simple, please try to understand.

Someone approached Randi with a 'paranormal' claim that he can survive drinking snake venom.

Randi in response points out that drinking snake venom isn't at all paranormal. It's not poisonous when taken through the mouth. Almost anyone can drink snake venom safely.

But he adds a qualification that if he has a cut on his mouth, it might kill him.

That is the same as saying that snake venom is safe to drink in the vast majority of cases, only being dangerous in the rare case that someone has a cut on his mouth.

Which is what I quoted him as saying.

But you twist my words, and Randi's, to make me seem wrong. What a drongo.

And by the way matey, you want to accuse me of not understanding English and I'll provide a link for all the girls and boys to a thread in which you argue furiously for a bizarro interpretation of some damn thing that Randi said, only to recant finally when the pressure of opinion (from here and the SDMB) became too great. Do you really want me to do that? Knowing, as you do, that you are quite unable to find a single instance (here or on the SDMB) of any instance at all that you can link to of me being similarly wrong?

I'd be interested to see that, princhester. AFAICR I've never 'recanted.'

I have on occasion dropped out of a thread after I could no longer stomach all the hatred and invective coming from you. Perhaps you think that you won something, it's certainly the nearest you have ever come.

As for pointing out instances of you failing to understand simple English, sure I can, my friend. (Hey, if you can call me "matey" ...)

Example No 1

Randi's exact words:

here (http://thedesertdowsers.tripod.com/sun.html)

One of the more common claims by dowsers, he said, is that they can locate rivers of water underground.
"There are no streams of water flowing underground," he said. "There are large deposits of water that may seep through sandstone and move at the rate of 200 feet per year. There is no naturally flowing water underground except in caves. These people have delusions about underground rivers."

and Here (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)

Besides, the "underground river" notion that dowsers maintain is sheer fiction, not supported at all by geological research.

These remarks made by Randi were quoted by several Randi fans, and interpreted by the Randi fans as "Randi says that underground rivers are fictional"

I responded by posting several links showing that underground rivers are a really do exist, as do burried rivers, which are slightly different.

This is when princhester first demonstrated his own unique interpretation of simple English statements.

According to princhester, the words "There is no naturally flowing water underground " is not a claim that there is no water flowing underground. Oh, no, a direct and literal interpretation of his words will not do at all.

In princhester's mind the real meaning of Randi's is : "dowsers think underground rivers are common, but actually they are very rare.

Well, folks, I consulted some geologists to check the accuracy of Randi's statements. I particularly asked them for their interpretations os what the words quoted above mean.

see here (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=l9Qsa.12706%243n5.9208%40news2.central.cox .net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522It%2Bmeans%2Bthat%2B(a)%2Bdowser s%2Bbelieve%2Bthat%2Bwater%2Bflows%2Bin%2B%27under ground%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%2)

Please do look through the entire thread.

Their interpretation of Randi's words :
It means that (a) dowsers believe that water flows in 'underground
rivers', and (b) the writer of the sentence agrees that this concept is
wrong (i.e. "sheer fiction") and has no geological evidence to support it.

i.e. they agree with my interpretation of Randi's words, and disagree with princhester's interpretation.

I invited them to be generous to Randi, and can they find any possible interpretation of his words that would make them correct. They could not.

Princhester's response to this?

He insisted that his interpretation of Randi's words is correct, that the geologists have poor reading comprehension, and would be agreeing with Randi if only they understood him properly. :rolleyes

Don't forget, princhester, that you began this 'poor reading comprehension' stuff.

Example No 2

Randi made a comment giving two arguments against astrology. There was no dispute as to the meaning of the words, only which was the more important of the two arguments. I said #1 was more important, princhester said #2 was more important.

Princhester, desperate as ever to prove a point, posted a question to another forum, asking people there to judge which was the more important.

He cut out a large part of Randi's text, and changed the rest, which had the effect of altering the slant of the words. For a start, his editing removed Randi's sarcastic tone.

And the replies he got:

Some of them said that argument #2 is the more important, but if the tone was sarcastic, then #1 is the more important. (The guy posting this didn't realise that the original WAS highly sarcastic)

Some said argument #1 is the more important of the two.

Some of them said that argument #2 is the more important.

Some of them said that they are of equal importance.

Some of them said that the thing was so badly written it is impossible to tell which is the more important.

Once I posted Randi's exact words, some of them commented on princhesters dishonesty in twisting Randi's words.

And whichever one of Randi's arguments was "more important", there was near universal agreement even from Randi fans that Randi's arguments were poor.

And Princhester? He smugly posted a link to the thread, and insisted that every single one of the replies agreed with him. No matter what they said, his reading comprehesion abilities interpreted it as an agreement with his position.

Go ahead, princhester, can you do better?

[geni]

Peter Morris

Lets try this one more time. Chemical toxicty is not in any way relivant. the effect that was to be expected was what homeopaths call a proving. this has nothing to with whether the substance is toxic or not.

[Peter Morris]

Geni, lets try this one more time.

Sometimes people approach Randi claiming to have magic powers, and they can drink snake venom without dying.

Randi's response is that drinking snake venom is usually safe, and not at all paranormal.

He qualifies this by saying that it might be dangerous in the rare instance that the person has a cut on his mouth.

This does not change Randi's main point that it is usually safe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Sometimes people approach Randi claiming to have magic powers, and they can drink snake venom without dying.

Randi's response is that drinking snake venom is usually safe, and not at all paranormal.

He qualifies this by saying that it might be dangerous in the rare instance that the person has a cut on his mouth.

This does not change Randi's main point that it is usually safe.

So what? This has nothing to do with homeopathy.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
You probably know as well as I do what Randi's standing test offer is in relation to homeopathy and the million dollar prize. It has nothing to do with some "stunt" involving swallowing dilute snake venom and not dying. And yet you seriously attempt to segue from a "stunt" that Randi mentions, to an implied impeachment of Randi's testing techniques.

You criticise him for mentioning the "stunt" that these doctors did without pointing out the obvious flaws in it as a test

Did it not occur to you that the reason Randi didn't point out the flaws the "stunt" had, when considered as a "test" was because it was a "stunt" and not a "test", and Randi only considered it as such?

No, princhester, Randi didn't point out the flaws because doing so would weaken his own position.

He reported the stunt, uncritically, without thinking, because jhe will say anything to discredit homeopathy. He doesn't give a damn whether it's true, or whether it makes sense.

Thre reason that he didn't point out the flaws in the stunt is that he didn't want the flaws in the stunt to be seen.


If Randi told a joke involving a ghost, a unicorn and a nun, would you start a thread pointing out that Randi is clearly a complete hypocrite because he's on record as saying there's no such thing as ghosts or unicorns?

If he reported it as a true story, then yes.

And when he reports a stunt as evidence against homeopathy, it's fine to point out the flaws in the stunt.

Given that you are merely a fair and unbiased commentator, and not a rabid Randi hating malcontent, why did you pull this sort of nonsense, Peter?

I'm just pointing out facts, princhester. If you can't stand them, nobody's forcing you to read them.

And another thing. You will note from the passage that Randi quoted that the homeopaths objection to the "stunt" was that "the venom and poison had no effect, because homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual"

So once again, Peter, we see you in a role in which you have placed yourself before: finding excuses on behalf of the proponents of the paranormal that even they don't raise.

Remarkable.

From Randi's article "the quack's answer was that of course the venom and poison had no effect, because homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual, or they won't work."

And here we see princhester's lack of critical thinking. He assumes that Randi has accurately reported the critiicism's made against him. Like Randi is honest enough to report the things he can't answer, and never ever makes things up.

Here's a tip for your critical thinking , princhester. Whenever you see a quote, unattributed to a specific source, and failing to quote the exact words used, be very suspicious. Often if you can trace the original at all, you will find that the meaning has been very much distorted, or even that it is completely fictional.

This is what is known as a man of straw. Look it up.

Oh, and princhester, consider the "response" to the argument that Randi claims they used.
"If that's the case, why do the homeopathic companies sell over-the-counter medicines? I guess it's because they can't resist selling distilled water at $400 a liter."

Does this make sense to you, princhester?

If so, then I suppose you refuse to use pharmcies that sell drugs only available under a doctor's prescription tailored to the specific patient, taking into account that individuals medical history, but also sells over the counter drugs to anyone that asks for them.

Since you are not a hypocrite who swallows every bit of BS Randi spouts, I know for a fact that you will apply the same standards of logic universally.

If homeopaths are bad because they sell individually tailored medicines, AND over the couner stuff, then legitimate pharmicists must be bad if they sell individually tailored medicines AND over the counter stuff.

Or you might say that it makes perfect sense to sell both types, and the argument produced by Randi is his usual hogwash.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by geni


So what? This has nothing to do with homeopathy.

geni, the title of Randi's article was "poisoned doctors"

The text of the article said "Last week in Belgium a group of 30 doctors, incensed at the decision of a major medical insurance company to pay some of the cost of homeopathic medicines, publicly swallowed diluted solutions of snake venom and arsenic in a well publicized "suicide attempt." Needless to say, they're all still fit and well"

Randi was claiming that the homeopaths think the diluted snake venom should be a poison.

He wasn't saying anything about "proving."

You ae correct that this has nothing to do with homeopathy, but its Randi and the doctors distorting it, not me. That's the main flaw in the stunt.

[Rolfe]

Homoeopaths do qute often claim that homoeopathic remedies can be poisonous or dangerous, if not actually fatal. This is a good one. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1058569,00.html) However, if you ask the homoeopaths exactly how to do this, they get all evasive. If one of them does give out a recipe, and you try it, when nothing happens it always turns out that there were all those other things which you did wrong (like had a cup of coffee) which sabotaged the entire effort.

Non-homoeopaths designing tests for homoeopathy will never be acknowledged as valid. The only way to do it is to get the homoeopaths to design or at least agree that the design is satisfactory. And even that doesn't work, they just backpedal like fury when the inevitable happens. There are always a dozen good reasons in their eyes why the test didn't work, including, if all else fails, "well, homoeopathy doesn't work on everyone" - and "homoeopathy doesn't work, period" never even enters their consciousness.

In this climate, just making a joke of it all is quite a reasonable approach, and I suspect that's what the snake-venom-imbibers were trying to do, though probably not very well.

Rolfe.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Homoeopaths do qute often claim that homoeopathic remedies can be poisonous or dangerous, if not actually fatal. This is a good one. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1058569,00.html)
Rolfe.

Can you show that a majority of homeopaths claim this, or is it just the one?

And is he claiming that poisonous substances remain poisonous, or is he claiming that a non-poisonous substance becomes a poison?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Rolfe
In this climate, just making a joke of it all is quite a reasonable approach, and I suspect that's what the snake-venom-imbibers were trying to do, though probably not very well.

Rolfe.

As long as it is presented as a joke, then fine.

If it is presented as a serious demonstration then no.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Randi was claiming that the homeopaths think the diluted snake venom should be a poison.

He wasn't saying anything about "proving."


But the reason they think it should be a poisen ( or more likly just make you feel ill) is because of the proving effects.

If we wish, for example, to attenuate a drop of the juice of sundew, (Drosera rotundifolia, a plant, which, along with its various species, grows on moist meadow-ground, and is very noxious to sheep.) to the decillointh, but shake each of the bottles with twenty or more succusions from a powerful arm, in the hand of which the bottle is held, in that case this medicine, which I have discovered to be the specific remedy for the frightful epidemic hooping-cough of children, will have become so powerful in the fifteenth attenuation (spiritualization) that a drop of it given in a tea-spoonful of water would endanger the life of such a child;

Taken from the ultimate homeopathic source (http://www.minutus.org/howsmall.htm).

I have no shortage of other referances to back this up since it is one of the coner stones of homeopathy.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Can you show that a majority of homeopaths claim this, or is it just the one?

And is he claiming that poisonous substances remain poisonous, or is he claiming that a non-poisonous substance becomes a poison? This is an extremely difficult one. Homoeopaths are very slippery customers, and frequently shift their ground if things don't pan out the way they predicted. On the one hand, they will defend the right of homoeopathic remedies not to have to submit to any formal tests, because it's only water (or sugar), so obviously it's safe. But if you ask them to take the JREF Challenge by "proving" a remedy of their choice, that is taking it themselves and observing the characteristic symptoms it's supposed to produce, they plead that this would make them ill. Maybe they could do it once, but since the statistics of the test would require them to do it maybe ten times (to show that their ability to tell real remedy from placebo wasn't simply a lucky guess), they daren't try.

There was a fascinating thread on this at Homeopathy Home, where a homoeopath called Anna Bryant declared that she'd try it in spite of the dangers, but the thread was deleted in a purge of anything critical of homeopathy on the site. You could try this thread at H'pathy (http://www.hpathy.com/FORUM/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=8&TopicID=947&PagePosition=1) - they get on to ill effects towards the bottom of the first page.

I think any substance might produce ill effects, in their book - the proving symptoms are entirely delusional in any case, so even salt or onion might do all sorts of horrible things, in theory. In reality - if you can get two homoeopaths to agree on anything, you'll be lucky.

I think the demonstration that Randi was referring to wasn't entirely serious - it was just a protest against the reimbursement of homoeopathic remedies by health insurance. For serious tests, apply to Geni - he has a great collection, all done rigorously according to protocols approved by homoeopaths in advance, then repudiated as "fatally flawed from a homoeopathic perspective" as soon as the inevitable null effect was shown.

Rolfe.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
[B]As for pointing out instances of you failing to understand simple English, sure I can, my friend... [etc]

Peter I am not in the slightest bit interested in your revisionist history. The examples you give are a tissue of lies. I note you fail to provide links at key points. Too embarrassing I suspect.

Just provide a link to a particular post in which I have failed to understand simple English.

I'll show you what I mean:

Here's (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27015&perpage=40&pagenumber=6) a link to a post in which you put your bizarre interpretation on something Randi said (about the third or fourth post down from the top).

And then on this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27015&perpage=40&pagenumber=8) page you say in post about 80% of the way down the page, when asked whether you are sticking with your original interpretation, that you are reserving judgement and the matter was not as clear cut in your favour as you'd thought. That's as close to an admission as you'd ever get. You also stated in that post that you were going off to some other forum to put a question and would revert with the responses. Of course, you never did. Wonder why?

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
No, princhester, Randi didn't point out the flaws because doing so would weaken his own position.

He reported the stunt, uncritically, without thinking, because jhe will say anything to discredit homeopathy. He doesn't give a damn whether it's true, or whether it makes sense.

Thre reason that he didn't point out the flaws in the stunt is that he didn't want the flaws in the stunt to be seen.

For someone who shows no empathy towards Randi you sure know exactly what he's thinking. Thanks for enlightening us. What did Randi have for breakfast this morning? Do you know that too? Don't worry if you don't know, just make something up...

And when he reports a stunt as evidence against homeopathy, it's fine to point out the flaws in the stunt.

And where in the commentary that you refer to does he report the stunt as "evidence"? I've read the article several times, I'm probably missing the relevant bit. Enlighten me.

I'm just pointing out facts, princhester. If you can't stand them, nobody's forcing you to read them.

Sure you are. So explain to me again how you go from a mention of a "stunt" to an impeachment of Randi's "tests". Because that's the link you made. Or are you dropping that particular position?

And here we see princhester's lack of critical thinking. He assumes that Randi has accurately reported the critiicism's made against him. Like Randi is honest enough to report the things he can't answer, and never ever makes things up.

If one adopts an a priori position that Randi is utterly untrustworthy, then certainly one is in a position where one not only should but must dismiss anything that Randi says. However, one must have a reason to adopt that position in the first place, otherwise one's position is just self fulfilling: I don't trust Randi because he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements. I know he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements because they are made by Randi. Randi is untrustworthy. How do I know that? Becaue he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements.

And by the way, I know that my reading abilities are seriously impaired and yours are godlike, but could you point out to me where Randi reports the criticisms made "against him"? Can you point to "the argument produced by Randi"? I was of the impression that all he does in the article to which you linked was give a brief intro to a piece written by someone else. I can't find any criticism of Randi. I can't find any argument produced by Randi.

As to the rest of your post, it's pretty simple: the quack is supposed to have said that "homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual [my emphasis]".

Have to be. And yet homeopaths sell OTC stuff all the time. This is a contradiction.

There is no analogy to be drawn to conventional medicine because no doctor would say "conventional medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual". Some do of course, but not all.

Of course you'll probably just say (conveniently) well the quack was probably misquoted. After all, you know that Randi is untrustworthy. So anything he says that might tend to support the accuracy of his position is not to be trusted. How do you know that it is not to be trusted? Because his position is inaccurate. How do you know it is inaccurate? Because what he says to support the accuracy of his position is not to be trusted.

[BillyJoe]

Has anyone else noticed that Princhester and Peter Morris have very similar ways of speaking. Including politely addressing each other as "Princhester" and "Peter" respectively several times throughout their posts. It's bizarre since they are so obviously at loggerheads in their opinions.

Or maybe it's just me?

BJ

[princhester]

Peter, speaking of English comprehension, I note you've been giving a few Americans a lesson in word usage and logic in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35037) thread. Well done. Bravo. You sure taught them ignorant 'Mericans a snide little lesson there.

That was sarcasm, Peter. Are you getting the hang of this yet?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Has anyone else noticed that Princhester and Peter Morris have very similar ways of speaking....I'm not sure which one's which, actually, and I've long since lost sight of the point they were making - if either of them ever had one in the first place.

Read the original Commentary again, children. (http://www.randi.org/jr/020604monk.html#7)

Randi describes it as "a stunt". He's quoting a letter from a reader, describing a protest demonstration stunt, against insurance companies who paid out for homoeopathic remedies. Randi also mentions that he himself has done the same "stunt" on a number of occasions. He describes it as "effective", but this seems to be in terms of publicity value, not as a meaningful piece of science.

Nowhere does anyone claim that it was any sort of rigorous proof against homoeopathy - it was a publicity stunt, pure and simple.

If Randi is making any point at all, as opposed to just passing on a mildly amusing story, it's that whatever protocol anyone adopts to test homoeopathy, when there is no effect, the homoeopaths will immediately claim that the protocol was fatally flawed. This is perfectly true, and although this stunt wasn't one of the best examples, it's a perfectly fair point.

Now, what was the argument about again?

Rolfe.

[princhester]

Well my habit of referring to people by their names comes from the fact that a couple of times when I've been being quite harsh, other posters have thought I'm being harsh about them (when you get involved in a fast moving multiparty debate sometimes it's not clear who you are addressing). Don't know why Peter does it.

I sometimes post with exaggerated politeness towards Peter because if you get snarky, he concentrates on that and says you have no actual arguments, just abuse.

Also, he's English and I'm Australian. We tend to use sarcasm (or is it irony?) a lot. Americans tend to speak more sincerely. There's a tale of a rather regrettable incident involving me, this American girl and a certain misunderstanding that I could bore you with...

[geni]

Originally posted by Rolfe
If Randi is making any point at all, as opposed to just passing on a mildly amusing story, it's that whatever protocol anyone adopts to test homoeopathy, when there is no effect, the homoeopaths will immediately claim that the protocol was fatally flawed. This is perfectly true, and although this stunt wasn't one of the best examples, it's a perfectly fair point.

You have to admit that it is amussing that they can't even get the right excuse.

[princhester]

Rolfe it's somewhat annoying that you would firstly imply that I have no point, then proceed to copy my point precisely as if I'd never made it. Check out the latter part of my post on 21 Feb. I was actually the first person in this thread to get to the nub of the matter as subsequently repeated by you, namely that Peter's treatment of Randi's mention of someone elses's stunt, as if it were indicative of or had anything to do with Randi's testing own testing standards, is absurd.

Of course, I do tend to get overly involved in putting the boot into Peter, which no doubt bores everyone stupid and causes my point to be lost. My fault really.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by princhester
Of course, I do tend to get overly involved in putting the boot into Peter, which no doubt bores everyone stupid and causes my point to be lost. My fault really.You understand perfectly. The whole exchange has become so personal that I've completely lost sight of which one of you is arguing from which position.

However, it seems to have been Peter who said:He reported the stunt, uncritically, without thinking, because he will say anything to discredit homeopathy.Seems to me Randi reported the stunt because it was mildly amusing. And homoeopath-baiting is always fair game to wile away the odd half-hour.

Peter, when you say that Randi "will do anything to discredit homoeopathy", are you implying that there is anything at all to be said in defence of homoeopathy, or any reason why the lot of us shoudn't go round doing all the discrediting we can pack into the day?

Bear in mind that these are people who claim to be able to help sick people, by charging a lot of money for long consultations during which an entirely fallacious theory of disease is applied (disturbances in the non-existent "vital force"), followed by a prescription for a "remedy" which contains nothing but the basic solvent material (water/alcohol or lactose). These content-free remedies aren't especially cheap either, considering what is(n't) in them.

Either there is evidence we don't know about why this works, in defiance of everything we know about chemistry and physics, in which case they should have no trouble at all walking off with the million dollars, or these people are perpetrating a particularly nasty and cynical health-fraud rip-off. (Oh, all right, some of them are probably sincerely deluded, too.)

There's a reason why these people aren't fair game for any criticism or discrediting that takes Randi's fancy?

By the way, regarding the OTC remedies. It's the homoeopaths themselves whose basic "theory" says that every remedy must be individualised for the patient by a trained homoeopath. They repeat this frequently, to justify these long and expensive consultations. It is from their own mouths that the practice of selling OTC homoeopathic remedies is condemned. But they still do it. The fact that there are real medicines which can be perfectly reasonably sold OTC for common minor complaints, doesn't alter this anomaly in the slightest.

Rolfe.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
Peter I am not in the slightest bit interested in your revisionist history. The examples you give are a tissue of lies. I note you fail to provide links at key points. Too embarrassing I suspect.

Just provide a link to a particular post in which I have failed to understand simple English.

Easy.

Folks, the link that Princhester himself gives shows his lack of understanding.

As reported above, he and I had a disagreement as to which one of Randi's two sentences was more important. I said #1 was more important, Princhester said #2 was more important.

Trying to prove a point, he posted a question to another forum, desperate for someone to agree with him.

He has shown himself unable to understand the answers he received.

Check out his own words, in the very link he posted above.
reposted here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27015&perpage=40&pagenumber=8)

Originally posted by princhester
Peter, check out this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=218384) Straightdope thread.

You are of course quite correct about your interpretation of Randi's comment under discussion. You are right about everything. It's just that everyone else on the planet is wrong. A bit later he said: Almost every Doper who responded needs a lesson from you in English comprehension, surely? Aren't you going to pop in and give them the benefit of your wisdom? Perhaps you could use the "teacher" smilie on them? And later still he said Poster after poster says you are wrong. Some say that Randi was giving about equal emphasis to both points, some say that Randi's comments were ambiguous (but notably none say that after seeing the full context) and a big fat nil say that Randi's main point was what you say it is.

Well, folks, check princhester's link, just have a read of the responses that princhester received.

Did they agree with me that #1 is more important?

Did they agree with princhester that #2 was more important?

Actually, most of them said that the two are of equal imporatance, or that the sentence is so badly written you can't tell which is more important.

Yup, they disagreed with both of us.

Even the ones seeming to agree with Princhester did so only after he told them what they ought to think, and twisted Randi's words to suit his own agenda.

Check their exact words, folks.

Joe Random : "neither"

Squink said "It is a poorly constructed sentence ... and the main point, gets lost."

Eonwe: "Except, of course, when you're employing sarcasm such as ... "

Note: Randi's original comment was as sarcastic as usual. Princhester's editing removed that fact.

Wendell Wagner : ". O.K., the problem is that dividing things into main points and secondary points isn't useful, or even possible, based on this single sentence.... To know what this person's main and secondary points are, we would have to analyze the entire conversation, not just one sentence."

Vern Winterbottom "I'd say Joe doesn't go to the beach for both reasons."

Gadarene : "Alternatively, Randi could be using the "aside from" sarcastically in the manner of Eonwe, above. Were that the case, the emphasis would be on "irrational premises." Like so, maybe:"

The Ryan (a Randi fan I have crossed swords with in the past) said " And the OP certainly raised red flags in my mind (looked like an attempt to present only the favorable side of the argument),"

Yup, folks, a Randi fan questions princhester's honesty, and princhester believes everyone agrees with him. Go figure.

Wendell Wagner : "I don't think that it's useful to try to call one argument more important than the other. In fact, the more I read the statement, the more I think that it's not well written and it's not useful to try to figure out what Randi was saying."

Princhester has read the words, but he is incapable of understanding them. He remains totally convinced that every single one of the posters agreed with him. Sure, they disagreed with me, but they disagreed with princhester just as strongly. Princhester, however, thinks he has been vindicated.

Princhester links to this, smugly claiming that I had a "bizzarre interpretation" of Randi's words. He cannot understand thatm the replies he got show that his interpretation is equally "bizzarre" AND he cannot understand the replies to his question either.

That, my friends, is why I say princhester does not understand simple English.

[Rolfe]

Gosh, and when I saw that Peter had posted, I thought it might be that he's answered my quesiton about whether he had any sort of problem with criticising the sellers of magic content-free sugar pills.

Oh well, maybe another day.

Rolfe.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester [quote] Sure you are. So explain to me again how you go from a mention of a "stunt" to an impeachment of Randi's "tests". Because that's the link you made. Or are you dropping that particular position?

Because the "stunt" was logically flawed, and Randi shows the same sort of logical flaws when he devises a test. Then he crows because the "woo-woos" refuse to take the test that he has devised, and claim that it is because they know they cannot succeed.

He refuses to consider that they might refuse his test because his tests are crap.



If one adopts an a priori position that Randi is utterly untrustworthy, then certainly one is in a position where one not only should but must dismiss anything that Randi says. However, one must have a reason to adopt that position in the first place, otherwise one's position is just self fulfilling: I don't trust Randi because he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements. I know he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements because they are made by Randi. Randi is untrustworthy. How do I know that? Becaue he makes wildly inaccurate pronouncements. [quote]

Princhester, have a read of the above. You are not even attempting to n answer any of my points, you are just making a vitriolic personal attack on me.

I am specific in my criticisms of Randi. I don't simply make accusations that Randi is a liar. What I do is to quote a specific claim that Randi has made, demonstrate it to be untrue, and THEN call him a liar.

You, by contrast, just spew out your hate toward me, make wild accusations about me,like the above, with nothing to back them up.

95% of your output is this sort of thing, the rest is silly quibbles such as the difference between a "stunt" and a "test"

[quote]As to the rest of your post, it's pretty simple: the quack is supposed to have said that "homeopathic medicines have to be tailored to the specific individual [my emphasis]".

Have to be. And yet homeopaths sell OTC stuff all the time. This is a contradiction.

Really, princhester? Which quack would that be, then? Give the name.

What were hi9s exact words, princhester?

Since you are basing your argument on him using this precise word, rather than that alternative word, you must presumably know exactly what he said, even though it wasn't reported in the article.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
Peter, speaking of English comprehension, I note you've been giving a few Americans a lesson in word usage and logic in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35037) thread. Well done. Bravo. You sure taught them ignorant 'Mericans a snide little lesson there.

That was sarcasm, Peter. Are you getting the hang of this yet?

Sigh. I made a little joke, then I explained that I was making a joke. I didn't wan't trolls accusing me of really thinking they are psychic.

What part of this don't you understand?

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Randi describes it as "a stunt". He's quoting a letter from a reader, describing a protest demonstration stunt, against insurance companies who paid out for homoeopathic remedies. Randi also mentions that he himself has done the same "stunt" on a number of occasions. He describes it as "effective", but this seems to be in terms of publicity value, not as a meaningful piece of science.

Nowhere does anyone claim that it was any sort of rigorous proof against homoeopathy - it was a publicity stunt, pure and simple.

Publicity for what, exactly? When Randi does it as a publicity stunt, what is he publicising?

It seems to me that he is publicising the idea that homeopathy doesn't work.

Which begs the question that the "stunt" is a meanigful indication.

[geni]

Peter Morris

You are making the mistake of applying real world logic to homeopathy. It has been explained why the toxicty of the substances involed is not relivant. Therefor it does not matter whether or not Randi or anyone else thinks that the substance is toxic or not.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester I sometimes post with exaggerated politeness towards Peter because if you get snarky, he concentrates on that and says you have no actual arguments, just abuse.

Gee, princhester, if this is you being polite, I'd sure hate to catch you on a bad day.

The fact is, the majority of your posts consist of nothing but hate and are devoid of any actual argument.

On the rare occasions that you actually produce an argument, its on the level of quibbling whether its a stunt or a test.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Publicity for what, exactly? When Randi does it as a publicity stunt, what is he publicising?

It seems to me that he is publicising the idea that homeopathy doesn't work.The stunt described in the commentary was put up by a bunch of real doctors to publicise the fact that health insurance companies were throwing away their clients' funds by paying for content-free "medicine".

Do you have a problem with bringing it to people's attention that homoeopathy doesn't work (not a great surprise, since there's nothing but sugar in the so-called "remedies"), and that it's a waste of money?

Rolfe.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Peter, when you say that Randi "will do anything to discredit homoeopathy", are you implying that there is anything at all to be said in defence of homoeopathy, or any reason why the lot of us shoudn't go round doing all the discrediting we can pack into the day?


Let me clarify a few points.

No, I don't (currently) believe in homeopathy, or even know a great deal about it. I still don't understand the 'proving' concept that geni was taliking about.

Nor do I have anything against people trying to discredit homeopathy, or other paranormal ideas, as long as they do it honestly. When Randi tells lies to discredit paranormal claims I object on three grounds.

First of all, because I am offended by dishonesty, and that goes double for those who set themselves up as pargons of honesty.

Second, because I feel it has a negative effect. Those who believe in paranormal things, they see a dishonest stunt like this one, it gives the impression that all skeptics are as dishonrest as Randi is, and that lies are the only argument they have. Lies only serve to make the paranormal more sympathetic.

Third, and most important, if people lie to discredit paranormal claims there is a danger that they might discredit something true. Every so often someone makes an extraordinary claim, the claim contradicts what science "knows." Scientists ridicule it, then many years later they accept it as true after all, and have to rewrite the textbooks.

Here (http://www.skally.net/ppsc/swaim.html) is an example of one such case. A fringe medical claim, directly contradicting everything medical science knew about polio. She was tested, and failed, condemned as a quack for 30 years. Then she was eventually vindicated.

I see it as very possible that something similar could happen again, and that Randi would attack it. His 'tests' are so incompitent and dishonest that a real claim would fail. Probably, someone with a real claim would refuse to be tested by him, million dollars or not. I know that if I were ever to discover something extraordinary, I would refuse to let Randi test it, not for a hundred million.

The trouble is that people like princhester consider Randi's tests to be "the only game in town" that is the only test they respect. A 'paranormal' claim can be tested by 1000 top scientists, and pass, but princhester will just say - if it's true, why doesn't he apply for the million dollars? and cite this as definitive proof that the thing is false.

This is why I comment on Randi's lies and errors. I wish to show princhester and his ilk that Randi's tests are not the definitive proof princhester imagines them to be, and in fact that Randi is not remotely qualified to perform a test, or even to offer his comments on it.

Oh, and one other thing I want to make clear, while I believe that once in a while a "fringe" claim is vindicated, it is very rare. It might be one in a hundred, it might be one in a thousand, but it happens.

Randi refuses to recognise that it ever happens. He says things like : This is only one of almost a hundred similar papers published with the same message: there appears to be evidence for the validity of homeopathy – or of a myriad of other similarly doubtful claims. But note: NOT ONE OF THESE "BREAKTHROUGHS" EVER GOES BEYOND THE FIRST PUBLICATION. None are replicated. None EVER has ANY impact on our state of knowledge, nor on science. If any were valid, science would have been turned on its ear by now; that has not happened.

This type of mindset makes him incapable of recognising a true claim if he should ever encounter one.

[princhester]

I've decided I'm going to reform and stop rising to peter's bait and I'm going to be polite. It's hard because a lot of what peter says is quite galling. Can I ask this, Peter? Try to be more accurate about what my position is. I find it annoying when you are not, and it causes me to be grumpy. For example, I have never said that I think Randi is "the only game in town". In fact I have said precisely the opposite, at least once, as you can see here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869913875). I'd really appreciate it if you could check what I've actually said before you accuse me of having a particular position, Peter. Please? I'm asking nicely. It's not as if it's hard to search these boards, and you are quite hard on others (particularly Randi) if they are inaccurate, so it doesn't seem too much to ask that you make an effort to do likewise. I know searching takes time, but if these debates are worth having, surely they are worth having well?

But to get to the substance, in the link you give in the OP, Randi relates a story of a "stunt". You said that is evidence of the sloppiness of his "tests". I then pointed out that the word "stunt" has a particular meaning. A "test" is something else entirely. You say there is no significant difference. The dictionary says otherwise, and I really think you are going to have to come up with a better explanation as to why the two are comparable before your OP is going to be convincing.

The guts of it is this: a few posts back you said "Because the "stunt" was logically flawed, and Randi shows the same sort of logical flaws when he devises a test." If you have any evidence to support the statement "Randi shows the same sort of logical flaws when he devises a test" then produce that evidence. That would be impressive. But pointing at stunts that Randi mentions as evidence that his tests have logical flaws is not, on its own, convincing of anything.

[princhester]

One thing I missed:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
This type of mindset makes him incapable of recognising a true claim if he should ever encounter one.

Is it necessary that Randi recognise a true claim given that he is not the arbiter of his own tests? I would have thought that all is required is for someone to pass a test. The fact that Randi would (in your view) closemindedly disbelieve that the applicant was capable of passing a test doesn't seem to be relevant to whether they do pass the test.

[BillyJoe]

Are you guys sure you are not halves of a schizophrenic whole. :D

BillyJoe :cool:
(I see you registered within a day of each other ;) )

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
A 'paranormal' claim can be tested by 1000 top scientists, and pass, but princhester will just say - if it's true, why doesn't he apply for the million dollars? and cite this as definitive proof that the thing is false.

This sounds interesting. Which paranormal claim has done this?

[princhester]

Indeed, JB.

[princhester]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Are you guys sure you are not halves of a schizophrenic whole. :D

Well get the mods to check our IP's. You'll find they are from opposite ends of the earth.


(I see you registered within a day of each other ;) )

That may not be entirely co-incidental. For my part, I was involved in a pretty heated debate with PM on the SDMB about Randi but at about that time the SDMB was having one of its all too frequent outages, so I had nothing to do. I started poking about on the internet, and I was thinking about my debate with Peter, so I started looking around on Randi's site, and started having a look on these boards. And what should I come across but Peter involved in a very similar debate to that we were having on the SDMB. So I joined up and joined in. Whether Peter was likewise a refugee from the SDMB at that time for the same reason I don't know. If so that might explain why we joined at a similar time.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Nor do I have anything against people trying to discredit homeopathy, or other paranormal ideas, as long as they do it honestly. When Randi tells lies to discredit paranormal claims I object on three grounds.And exactly where has Randi "lied" to discredit homoeopathy? News flash. No lying is required to debunk homoeopathy thoroughly and comprehensively.

Designing a formal test of homoeopathy is quite a detailed matter. The hard bit is finding a protocol even two of them will agree ought to demonstrate the effect they're claiming. Even then, once the inevitable null result happens, all the rest will be lining up to tell you that the design was so ridiculous it couldn't possibly have worked. However, if you don't even know what a "proving" is, then you're so ignorant of the subject you'd do better to stop passing opinions on something you clearly don't understand at all.

This whole game of swallowing large amounts of a homoeopathic preparation and then inviting everyone to observe exactly how dead you aren't is no sort of test of homoeopathy, really. It's a joke. A stunt. Randi posted an email from a reader who described a version carried out by a group of Belgian doctors as a publicity stunt to draw attention to the scandal of wasting health funds on sugar pills. And he mentioned that he'd done a similar stunt in the past.

In what way does this constitute lying?

Rolfe.

[aries]

Hello :)

I myself have tried homeopathic remedies (given to me be Danish heilpraktiker (which is a german education in alt/natural medicine where the exams are in German...BRR)

And i must say...

It worked...(for me at least)

And of course I have tried to understand why it worked..

and so far i have these thoughts:

It works because homeopathy works on a subatomic level
(quark, qvants and so on)

it works because it enfolds in one the dimensions used to describe the world/universe by string theroy

it works because it enfolds in the matter (taking note from the research done by David Bohm)

it works beacuse somehow the homeopatic 'matter' comes into contact with the cell's electromagnetism system (if indeed cell's do have such a system, as i'm not a biochemist i must rely on these people's research)

Finally i would like to say that normally you test medicine to
se if it works this way: 100 peole are administered drug x. 100 people are administered drug z (which is worthless)
And then you see if drug x functioned, (and if drug z, the wortless drug worked, you do not ask question to why drug z worked, i think) and drug z did not, finding that all is OK with the world.

This of course a crude report of what i find going in the socalled RCF - testings.

However, you cannot do that with homeopathic medicine, because homeopathic medicine/extracts treats the whole person, not just 'a disease or sickness'.

So to people suffering from let's say a bacterial infection, i.e. bacterial infection in the teeth for instance, could get two different vials of homeopathic liquid/medicine/extract. Depending on their life and social
situation (s).

Where as i.e. traditionel/conventional medicine typically will treat
the 2 people above as having the same 'disease' --- and order i.e. penicilling to both of them (at least if they have a bacterial infection) in order for them to be rid of the problem (the bacterial infection)

At least this is how I see it...

aries

[thaiboxerken]

More anecdotes don't impress me, Aries. Yes, you think homeopathy worked for you....... but did you actually have a problem? Here are the realistic reasons why homeopathy "worked" for you:

1. You weren't really sick and homeopathy cured your psychosematic symptoms with placebo.

2. You were really sick and homeopathy worked as placebo to help you get better.

3. You wre really sick, but you got over it and would've with or without "homeopathic" medicine.

"However, you cannot do that with homeopathic medicine, because homeopathic medicine/extracts treats the whole person, not just 'a disease or sickness'."

This is a BS evasion for why homeopathy fails tests. Clinical studies don't support the notion that homeopathy works on anything other than a placebo level. Also, even if homeopathy works on a "whole person" scale... which means custom meds for individuals, such things can still be tested for clinical effectiveness.

Evidenced based medicines do take into account that different meds work differently for different people. For example, my wife is allergic to penicillin, so doctors use a different antibody for any infections she may get.

The real reason why homeopathy doesn't pass clinical studies is because it doesn't work.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by aries
It worked...(for me at least)Yaaaaaawwwwnnnnn...

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? I don't think so.

News flash. People get better all the time. No matter what they take or don't take. This doesn't prove diddly-squat.

Just show, repeatably, that a group of people who got their prescribed remedy actually had, on average, a better chance of getting better than a similar group of people who only thought they'd got the remedy. We'd all believe in it then, whether we knew how it worked or not. (Oh, and you'd be in line for the million bucks too, don't all rush at once.)

They can't do it. Never happens.

That's because sugar pills, even expensive ones, don't cure anything (except hypoglycaemia, but these ones aren't even big enough to do much for that).

Imagination, that cures lots of things though.

Rolfe.

[Blondin]

Hello, Aries...

Oh, and welcome. :D

[Psiload]

aries wrote:

It works because homeopathy works on a subatomic level (quark, qvants and so on)

it works because it enfolds in one the dimensions used to describe the world/universe by string theroy

it works because it enfolds in the matter (taking note from the research done by David Bohm

I own a big bridge in Brooklyn that works exactly the same way...

wanna buy it?

[geni]

Originally posted by aries


It works because homeopathy works on a subatomic level
(quark, qvants and so on)

This would be fairly noticlbe by the steam of high enery particles remedies would give off

it works because it enfolds in one the dimensions used to describe the world/universe by string theroy

If sting theory is correct there is no way that the vibrations of stings could be changed by shaking water. Even if they could be the effects with be fairly obvious

it works because it enfolds in the matter (taking note from the research done by David Bohm)

What is this ment to mean?

it works beacuse somehow the homeopatic 'matter' comes into contact with the cell's electromagnetism system (if indeed cell's do have such a system, as i'm not a biochemist i must rely on these people's research)

They don't and water cannot be a carrier for eletromagnitism.



So to people suffering from let's say a bacterial infection, i.e. bacterial infection in the teeth for instance, could get two different vials of homeopathic liquid/medicine/extract. Depending on their life and social
situation (s).

Where as i.e. traditionel/conventional medicine typically will treat
the 2 people above as having the same 'disease' --- and order i.e. penicilling to both of them (at least if they have a bacterial infection) in order for them to be rid of the problem (the bacterial infection)

At least this is how I see it...


There are studies that take this into account. Thjey do not produce posertive results. Homeopathy claims a non random real world effect. As such it can be tested.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by aries
Hello :)
it works beacuse somehow the homeopatic 'matter' comes into contact with the cell's electromagnetism system (if indeed cell's do have such a system, as i'm not a biochemist i must rely on these people's research)...

Aries, I suggest the people you are relying on use the word "research" quite loosely.

Check out Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/) for some useful links.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
I've decided I'm going to reform and stop rising to peter's bait and I'm going to be polite.

That's good. This post is, for once, polite and reasonable. Please do keep to this standard, and I shall do the same.

It's hard because a lot of what peter says is quite galling. Can I ask this, Peter? Try to be more accurate about what my position is. I find it annoying when you are not, and it causes me to be grumpy. For example, I have never said that I think Randi is "the only game in town". In fact I have said precisely the opposite, at least once, as you can see here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869913875). I'd really appreciate it if you could check what I've actually said before you accuse me of having a particular position, Peter. Please?

On this particular point, can I just say that, several times in the past, you have accused me of thinking that "randi is the only game in town", even after I vrepeatedly said its the exact opposite of my point.

Just for once, I thought I would turn the tables, and say it about you before you said it about me. It certainly is a great deal closer to your position than to mine.


The guts of it is this: a few posts back you said "Because the "stunt" was logically flawed, and Randi shows the same sort of logical flaws when he devises a test." If you have any evidence to support the statement "Randi shows the same sort of logical flaws when he devises a test" then produce that evidence. That would be impressive. But pointing at stunts that Randi mentions as evidence that his tests have logical flaws is not, on its own, convincing of anything.

Well, I have given you evidence of flaws in his tests before, but you didn't listen. Since you now seem to in a more reasonable frame of mind I will show you one of my favorites among Randi's many flawed tests.

But first, a little geology lesson is required.

I consulted some geologists about the science of underground water, checking the accuracy of certain statements made by Randi.

See Here (http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2E362A87)

I was checking on Randi's statement that "more than 90% of the world's land mass above reachable supplies of water" I was told the following:

- You can find [i]some water anywhere you dig, but in the vast majority of places it's only a tiny trickle.

- The availability of water varies enormously over a short distance.

- It is perfectly possible, in fact, to have two spots 20 metres apart, one yields 10 gpm, the other yields 800 gpm.

- You must also consider accessibility: At one spot water may be 20 feet down, and another spot on the same patch of ground, the water may be 70 feet down.

- Finally, you have to consider the quality of the water. In one spot, the water can be sweet and clean, a short distance away the water could be contaminated, or contain too much dissolved minerals to be useful.

Finding an optimal spot for a well is a difficult task for an expert. You can't just dig anywhere and expect to find useful supplies of water.

Now you know geolohy, lets get on to Randi's test.

Suppose a dowser claims the ability to locate a spot for a well where the water is potable, easily accessible, and in large supply. How would James Randi test that claim?

I'll let Randi speak for himself:
One: (http://www.skeptic.com/01.1.randi-paranormal.html)
I challenge all the dowsers in a similar way. Since 94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance my challenge is to find a dry spot! They don't want to do it. Why? Because they only have a six percent chance of success.

Two: (http://carolinaconnoisseur.com/film_Divining_Mom.htm)
To that, Randi says, "Find me a dry spot," because, as he points out, it's almost impossible not to strike water if you drill deep enough.

Three: (http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/divining.htm)
Having a string of successful wells to which one can point, proves nothing. A better test would be to ask the dowser whether he can find a DRY spot within 100 metres of a well he has dowsed. With more than 90% of the world’s land mass above reachable supplies of water, this should be quite difficult.

Four (http://www.alltheweb.com/r?ck_sm=6c71a32a&rpos=4&rpge=1&ref=40100320086&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncas.org%2Fpdf%2Fvol.15.1.pdf)
Ninety percent of the surface of the Earth has water within drillable distance so I would like someone to find me a dry spot

So, there we have it. If someone claims they can find water, Randi challenges them to "find a dry spot." That is the only test Randi is willing to give, and it makes no sense at all.

There are no "dry spots" that can be found, anywhere. Any spot will give some water, albeit a bare trickle. Randi's conditions cannot be met. If someone had genuine dowsing powers, it would still be impossible to meet his challenge.

Randi's often repeated statement that "94 percent of the Earth's surface has water within drillable distance" is true only if you include a bare trickle of dirty water. And by that standard, there are no dry spots at all.

Finding a good well - as opposed to a poor one - by dowsing would be "paranormal", finding a dry spot is impossible.

Apart from anything else, the challenge set by Randi is radically different from the claim being made. Dowsers claim the ability to find water, not the ability to find dry spots.

Naturally, most dowsers refuse to have anything to do with his tests. Randi claims some sort of victory by default.

To me, the logic of the test he offers seems fundamentally flawed. Many other tests have similar basic flaws in their design.

[Rolfe]

:s2:

Rolfe.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
One thing I missed:
Is it necessary that Randi recognise a true claim given that he is not the arbiter of his own tests?

In what way? In the descriptions of the tests he provides, it seems as if he is.

I would have thought that all is required is for someone to pass a test. The fact that Randi would (in your view) closemindedly disbelieve that the applicant was capable of passing a test doesn't seem to be relevant to whether they do pass the test.

That presupposes that the test is designed sensibly, and carried out honestly.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Rolfe
And exactly where has Randi "lied" to discredit homoeopathy?
Rolfe.

I think the stunt described the article somewhat misrepresents the claims of homeopaths.

Most people reading the description would infer that - if homeopathy were true - the drink should have killed the doctors.

AIUI, homeopaths don't actually claim that.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Rolfe
:s2:

Rolfe.
:con2:

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Most people reading the description would infer that - if homeopathy were true - the drink should have killed the doctors.

AIUI, homeopaths don't actually claim that.

Did you read the bit I posted quoteing hannermann?

Most homeopaths would think that while the test would not kill it should have at least made a couple of the people involved unwell.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by geni
Did you read the bit I posted quoteing hannermann?


sorry, couldn't understand it. You obviously know a lot more about it than I do, so I'll have to take your word for it.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
I think the stunt described the article somewhat misrepresents the claims of homeopaths.Since you don't actually seem to know what the claims of the homoeopaths are, I don't think you're on very solid ground here.

Note also that Randi frequently describes how the test protocols for the official attempts at the prize are always agreed with the applicants themselves. They have to agree that under the circumstances of the test, they expect their powers to manifest. Not much scope for dishonest test design there.

In fact the terms of the homoeopathy challenge are particularly simple. Just demonstrate that you can reliably distinguish between the remedy of your choice and the stock solvent, any way you like. Leaving the homoeopaths completely free to design any test they think will cut it. All the JREF has to do is to ensure blinding.

You have to wonder why none of them even wants to try. Can you imagine any other system of "medicine" that admittedly can't tell any of it's products from placebo, given a totally free hand as to how?

Against this background the oft-repeated stunt of swallowing handfuls of homoeopathic pills (the usual form of the game) has to be recognised as a pointed way of saying "look how silly this is" to the public - it's not meant to be dissected as a serious experiment.

Now if you really want to understand the point of the snake venom hoop-la, go read up about the homoeopathic pathogenetic trial, or "proving". They do indeed claim that healthy people taking their very dilute preparations will be made ill. Sounds like an excellent easy way to win the Challenge actually, but none of them seems to want to want the money.

I thought I'd posted this link already, but have a look again. Homoeopaths claim to be able to poison people. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1058569,00.html) They never give exact recipes, but every time a test of homoeopathy involving a proving is suggested, they line up warn you that this could be very dangerous. In spite of the fact that ten minutes ago they were telling you that there's no need for the remedies to be regulated, because they're absolutely safe.

This was in effect what the Belgian doctors were sort of basing their demonstration on, and I simply can't see why you have such a problem with this.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rolfe
You have to wonder why none of them even wants to try. Can you imagine any other system of "medicine" that admittedly can't tell any of it's products from placebo, given a totally free hand as to how?


To be fair we do know of an exception.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
To be fair we do know of an exception. To be fair, that's perfectly true. I wonder how her application is progressing?

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rolfe
To be fair, that's perfectly true. I wonder how her application is progressing?

Rolfe.

She's a JREF forum memeber you could try pming her.

[Rolfe]

Hmmm, discretion, better part of valour, I think.

I wonder if CCH put her off with the usual "don't associate with these evil sceptics, the test will be rigged and besides the money doesn't exist" line?

Talking to Niall, and going through all the excuses, we think actually that there is a simple rule they're applying which they don't articulate. Any test which involves effective blinding is in breach of homoeopathic principles. It's the only way to explain Hoare's behaviour when he's challenged by his own exact test design, but with blinding incorporated.

Bunch of fraudulent quacks.

Rolfe.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by geni


Did you read the bit I posted quoteing hannermann?

Most homeopaths would think that while the test would not kill it should have at least made a couple of the people involved unwell.

Okay, I'm just trying to get a few things clear in my head here, just trying to understand what you're saying. I've been looking through your earlier comments and I'm confused.

For example earlier in the thread you said "A single does will have no effect on most people acording to homeopathic principles. It is multiple does over a length of time that will have an effect." Doesn't this indicate that the single dose the doctors drank shouldn't have had any effect?

You also said "It doesn't matter anyway. The claimed effect of proving don't always match the effects of the stuff when it it is taken in a normal concentration. So belladona won't be halunogenic."

So, you wouldn't necessarily expect dilute snake venom to have the effects of snake venom, it might not make the drinkers ill, anyway, is that right?

You also said "Lets try this one more time. Chemical toxicty is not in any way relivant. the effect that was to be expected was what homeopaths call a proving. this has nothing to with whether the substance is toxic or not."
and " It has been explained why the toxicty of the substances involed is not relivant. "

If I've understood you, you are saying that homeopaths claim that ANYTHING becomes toxic when diluted. Honey, vanilla extract, garlic, vitamin-C, etc all of them should have made some of the doctors ill (with repeated doses?)

Why then do they use snake venom and arsenic? If ketchup ought to have had the same effect?

ISTM that they do so because the public think snake venom and arsenic is poison to drink., and that 99% of the public don't know about 'provings' at all.

Even looking at your remarks about provings, it STILL seems they are implying something false about homopathy.

The message looks like : This liquid ought to kill us because snake venom is poisonous

It doesn't look like: This liquid ought to kill us because provings can turn even safe things toxic.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
For example earlier in the thread you said "A single does will have no effect on most people acording to homeopathic principles. It is multiple does over a length of time that will have an effect." Doesn't this indicate that the single dose the doctors drank shouldn't have had any effect?

Yes no sort of. It depends it the homeopath is making claims or excuses. It would depend to a degree on the potency but going by homeopathic thoery at least a couple of them should have experanced some effect even if the majority should not.



So, you wouldn't necessarily expect dilute snake venom to have the effects of snake venom, it might not make the drinkers ill, anyway, is that right?

There is a homeopathic proving of snake vemon around so it should have some effect. What effect excatly I am not sure.


If I've understood you, you are saying that homeopaths claim that ANYTHING becomes toxic when diluted. Honey, vanilla extract, garlic, vitamin-C, etc all of them should have made some of the doctors ill (with repeated doses?)

In thoery yes

Why then do they use snake venom and arsenic? If ketchup ought to have had the same effect?

Probably but as far as I am aware there is no such homeopathic remedy as ketchup (yet). Snake venom and arsenic are well accepted however

ISTM that they do so because the public think snake venom and arsenic is poison to drink., and that 99% of the public don't know about 'provings' at all.

Posibley but if you are taking nat mur most of the public are not going to have the faitest idea what you are talking about. So they added some showmanship and probably atchived more than all the studies could.


Even looking at your remarks about provings, it STILL seems they are implying something false about homopathy.

The message looks like : This liquid ought to kill us because snake venom is poisonous

It doesn't look like: This liquid ought to kill us because provings can turn even safe things toxic.

Look do you feel like explaining to the public about proving?

There is also the factor that things that are toxic seem to have stronger proving effects (don't ask me why I don't know).

As you saw from my list there is no shortage of resurch (and I think there is more in the pipeline). There is aparently a failer to comunicate.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Since you don't actually seem to know what the claims of the homoeopaths are, I don't think you're on very solid ground here.

Note also that Randi frequently describes how the test protocols for the official attempts at the prize are always agreed with the applicants themselves. They have to agree that under the circumstances of the test, they expect their powers to manifest. Not much scope for dishonest test design there.


See my description of Randi's dowsing test, described above.

Yeah, the protocols are agreed with the applicants - that means Randi sets the protocols, the applicants have to agree to them.

If they don't agree to them, then they don't have to take the test.

Nowhere does Randi promise to give them a test that they like.

You will notice that the majority of applicants never actually take the test, because they don't agree to the protocols that Randi sets.

It seems that most of them really believe in their own paranormal claims, they just consider the test set by Randi to be unfair, and they refuse to take it.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
So, there we have it. If someone claims they can find water, Randi challenges them to "find a dry spot." That is the only test Randi is willing to give, and it makes no sense at all.


Peter if you read the comentries which it is fairly clear you do you will know that this is an outright lie. There are seveal descriptions of how dowsers have been tested and despite your claims they did not have to find a dry spot.

[Peter Morris]

Do you have a specific example of Randi conducting a test for finding natural water underground? I don't remember seeing any.

Not finding a gold ingot in a cup, not finding a small bottle of water buried in a field, those are totally seperate claims.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
On this particular point, can I just say that, several times in the past, you have accused me of thinking that "randi is the only game in town", even after I vrepeatedly said its the exact opposite of my point.

Just for once, I thought I would turn the tables, and say it about you before you said it about me. It certainly is a great deal closer to your position than to mine.

I don't accept this. Rather than sidetrack this whole discussion, why don't you start a thread outlining your views on the issue? Could I ask that if you do this, you don't kick off the OP by saying "my position is this, but princhester's position is that". Just give your own position, and I'll give mine. Things are likely to stay polite longer if you don't purport to represent my position, I suspect.

Well, I have given you evidence of flaws in his tests before, but you didn't listen. Since you now seem to in a more reasonable frame of mind I will show you one of my favorites among Randi's many flawed tests.

We are trying to be polite. Being polite involves more than not swearing etc. It also involves not accusing others of not listening and not (by implication) suggesting that in the past people have not had a reasonable frame of mind. Try to stay polite or this discussion is going to get ugly real fast.

Now, as to the rest of your post, it seems to me you have two complaints regarding Randi's testing of dowsers. I'll deal with the shorter point first.

First point, you say:

Apart from anything else, the challenge set by Randi is radically different from the claim being made. Dowsers claim the ability to find water, not the ability to find dry spots.

Are you saying that a dowser can't tell the difference between a wet spot and a dry spot? If not, how do they know when they are on a wet spot?

Second point: you say that you consulted some geologists and they said:

You can find some water anywhere you dig, but in the vast majority of places it's only a tiny trickle.

and you provide a link. You say that Randi says that water can be found under 90 or 94% of land. Randi's method of testing dowsers is to say "find me a dry spot". You say this would be impossible, because "you can find some anywhere you dig".

OK, that makes sense. Now find me a link to a cite for the proposition that "you can find some anywhere you dig". Try to be precise, and please don't say you've already provided one.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

If it's really possible to find small amounts of flowing water at some distance underground in almost all locations, then doing so isn't much of a demonstration of unusual powers, is it?

Now, if they could give a rough idea of how much water is involved, and how far down it was, that would be more impressive.

[princhester]

Peter didn't say you could find some water "almost" anywhere you dig: he did not qualify his proposition in that way. He'll be providing a cite shortly, I expect.

[aries]

Hello again :)

To answer the question whether or not i had a real problem.

Yes, I had a real problem...

I could not get my bowles to work...in the proper function that they should...so I could not get rid of my stool..

(i just wouldn't write this before as i know americans look different upon describing this process)

But now I have done it... (hopefylly it wouldn't be administered away :) )

But I tell, no more than a day went by before I could go to the bathroom again... :)

And yes, I really do believe that if you think this or that remedy, be it a traditionel pill or a homeoptahy vial, will help you, your mind (maybe unconsciusly) will be more inclined to work with your body in repairing itself. (and i know that there have been researh shown that neuratransmitters and peptides ??? are present in the body .. i.e. some american scientists found a decade or so ago, neurotransmitters in the liver)

So yes, maybe it was a kind of placebo effect that cured me.
(but then again, if I did not believe that homeopathy remdies would help me to get over my little problem desribed above, I wouldn't have contacted a homeopath, now would I)

I also happen to believe that even if you, for instance take an aspirin, you MUST believe/think that this aspirin would help youn in dealing with your specifik problem. (if you don't, i also happen to believe/think that the doctors can pour dozen of pill in you --- without it helping you...)

aries
(who sincerely hopes this post isn't administered.)

[aries]

Hello again :)

I would like to ask you if you know of any (scientific) study that
researches what I suggested in my first post in this thread:

that homeopathy works because it works on a subatomic level

that homeoparthy works because it works/enfolds into one of the dimensions that are suggested by string theory (the nine + the tenth; time)

If not --- would you agree --- that further research into this field
(no pun intended) is necessary..

Blondin -- as i'm danish --- i think i have misused the term --- research here --- (as in my first post) --- i think i would substitute
'reseach' with 'investigation' (because in danish research and investegations means the same :D)

So...I'm sorry if have used the wrong word --- but i hope this should be OK now :D

aries

[geni]

studies into the effects of homeopathy (yes this list is getting a little overused I will get round to adding more studies top it at some point):

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract

A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of a homeopathic treatment of neonatal calf diarrhoea was performed using 44 calves in 12 dairy herds. Calves with spontaneously derived diarrhoea were treated with either the homeopathic remedy Podophyllum (D30) (n = 24) or a placebo (n = 20). No clinically or statistically significant difference between the 2 groups was demonstrated. Calves treated with Podophyllum had an average of 3.1 days of diarrhoea compared with 2.9 days for the placebo group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...8&dopt=Abstract

We conclude that this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of placebo. The improvement in both conditions was substantial. Improvement of such magnitude may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract

Swelling and use of analgesic medication also did not differ between arnica and placebo groups. Adverse events were reported by 2 patients in the arnica 6C group, 3 in the placebo group and 4 in the arnica 30C group. The results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo in reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in patients undergoing elective hand surgery.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

[aries]

Hello again :)

Blondin

I have taken a quick look at quack watch and i'm glad that i don't live in the US.

I live (fortunately) in Denmark, Europe, where there is very strict lawas against quackery. No one, who is not a licensed doctor, in Denmark must tell their patients what is wrong with them in a diagnosis kind of way; no one who is not a licensed doctor must take sick into care and promise them they can heal or improve
fatal/lethal sickness/diseases.

And i also think that the alternative medicine bracnch in Denmark, is very glad about this law. This prevent them from promising people that they (as alternative medicines professions) can or will heal seriously ill people...

Generally the poeople who work in alternative medicine over here in Denmark are much more downplayed --- and do not promise their clients that if they just take this pill/vial/liquid, they will be healed of any and all symptoms,diseases and sicknesses that they have. (maybe because the danes simply do not believe in such nonsense... that there is one pill etc. that cures ev'rything)

At this point i would like to tell you all little story...

A drug/stuff called EDTA is forbidden in Denmark --- because is apparently do not work --- i was just showing a showing of 'strong medicine' ( a doctor tv show i sometime see and we can receive over here on one of our danish tv channels). And much to my surprise, the doctor asked that EDTA be used.
and i wonderes why she did that --- did not she know that the Danish Board of Health have forbidden it --- until i realized that this was an american tv show --- not a danish one :D .

Later, i learned that the Danish heart/vascular surgeons have gotten much money from the danish medicine industry so that they could prove that EDTA do not work.

And here is where I get confused. If it, apparently works, in USA, why did it work in Denmark ?

I reallly do not know...

aries

[geni]

Originally posted by aries


that homeoparthy works because it works/enfolds into one of the dimensions that are suggested by string theory (the nine + the tenth; time)

Plese show us the maths. Othewise stop trying to do quantum theory on the hoof.

If not --- would you agree --- that further research into this field
(no pun intended) is necessary..

Since string theory remains unproven that could be tricky. There is also the factor that you would probably need a particle accelorater with a length in excess of the earths cercumfrance. Unless you can a show that there is an effect and that there is a soild set of maths showing that it could involve string thoery there is no point in spending the entire GDP of the earth several time over looking for something that the evidence say does not exist.

[aries]

Hello again :)

geni...

first

1) arnica isn't a homeopathic remedy (it is an extract from a plant)

2) It does not surprise that no effects were found using homeopathic remedies on children with mild to moderate asthma.
(probably anything you would have done would have worked just as well as the placebo (which in Denmark at least is a chalk tablet/pill)

3)
and as for the rest of the investigations/research i have no comment.

First, i think we all should agree that if you are to use homeopathic remedies, it should be the correct ones.

And the only place I know that it making these remedies is 'factory' in Germany.

And the experienced homeopathic practitioners must have a formal education either as an 'heilpraktiker' or as as classical homeopath (a title that at least in Denmark is protected by copyrigth laws)

At least, this is how i see it.

aries

[aries]

Hello :)

As i'm not a mathemacian nor a biochemist; i really can't do the math :D

What i'm intending is to take a little 'vision trip' and ask

what if...questions:

what if...

homeopathy works... because of (what i've 'told' in my earlier post in this thread)

So it is just more an imaginatory exploratory drill/practise rather than a math exercise than i'm attempting here..

(just to let yoy think: what if....this could be so...and what if...this works so...and as far as i understand this is how (natural)
science works...)

aries

[geni]

Originally posted by aries
Hello again :)

geni...

first
[b]
1) arnica isn't a homeopathic remedy (it is an extract from a plant)
Anica at a number of potencies is a very common remedy.

2) It does not surprise that no effects were found using homeopathic remedies on children with mild to moderate asthma.
(probably anything you would have done would have worked just as well as the placebo (which in Denmark at least is a chalk tablet/pill)

Homeopaths claim to be able to cure asthma.


First, i think we all should agree that if you are to use homeopathic remedies, it should be the correct ones.

And the only place I know that it making these remedies is 'factory' in Germany.

Helios are big in the uk biron are big in france and there are no shortage of other around

And the experienced homeopathic practitioners must have a formal education either as an 'heilpraktiker' or as as classical homeopath (a title that at least in Denmark is protected by copyrigth laws)

They still can't show that they can do what they claim.

[geni]

Originally posted by aries
homeopathy works... because of (what i've 'told' in my earlier post in this thread)


Homeopathy doesn't work because:
1 the evidence does not support the hypososis that it works

2 it breaks some fairly fundimental laws of physics and chemistry.

So it is just more an imaginatory exploratory drill/practise rather than a math exercise than i'm attempting here..

If you want to get involved with quantum theory maths is everything.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
See my description of Randi's dowsing test, described above.We were talking about homoeopathy. See thread title. Don't you want to talk about homoeopathy any more?

Whatever is being tested, Randi isn't going to agree to a test which isn't properly blinded or otherwise allows scope for cheating. So if an applicant won't agree to a test which is cheat-proof, then he won't be tested, very true.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Do you have a specific example of Randi conducting a test for finding natural water underground? I don't remember seeing any.


You wre not refuring to this you statemnt was:

Originally posted by Peter Morris
So, there we have it. If someone claims they can find water, Randi challenges them to "find a dry spot." That is the only test Randi is willing to give, and it makes no sense at all.
Do you wish to withdraw this statement?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by aries
(just to let yoy think: what if....this could be so...and what if...this works so...and as far as i understand this is how (natural)
science works...)Why do all the homoeopaths who come here sound like this? It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. Hey, you're not Xanta again, are you?

Just to let you think.... what if.... this could be so.... if.... the moon was made of.... green cheese?

There's no point at all dreaming up speculative fantasies to explain something which doesn't seem to happen in the first place.

Lots of people are absolutely convinced that homoeopathy cured them, because they got better after taking a homoeopathic remedy. News flash. People get better all the time, whether they take anything or don't.

The question is, do a group of people who got their homoeopathic remedy have, on average, a better chance of getting better than a similar group of people who only thought they got the remedy?

Answer, from those papers Geni posted, and some more where these came from, is no.

Then again, for all your fancy speculations (and I would caution, if you really don't know anything about physics, or chemistry, or biochemistry, it's unwise to come here and pontificate, because some people here know rather a lot about these subjects), can homoeopaths distinguish a homoeopathic remedy from the stock solvent (or blank sugar pills)? Any way at all?

Answer, no.

Science has more interesting things to do than speculate about things that simply don't happen.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by aries
A drug/stuff called EDTA is forbidden in Denmark --- because is apparently do not work --- i was just showing a showing of 'strong medicine' ( a doctor tv show i sometime see and we can receive over here on one of our danish tv channels). And much to my surprise, the doctor asked that EDTA be used.
and i wonderes why she did that --- did not she know that the Danish Board of Health have forbidden it --- until i realized that this was an american tv show --- not a danish one :D .

Later, i learned that the Danish heart/vascular surgeons have gotten much money from the danish medicine industry so that they could prove that EDTA do not work.

And here is where I get confused. If it, apparently works, in USA, why did it work in Denmark ?OK, let's try this one.

EDTA (marketed as "Sequestrene") is the absolutely specific and essential treatment for poisoning by lead and other toxic heavy metals. I find it quite inconceivable that it is banned for this purpose in Denmark or anywhere else.

However, it is banned in some countries for use by "alternative" healers and in patients who do not have a confirmed diagnosis of heavy metal poisoning. The reason is that alternative practitioners had taken to using it as a non-specific "detoxification" treatment for people who didn't need it. EDTA is heap powerful medicine, and it has potentially serious side-effects - including removing essential minerals from the body. The quack use of it as "detox" harmed a number of people, hence the ban.

Aries, I think you have heard about EDTA being banned for "detoxification" use in Denmark, but then watched a TV programme involving a case of lead poisoning, for which EDTA is not only not banned, it is essential.

Now, since this thread is about homoeopathy, how about sticking to the subject? Remarking that there may be some validity to things which are connected to other types of alternative medicine is the last resort of the homoeopath who has run out of arguments.

Rolfe.

[aries]

HI :)

It is entirely possible that homeopaths (in other countries than denamrk) claim to be able to cureasthma...(but none if the danish heilpraktikers/homeopaths I have been in contact with have never ever claimed to be able to cure anything by the use of homeopatic remedis alone...)

We, in the consulatation also talk abot my life en geneal and wabout what food I eat and other stuff :)

And also...

I*m do not know 'nothing' about /natural)science

I have a college degree as well as university post graduate degreee...

My mother was a trained nurse; and my father (who himself was interested in physics and chemistry his whole life;) got me interested in chemistry, physics and the like; an interest I myself have taken up; so i have read and watch many books/tv-shows about (natural) science.

So, yes I do belive that i'm fairly well versed in the different theories of i.f. quantum physics (but i am always willing to learn more) Unfortunately; my mind is that good as the abstract thinking that maths (on higher levels requires) --- so my path (unfortunately) did not become one of (naturaL science --- it became one of --- well --- I have a Masters in Danish and BA in Social Studies..(so i'm well versed in 'scientific' methods in these areas.

I also know enough about the scientific method being used in the (natural/medical) sciences to see that it is a cause and effect method. (that, at least to me, seems, very rigid and stern)

I also know enough about the scientific method to know that if you are to test something you are meant to make a test to make
one's hypothesis/theory: 'falsifiable' (as pr. Karl Popper)

And to finish:

I think/believe that a (natural) scientific method is fine when you are working with i.e. equations, electrons and so on. I, however, do not peoplem that the strict, rigid, and stern (natural) scientific methods/principles can be used/applied where human beings are involved (as I also happens to think/believe that human's minds sometimes are salient and necessary in order to heal themselves pr. the body's self healing mechanism)

And as I see it, homeopathic remedies go ind and support the body's self-healing proces...in the individual person who has the disease/sickness --- homeopathic remedies do not heal or cure any illness/disease/sickness. It merely helps the body's own self regenerative power to be able to function better...(sorry --- this is not exactly what i wanted to say --- (in english) --- but I hope you can make sense out it --- :) )

aries

[Psiload]

aries wrote:

And as I see it, homeopathic remedies go ind and support the body's self-healing proces...in the individual person who has the disease/sickness ---

This is your opinion. Well designed, properly conducted studies of homeopathy do not support this as fact... quite the opposite.

homeopathic remedies do not heal or cure any illness/disease/sickness. It merely helps the body's own self regenerative power to be able to function better...(

Once again, this is your opinion, and according to the best evidence available to date, your opinion is mistaken.

However... I would agree with you in the sense that homeopathic remedies are usefull as placebos. On the other hand... placebo is basically a synonym for 'lie', and in my opinion, it is unethical to lie to someone concerning medical treatment. It goes against the principle of 'informed consent'... a central tenant of modern medicine.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by aries
It is entirely possible that homeopaths (in other countries than denamrk) claim to be able to cureasthma...(but none if the danish heilpraktikers/homeopaths I have been in contact with have never ever claimed to be able to cure anything by the use of homeopatic remedis alone.... I understand that alternative medicine is very heavily regulated in Denmark, and in particular unproven medicinal claims are forbidden by law. As a result homoeopaths have to abandon much of their usual way of practising, because that consists almost entirely of making unproven medical claims. Almost everywhere else, they claim that the only way to cure anything at all is by homoeopathic remedies alone! And asthma is one of their favourites, because it is a condition which fluctuates, and so it is easy to pretend to the patient that an improvement has occurred.Originally posted by aries
I also know enough about the scientific method to know that if you are to test something you are meant to make a test to make one's hypothesis/theory: 'falsifiable' (as pr. Karl Popper)Here, I agree with you completely. But this is exactly what homoeopaths WILL NOT DO. It is impossible to get any of them to agree to a falsifiable test. No matter the test, and no matter the outcome, it is always interpreted with the basic assumption that homoeopathy works.

For example, if the patient got better, then that proves it works (never mind if the patients who got the placebo also got better). If the patient got worse, that is an "aggravation" (or maybe a "proving"), and proves that the remedy is going to work. And if nothing happened, then you didn't get the right simillimum, try something else (until one of the above happens).

Or if you try a proving on a healthy person, and nothing happens, then that's because you accidentally antidoted the remedy, or you took the wrong dose, or even, as a last resort "homoeopathy doesn't work for everyone".

If you can get a homoeopath to agree to a falsifiable test, you'll be doing better than all the rest of us combined.Originally posted by aries
And as I see it, homeopathic remedies go ind and support the body's self-healing proces...in the individual person who has the disease/sickness --- homeopathic remedies do not heal or cure any illness/disease/sickness. It merely helps the body's own self regenerative power to be able to function better...(sorry --- this is not exactly what i wanted to say --- (in english) --- but I hope you can make sense out it --- :)As you see it.... You mean, as you've been told. That's what the homoeopaths say, There isn't a shred of scientific evidence for a single word of it.

In fact, that statement is to a large extent true of real medicine. No wound ever healed, and no sickness ever got better, on a corpse. Real medicine mostly consists of figuring out what is stopping the body from healing itself, and then trying to correct that. But homoeopathy just delivers soothing words and sugar pills, then takes the credit for whatever was going to happen anyway.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by aries
HI :)

It is entirely possible that homeopaths (in other countries than denamrk) claim to be able to cureasthma...(but none if the danish heilpraktikers/homeopaths I have been in contact with have never ever claimed to be able to cure anything by the use of homeopatic remedis alone...)

If you can't cure anyone whats the point?

We, in the consulatation also talk abot my life en geneal and wabout what food I eat and other stuff :)

Sonds more like "holistic healing" than homeopathy to me.


My mother was a trained nurse; and my father (who himself was interested in physics and chemistry his whole life;) got me interested in chemistry, physics and the like; an interest I myself have taken up; so i have read and watch many books/tv-shows about (natural) science.

Tv shows are not a good way to learn about science. Quantum physics is one of the worst in that the progams will make you think you have a vage grasp of the subject when in reality you don't (simple example very few will even tell you about E=hv)

So, yes I do belive that i'm fairly well versed in the different theories of i.f. quantum physics (but i am always willing to learn more)

If I gave you a high detail IR spectrograph of HCl would you be able to calculate the bond length from it?

Unfortunately; my mind is that good as the abstract thinking that maths (on higher levels requires) --- so my path (unfortunately) did not become one of (naturaL science --- it became one of --- well --- I have a Masters in Danish and BA in Social Studies..(so i'm well versed in 'scientific' methods in these areas.

So are you a funtionerlist an interactionist a marixist or do you subscribe to one of the other thoeries?

I also know enough about the scientific method being used in the (natural/medical) sciences to see that it is a cause and effect method. (that, at least to me, seems, very rigid and stern)

The methods behind the mains sciences seem to work

I also know enough about the scientific method to know that if you are to test something you are meant to make a test to make
one's hypothesis/theory: 'falsifiable' (as pr. Karl Popper)

And to finish:

I think/believe that a (natural) scientific method is fine when you are working with i.e. equations, electrons and so on. I, however, do not peoplem that the strict, rigid, and stern (natural) scientific methods/principles can be used/applied where human beings are involved (as I also happens to think/believe that human's minds sometimes are salient and necessary in order to heal themselves pr. the body's self healing mechanism)

I know that they can be. The first law of theromodynamics for a start there are plenty of others

And as I see it, homeopathic remedies go ind and support the body's self-healing proces...in the individual person who has the disease/sickness --- homeopathic remedies do not heal or cure any illness/disease/sickness. It merely helps the body's own self regenerative power to be able to function better...(sorry --- this is not exactly what i wanted to say --- (in english) --- but I hope you can make sense out it --- :) )

Now have you got any evidence to suport this idea? Preferble of equal or better quality than the stuff I produced.

[aries]

Hello :)

As I have stated once:

I'm not a mathematician...

and i do not know what you mean by interactionist, functionalist ot marxist ??? I am just ME ---

However, I do believe that people have certain models of the world in their minds which schemes/patterns they then interpret the word from/with...(maybe i'm a constructionist or whatever it is called when people believe/think that we all make our own reality and act according to it...)

As for the EDTA --- it is banned from use in the whole healt section in Denmark, not just in the alternative medicine branch ---
even if this form medicibe EDTA did provided interesting promisses..in treatment for what you called poisoning...

As for me being told what to believe about the way homeopathy might work. Nobody told me that --- I actuallu figured that one out by myself.. :D --- and no as I'm not researcher/investigator nor an homeopath, but just ME, I do not have any proof/evidence to support this theory/hypothesis.

And yes, as my homeopath is an educated 'heilpraktiker' (who took her exams in German supervised by a doctor) it added a
holistic medicine/healing approach as well.

As for the tv - shows --- they were more like high quality broadcast about advancement and theories in/of science being aried on the Danish National TV-channel..(which by the way, is free of pesky commercials)

As for the homeopaths claiming that homeopathy alone will cure almost anything --- I do not think that the DANES really would believe this --- even if they (the homeopaths were allowed to say this)

I think the whole problem may come down to different worldviews/models of the world...

In the (natural) sciences you/we want to test reality, (whatever that is), have stable identífiable outcomes that can be replicated by other scientists; hence the meticulous kept records/journals.

The alternative medicine, from homeopathy to acupuncture, in general, takes a different stand: It claims to be holisitc taken into account the whole life situation of the patient and treating this (yes and also sometimes alternative medicine also talks about how people could change attitude towards a certain problem and maybe then feel better --- this i guess is what is known as 'the placebo (or psychological effect)

(again: this not exaxtly what i would like to convey to you /inform you about -- but I hope you get the central part of my opinion :) )

But i believe that if a person is going to feel better --- be able to be cured/healed --- that there has to bee a psychological awareness/readiness in the person's mind and body to accept that the treatment will work --- or else it will fail.

And yes, of course the last paragraph(s), in my latest posts(not this one :) ) is an expression of my opinion/belief on the matter.
(i really thought this was the meaning of this forum; that we in freedom and respect could discuss certain aspects and opinions on i.e. homeopathy/alternative medicine ???)

I told the story (about EDTA)as an anecdote, a little amusing thing for you to think about... :) not because i'm a homeopath in trouble... :)

I really don't know why the homeopaths will not be tested as to partake test that would/could falsify 'homeopathy'. I also, at this time, have NO idea as to which conditions the test should be taken under --- or what kind of scientific protocols rules that should be applied.

And again:

I do believe that the person take any drug/medicine, be it alternative or conventional, in his/her mind, must have made a decision that this medicine will help him...(get better)

And as I see what you call a placebo (nothing) effect can/is to be attributed to this psychological effect. (if e.g. an person is undergoing surgery in a few days, the patient will fare better, if the doctor says to him/her: Relax, you are going to make it than if the doctor do not make this remark. (and no i do not any studies that documents this, but i do now that the former leading heart surgeon, a swede, often observed this to true/to be the case

And frankly I get tired of this discussion --- as I see we have a different understanding of what disease/sickness and healing is.

(as i have tried to describe above)

aries

[dann]

Originally posted by aries
(...) What i'm intending is to take a little 'vision trip' and ask what if...questions:
what if...
homeopathy works... because of (what i've 'told' in my earlier post in this thread)
(...)
(just to let yoy think: what if....this could be so...and what if...this works so...and as far as i understand this is how (natural)
science works...)


What if ... you're completely wrong, aries? What if homeopathy does not work, what if people who take homeopathic medicine get better for other reasons, but attribute their healing to homeopathy because they swallowed homeopathic medicine for this purpose?
Then you do not actually have to spend a lot of thoughts on quantum physics (which neither you nor I have any real understanding of), nor do you have to worry about your insufficient knowledge of math, because you do not have a phenomenon that needs to be explained.
First establish as a fact that you actually do have a beneficial effect from homeopathic medicine on people's health, an effect not attributable to the placebo effect. Then start worrying about the causes of that effect ....

What gives fairies the ability to fly? What if this ability could be attributed to quantum mechanics, aries? Ask the next flying fairy you meet. Or catch one and dissect it ....

[geni]

Originally posted by aries
Hello :)

As I have stated once:

I'm not a mathematician...

Ok an easy one. What is he energy of a photon with a frequency of 10Hz? Pure arithmatic.



As for the EDTA --- it is banned from use in the whole healt section in Denmark, not just in the alternative medicine branch ---
even if this form medicibe EDTA did provided interesting promisses..in treatment for what you called poisoning...

Are you sure about this do you have a referance? I've worked with EDTA and while it's not nice (if you read it's health and safty listing you will wounder why on earth people would want to inject this into themselves) I cant see anyone banning it for legitimate medical use.

As for me being told what to believe about the way homeopathy might work. Nobody told me that --- I actuallu figured that one out by myself.. :D --- and no as I'm not researcher/investigator nor an homeopath, but just ME, I do not have any proof/evidence to support this theory/hypothesis.

On the basis that there is no way you can understand string thoer without a lot of maths (much harder than the stuff I've been asking about) I'm afariad I must question the value of your figuring out. This forum does contain some physicists (I am not one of them) so if you want to discuss some asspects of quantum theory perhaps you could start a thread on it.


As for the tv - shows --- they were more like high quality broadcast about advancement and theories in/of science being aried on the Danish National TV-channel..(which by the way, is free of pesky commercials)

We have something simular on the bbc. However to even begin to understand quantum physics you would need a degree at the least. Unfortunely the whole theory is so complex that below that level you are wasteing your mental rescources.

As for the homeopaths claiming that homeopathy alone will cure almost anything --- I do not think that the DANES really would believe this --- even if they (the homeopaths were allowed to say this)

Then I know of a large number of homeopaths who would npot regard them as true homeopaths. The founder of homeopathy held the view that it could cure as has every major homeopath since.


The alternative medicine, from homeopathy to acupuncture, in general, takes a different stand: It claims to be holisitc taken into account the whole life situation of the patient and treating this (yes and also sometimes alternative medicine also talks about how people could change attitude towards a certain problem and maybe then feel better --- this i guess is what is known as 'the placebo (or psychological effect)

They are claiming non random real word effects. This can and has been tested.

But i believe that if a person is going to feel better --- be able to be cured/healed --- that there has to bee a psychological awareness/readiness in the person's mind and body to accept that the treatment will work --- or else it will fail.

Nope that the thing with real medcine you don't have to belive in it. Of course it will give better results if you do.


I really don't know why the homeopaths will not be tested as to partake test that would/could falsify 'homeopathy'. I also, at this time, have NO idea as to which conditions the test should be taken under --- or what kind of scientific protocols rules that should be applied.

Well at the most simple we give a group of homeopaths 20 vials. 10 containing a remedy and 10 contianing the stock solvent and see if they can tell them apart.

[aries]

Hello again :)

I think i am withdrawaing from this forum ---

i have better thing to do than tp spent my time here :)

aries

(and by the way: I'm not a physicist either)

I have tried to explain to you what I believe in and how I have believe that homeopathy works...

and all you have come up with the typical answers

double blind random controlled testing...

and again to emphasize:

I do no believe that you need to believe that what you call real medicine will help --- or the effect will near to null (but that is a debate regarding different ways og how we see and organize our worldviews --- and such a debate, I sadly, do not have time to partake in, right now.

Therefore farewell (for now :)

aries

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by aries
I have tried to explain to you what I believe in and how I have believe that homeopathy works...

and all you have come up with the typical answers

double blind random controlled testing...But we're not interested in what you believe in. We're interested in facts. The truth. If what you believe in is the truth about how the universe behaves, we want to know. We want to see your evidence.

No evidence, no dice.

And by the way, did anyone else mention the words "double blind random controlled testing"? Has this discussion perhaps been ported from elsewhere? You quite SURE you're not Xanta?

Geni, it's impossible that EDTA could be banned in Denmark. It's the only thing that will save your life if you get lead poisoning. Typical homoeopath, make up the facts to suit your own prejudices, yadda yadda yadda....

Geni had it right. Never mind the protocol. Choose your remedy. Demonstrate that you can reliably tell it from the stock solvent or the stock sugar pills. Any way you like. And fame and fortune shall be yours.

If you can't do it, excuse us if we don't immediately leap to share your "beliefs".

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rolfe

Geni, it's impossible that EDTA could be banned in Denmark. It's the only thing that will save your life if you get lead poisoning. Typical homoeopath, make up the facts to suit your own prejudices, yadda yadda yadda....


Ok if I had heavy metal poisening I would be prepared to accept it. Other than that there had better be a very good reason.

Btw the answer to my problem "what is he energy of a photon with a frequency of 10Hz?" Is 6.62608*10^-33 J. The equation is E=hv.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
Ok if I had heavy metal poisening I would be prepared to accept it. Other than that there had better be a very good reason.

Btw the answer to my problem "what is he energy of a photon with a frequency of 10Hz?" Is 6.62608*10^-33 J. The equation is E=hv. Other than that, don't touch it. There is no other good reason for in vivo use. OK, I use it every day to collect blood samples for haematology, it strips the calcium right out of the blood and so stops it from clotting which is kinda handy, but DO NOT INJECT. I imagine Sequestrene itself is prescription-only anyway.

News flash. I couldn't do those sums either.

Who do you think aries is?

Rolfe.

[geni]

Originally posted by Rolfe
News flash. I couldn't do those sums either.

Who do you think aries is?


The first one requires a pretty good knowlage of physics. The second one requires you to multiply Planck's constant by ten (if you knew that planck's constant * frequency= energy on the photon).

I don't know who aries is but I don't suspect xanta (who has just made a fairly fundimental mistake with quantum theory over at hpathy).

[aries]

ONCE AND FOR ALL I*M NOT A HOMEOPATH ! NOR A MATHEMATICIAN NOR A PHYSYCIST. (andif you would jump to mmy first post in business astrology, you would see, who I am)

And yes, EDTA did not get the danish board af health approval -- not for lead poisoing --- but for treatment for arterioscleriosis (hardening og the arteries and so on) mea culpa ---

They isad t wasn't scientitic/clinically proven that it worked (the agent they used for the control group was saline water (salt water) who worked as well the EDTA did.

I am going to citte a quote from a Danish book: "Medical arts in the 21.st century:

In translation:

"The paradox is that a group of danish cardio vascular surgeons did get million amount of money (from the medicinalindustri alone with the purpose to document that EDTA does not work."
(Medical arts in the 21st century...p.143.)

In the same book there is a post/contribution by a Danish Doctor, Claus Hancke, wjo desribes the principles of orthomolecular medicine.( a term first coined/suggested by Linus Pauling in the 1960's) (ibid p. 25-26)

On page 23 this danish doctor, describes how he, in 1987 experienced to af his patients taking destiny into their own hands. Both had severe hardening of the artheries. Both used EDTA.

He investigated into EDTA and he told them that to best of his knowledge of a doctor it was a safe treatment. But he also asked them they went to reguar controls so he could check how they were doing before, during and after the treatment with EDTA.

He, much to his own big surprise, found that one og his patients were getting so mucb better (by using EDTA) that a big cardiovascular (bypass operation) operation he was to have later in 1987 had to be cancelled.

He investigated further into the matter. And took courses in EDTA treatment, also in USA. Here he spoke with many of his doctor collegues, who like him, had excellent results in treating people with EDTA.

So, here we have a doctor, who uses EDTA in his treatment.
But he has to do outside of the normal healt system in Denmark.
(and maybe i was little to harsh about EDTA being banned from use in DK --- but the fact remains that the doctors in the danish hospitals are not allowed to use this --- because the have to follow the guidelines set by the Danish board of Healt Organisation)

The story about EDTA was perhaps wrong here --- mea culpa.
(as in did not directly deal with the matter at hand; homeopathy.)

But as you can see, a Danish doctor, actually uses it --- but outside of the free health system we have in DK.

And that*s all i'm going to say about that.

As for the double blinded test:

It was referred to in the studies given by Geni, i think.

And no: I'm not XANTA.

I actually am just me, a former teacher who is currently unemployed. And maybe I should have stated earlier that I'm interested in the philosophical ideas behind quantum physichs and so on and how it possibly can or will change the cognitive way we percieve reality. And also how it can/will effect our attitude/approach to that we call/name reality.

And as I stated earlier I thought/felt that this was a forum for this kind of debate. Where we, mutually, could discuss, possible ideas why or why not, homeopathy works.

Also:
I'm NOT able to think so abstractly as maths, chemistry. and physics demand that you do --- when you get to the higher levels.
(and uses all these little symbols to make a model of the world)
So my post where it says *i'm good at* really should have read *i*m NOT good at* (sorry, my mistake...)

Again:
I thought this forum was for discussing open minded if, why, where and when homeoparthy works. And to have a open minded discussion about ideas and theories of possible explanations for why or why not homeopathy works or not.

And of course, I think/mean that ev'rything start with an idea, a notion in one's mind about how things possibly could work.

Abd i believe i'm entitled to my beliefs/ideas on how homeoparhu works just as you are entitles to your ideas on how homeopathy doesn't work.

I just thought we could have a civil discussion here.
Instead I'm being insulted, and believed to be someone I'm not.

So this will be last post in this forum..
(or in any other forums as well)

I have better things do with my time than to argue with you.

Farewell !

aries/Karsten

[BillyJoe]

aries
(Are you into astrology as well?)

Originally posted by aries
I think/mean that ev'rything start with an idea... Yes, but then you look for supporting facts. ;)

Originally posted by aries
i believe i'm entitled to my beliefs/ideas Yes, but not your own facts. ;)

But you are no longer listening :(
(Typical homoeopath. :cool: )

BillyJoe

[RichardR]

Originally posted by geni
studies into the effects of homeopathy (yes this list is getting a little overused I will get round to adding more studies top it at some point):

CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...4&dopt=Abstract

etcGeni, whenever I click on one of your links I just get this:

Can't find the requested web page.
The page you requested (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract) could not be found on our web server. This is usually caused by a error in the web request; however, it could also be caused by a problem on our server. Am I the only one getting this? Could you please post the full links as I'd like to get those studies. Thanks. :)

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by aries
Where we, mutually, could discuss, possible ideas why or why not, homeopathy works.

Again:
I thought this forum was for discussing open minded if, why, where and when homeoparthy works. And to have a open minded discussion about ideas and theories of possible explanations for why or why not homeopathy works or not.

And of course, I think/mean that ev'rything start with an idea, a notion in one's mind about how things possibly could work.

Abd i believe i'm entitled to my beliefs/ideas on how homeoparhu works just as you are entitles to your ideas on how homeopathy doesn't work.

I just thought we could have a civil discussion here.
Instead I'm being insulted, and believed to be someone I'm not.I sincerely apologise for implying you were someone you're not. Your posting style and "but I believe it works" attitude to homoeopathy simply had an unfortunate resemblance to someone else who was here not so long ago. I'm very sorry ideed, I was out of line.

I'm glad we've cleared up the EDTA story. I imagine it is banned (for that read "does not have approval for this use") in the treatment of hardening of the arteries, as it has never been shown to have any benefit for that purpose, and it could be dangerous.

Really, this is no conspiracy. Doctors will happily use EDTA when it really is indicated (heavy metal poisoning), and if it was beneficial for hardening of the arteries they have no reason to be prejudiced against its use for that too. Unfortunately it's not uncommon for individual doctors to become irrationally convinced that they've found a "miracle treatment" when in fact they're kidding themselves. Homoeopaths have no monopoly on that one. Just do the clinical trials, and see if there is a real effect. Unfortunately, in the case of arteriosclerosis and EDTA, there is none.

Regarding homoeopathy, this isn't about belief. It's about facts.

You're starting too soon. The first question is, DOES homoeopathy work? This is a claim of a real-world, measurable effect, so it should be possible to get an answer. Until you can answer "yes" with a fair degree of certainty, speculations as to how are irrelevant. Dreaming up hypotheses to explain something that doesn't happen is a waste of time.

The fact is, the overwhelming weight of evidence says that homoeopathy doesn't work. This isn't about belief or non-belief, it's about evidence. If you want to discuss evidence, and facts, and truth, welcome. But if you just want to say, I believe the moon is made of green cheese, then yes, you're probably on the wrong forum.

Rolfe.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by aries
normally you test medicine to se if it works this way: 100 peole are administered drug x. 100 people are administered drug z (which is worthless)
And then you see if drug x functioned, (and if drug z, the wortless drug worked, you do not ask question to why drug z worked, i think) and drug z did not, finding that all is OK with the world.

...

However, you cannot do that with homeopathic medicine, because homeopathic medicine/extracts treats the whole person, not just 'a disease or sickness'.If that is true, how do you know it works?

And is there any test that, hypothetically if homeopathy failed, would convince you homeopathy doesn't work? If so, what would that test be?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Yeah, the protocols are agreed with the applicants - that means Randi sets the protocols, the applicants have to agree to them.

If they don't agree to them, then they don't have to take the test.

Nowhere does Randi promise to give them a test that they like.

You will notice that the majority of applicants never actually take the test, because they don't agree to the protocols that Randi sets. What is your point?

Originally posted by Peter Morris
Do you have a specific example of Randi conducting a test for finding natural water underground? I don't remember seeing any.

Not finding a gold ingot in a cup, not finding a small bottle of water buried in a field, those are totally seperate claims.Read Flim Flam. Randi conducted extensive testing of dowsers searching for water flowing through underground pipes. All the dowsers discovered underground streams. Trouble was, none of them corresponded with where the water was actually flowing.

[geni]

Originally posted by RichardR
Geni, whenever I click on one of your links I just get this:

Am I the only one getting this? Could you please post the full links as I'd like to get those studies. Thanks. :)

I'm not sure what is causeing the problem does this link work?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12668794&dopt=Abstract

or this one? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12668794&dopt=Abstract)


Other than I suspose you could hit quote and copy and past the ULRs

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
I'm not sure what is causeing the problem does this link work?

Other than I suspose you could hit quote and copy and past the ULRs Yes, that link works. But copy and paste won't for the same reason the original links don't work.

Geni, the problem is that you've somehow included truncated links in the url part of the vB code section. So they won't go anywhere. You need to make sure that the entire url is in the link, no matter what is displayed in the message text.

I've got these links somewhere myself, but I suspect that Geni has them closer to hand. Alternatively, Googling for a sentence out of each of the abstracts will almost certainly yield paydirt.

Rolfe.

[geni]

Ok this list should work:
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides no evidence that adjunctive homeopathic remedies, as prescribed by experienced homeopathic practitioners, are superior to placebo in improving the quality of life of children with mild to moderate asthma in addition to conventional treatment in primary care.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12668794&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: Ultramolecular homeopathy had no observable clinical effects

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14651731&dopt=Abstract

A double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of a homeopathic treatment of neonatal calf diarrhoea was performed using 44 calves in 12 dairy herds. Calves with spontaneously derived diarrhoea were treated with either the homeopathic remedy Podophyllum (D30) (n = 24) or a placebo (n = 20). No clinically or statistically significant difference between the 2 groups was demonstrated. Calves treated with Podophyllum had an average of 3.1 days of diarrhoea compared with 2.9 days for the placebo group.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14650548&dopt=Abstract

We conclude that this systematic review does not provide clear evidence that the phenomenon of homeopathic aggravations exists.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12725251&dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSION: The effect of homeopathic treatment on mental symptoms of patients with generalized anxiety disorder did not differ from that of placebo. The improvement in both conditions was substantial. Improvement of such magnitude may account for the current belief in the efficacy of homeopathy and the current increase in the use of this practice.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12716269&dopt=Abstract

Swelling and use of analgesic medication also did not differ between arnica and placebo groups. Adverse events were reported by 2 patients in the arnica 6C group, 3 in the placebo group and 4 in the arnica 30C group. The results of this trial do not suggest that homeopathic arnica has an advantage over placebo in reducing postoperative pain, bruising and swelling in patients undergoing elective hand surgery.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12562974&dopt=Abstract

[RichardR]

That fixed it - thanks. :)

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
Now, as to the rest of your post, it seems to me you have two complaints regarding Randi's testing of dowsers. I'll deal with the shorter point first.

If you'll excuse me, I think it would be better to deal with your points the other way around., so I've reversed the order.

you say that you consulted some geologists and they said:
You can find some water anywhere you dig, but in the vast majority of places it's only a tiny trickle.
and you provide a link. You say that Randi says that water can be found under 90 or 94% of land. Randi's method of testing dowsers is to say "find me a dry spot". You say this would be impossible, because "you can find some anywhere you dig".

OK, that makes sense. Now find me a link to a cite for the proposition that "you can find some anywhere you dig". Try to be precise, and please don't say you've already provided one.

Here's the link:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=l9Qsa.12706%243n5.9208%40news2.central.cox .net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1792531788d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26 lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3Dl9Qsa.12706%25243n5.9208%2 540news2.central.cox.net

The key part, WRT your question above

I asked : [Randi says] "more than 90% of the world's land mass above reachable supplies of water "[/i] Is this figure correct?

Answer, given by Geologist " Who knows? True, you can find *some* water most anywhere, if you drill deep enough and don't need much water. Does a gallon per minute count?
We have wells supplying farms around here with 10-15 gpm flow rates. We have other wells supplying irrigation water with 2000 gpm rates, from different depths and tapping different geological units"


you say
Apart from anything else, the challenge set by Randi is radically different from the claim being made. Dowsers claim the ability to find water, not the ability to find dry spots.

Are you saying that a dowser can't tell the difference between a wet spot and a dry spot? If not, how do they know when they are on a wet spot?

A fair question, reasonably asked.

The point is, "wetness" is a matter of degree; every spot is "wet" - to a certain extent.

Some spots yield 1 gallons per minute of water.
Some spots yield 10 gpm.
some spots yield 30 gpm.
Some yield 2000 gpm.

All may be found within a very small area of ground, with the 1-10 gpm spots being very common, and the 2000 gpm spots being very rare.

So, along comes a dowser, he makes the claim that his stick twitches when he passes over one of those 2000 gpm spots.

But what of every other spot, any given place where his stick fails to twitch. Should we assume that place is "dry?" No, you might dig at that spot and find 1 gpm there, or you might find 20 gpm there, or you might find 60 gpm there. All the dowser claims is that there is not a huge quantity of water there.

Claiming the ability to locate a high yield spot does not of itself indicate an ability to find a spot where there is no water at all.

See also my reply to the next poster, which is relevent.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If it's really possible to find small amounts of flowing water at some distance underground in almost all locations, then doing so isn't much of a demonstration of unusual powers, is it?

Now, if they could give a rough idea of how much water is involved, and how far down it was, that would be more impressive.

From my consultation with a geologist.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=l9Qsa.12706%243n5.9208%40news2.central.cox .net&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dg:thl1792531788d%26dq%3D%26hl%3Den%26 lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3Dl9Qsa.12706%25243n5.9208%2 540news2.central.cox.net

You have a narrow streambed, full of sand and gravel because the water in it flows pretty fast. It flows across a plain that consists of clays and very fine silts deposited by a lake that used be on the same spot. Now fast-forward 30,000 years. You have the lake and the streambed covered by 40 to 80 meters of silts,loess, glacial tills, and assorted "stuff" deposited over the centuries.You drill two wells. One hits a small aquifer in the old lalke deposits, and you get 10 gpm (yeah I know, I'm mixing English and Metric units, so sue me :-) about it). Then you drop another well 20meters away, but this one hits those old streambed deposits, and you wind up getting 800 gpm.

Yeah, you can find some water wherever you dig, and there's nothing paranormal in finding a 10 gpm spot.

But dowsers claim the ability to find those "ancient burried streambeds" with the 800gpm flow.

Challenging them to find a "dry spot" is not a good way of testing their claim, IMHO.

[Kopji]

I understand the point being made, but the misconception about 'underground rivers', and 'dry and wet' underground seems to be owned by the dowsers not Randi. Elsewhere in the geologist's post, he confirms the statements about 'underground rivers' being flawed.

I would think a dowser could find an empty 55 gallon drum sitting in a covered swimming pool, and that would be a valid test. (There should be water everywhere except where the drum was displacing the water.)

On a smaller scale, how about a bunch of filled Dixie cups forming a pattern, and covered with plywood? Finding the areas without water seems reasonable.

This sounds like a valid test to me, to find water implies the ability to 'not' find water. If they find water everywhere what's the point? How would a claimant ever know that was all there was to find?

[Rolfe]

Hard luck, Geni. We've got dowsing obsession again. So much for your reference list.

Do you think Peter understands what dowsers claim to be able to do any more than he understands what homoeopaths claim to be able to do?

Rolfe.

[geni]

well we could combine the two (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11934908&dopt=Abstract)

[princhester]

In your last post you said you can find some water anywhere you dig, but in the vast majority of places it's only a tiny trickle. You did not qualify this in any way.

What the cite you've given actually says is that you can find *some* water most anywhere, if you drill deep enough and don't need much water [my emphasis].

As I understand the idiom, (and Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=most) supports this) when an American says "most anywhere", that is an informal contraction of "almost anywhere".

"Almost anywhere" is of course not a precise term. However, I would have thought that it certainly encompasses "90 to 94% of places".

So your cite supports what Randi says and shows why his usual way of testing dowsers is a valid idea.

Now, your next point, as I understand it, is in effect that perhaps a particular dowser can only detect a high yield place for a well, and can't tell the difference between a low yield place and an altogether dry spot.

First, before we bother going any further with this, find me a cite to the effect that this is in fact a limitation that dowsers claim. There's no point in controlling for effects that dowsers themselves don't think will be a problem.

[Kopji]

geni
The case references are awesome and I did not have any trouble with the links. Sorry about the digression to dowsing. There is a 'sameness' to all this stuff, sometimes difficult to see much difference.

I am unfamiliar with the use of the phrase 'homeopathic aggravations'. May be a language difference. Is that like 'treatment'?

[geni]

Originally posted by Kopji
geniI am unfamiliar with the use of the phrase 'homeopathic aggravations'. May be a language difference. Is that like 'treatment'?

They are what is respocible when you pick the right remedy and the "client" contunes to get worse. Some homeopaths say that it is a sign of the remedy working. Others say that it is a sign of the remedy working but the dose being wrong. Nasty old sceptics say it is a handy excuse for cases when the "client" gets worse.

[Kopji]

yikes

thanks

[magicflute]

Well... there is a relation between dowsers and homeopaths, since some have claimed that only dowsers can differenciate between a homepathic solution and plain water. Hmmmm what is that I hear..... a million dollar prize being offered?

[princhester]

Actually as I recall, the reason we are on dowsing is this:

Peter has said in his posts above that the "stunt" in the OP is typical of the unfairness of Randi's tests in general. I then challenged him to provide evidence that Randi's tests were unfair, and he then raised the subject of dowsing.

[Kopji]

Thanks.

I took some time and read one of Randi's tests for dowsing in detail and I found it excruciatingly, annoying, painstakingly, dramatically, boringly... fair.

(btw),
On sock puppets...
A difference in IP addresses is not all that descriptive as to the region someone lives.
I could log in from vastly different IP's, and I'm not very good at it. If I logged on from my work PC, I would appear to live in another state. My home PC should more accurately reflect the actual location. Probably thousands of people in a similar situation.

I've never worried much about sp's though, I just take posts as they come and treat all people as 'real'. If there's good content, I try and respond to that.

[princhester]

IP's are not something I know much about but I'm pretty sure it's easy to tell whether an IP is from England or Australia. Certainly there are some US websites that are worried about Australian defamation laws which won't let you on with an Australian IP (so I wish you couldn't tell a US from an Australian IP, but you can!).

[Kopji]

-shrug-
Not to press the point and I'm not accusing anyone, but if I connect to our corporate site via a VPN tunnel from Australia, I could post from my corporate e-mail and internet e-mail within a few seconds of each other. The corporate post would originate from, say Delaware, and the local one from Woomera (or wherever). :D

I suppose the real trick would be keeping the Angel of Light from getting confused from the demonic one. ;)

[princhester]

Originally posted by Kopji
-shrug-
Not to press the point and I'm not accusing anyone, but if I connect to our corporate site via a VPN tunnel from Australia, I could post from my corporate e-mail and internet e-mail within a few seconds of each other. The corporate post would originate from, say Delaware, and the local one from Woomera (or wherever). :D

I suppose the real trick would be keeping the Angel of Light from getting confused from the demonic one. ;)

No the real trick would be finding a way to power a computer and get an internet connection at Woomera. Portable generator and satellite connection I suppose.

I'm a lawyer not a computer geek. Explain to me how I get me one o' them "VPN tunnels" could you? I wanna log onto one of those internationally restricted US sites as if I'm in the States. Not that I really need to, but just so I can thumb my nose...

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
In your last post you said you can find some water anywhere you dig, but in the vast majority of places it's only a tiny trickle. You did not qualify this in any way.

What the cite you've given actually says is that you can find *some* water most anywhere, if you drill deep enough and don't need much water [my emphasis].

As I understand the idiom, (and Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=most) supports this) when an American says "most anywhere", that is an informal contraction of "almost anywhere".

"Almost anywhere" is of course not a precise term. However, I would have thought that it certainly encompasses "90 to 94% of places".

So your cite supports what Randi says and shows why his usual way of testing dowsers is a valid idea.

Well, I might argue the meaning of 'most' and discuss whether he really meant "almost" or not, but rather than get into all these word games once again I went and consulted some geologists (http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/newposts/963/topic963561.shtm) on the subject. I posed the following question:

"Would it be possible to locate a spot where there is no water whatsoever, at any reachable depth?

What sort of geology/geography would produce such a spot? What are chances of finding one?"

The detailed response from expeditious Turtle certainly implies the answer is no. But I wanted an unambiguous answer, so I asked again "is there any such thing as a totally dry spot?"

His response was as follows "Well, this is a very tricky question and it depends on what you consider to be dry. For example you may find a clay formation that is virtually no permeability and thus no free water can be exrtracted from the pore spaces, however there is still water there, it just can't excape."

Another poster added "Yeah, I'm averse to saying that stuff is "impossible" or that it "never" happens. However, I can't readily think of any case where you would encounter zero H2O when boring on earth"

Someone suggested a volcano as a "dry spot." The geologists contradicted this idea, saying that there is water even in magma and lava, and a volcanic erruption is 80% superheated water.

So there we have it, clear aqnd unambiguous, there is no spot anywhere on the planet that would meet Randi's requirements for a "dry spot" I don't think there is any room for misunderstanding or re-interpretation here. There are no dry spots - period.

Now, your next point, as I understand it, is in effect that perhaps a particular dowser can only detect a high yield place for a well, and can't tell the difference between a low yield place and an altogether dry spot.

First, before we bother going any further with this, find me a cite to the effect that this is in fact a limitation that dowsers claim. There's no point in controlling for effects that dowsers themselves don't think will be a problem.

In the first place, it is a moot point, there are no dry spotsl.

In the second place, you are simply assuming dowsers say they can find a dry spot, and you are challenging me to prove that they say they can't. In absence of dowsers specificly stating "we can't find a dry spot" you assume they can. This is an obvious case of argumentium (http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html) ad (http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/AdIgnorantium.html) ignorantiam. (http://www.goodart.org/ig.htm)

I think it very unlikely that I will be able to find a dowser who gives an extensive list of all then things he can't do, just on the off chance that someone should challenge him. What if Randi challenges him to flap his arms and fly to the moon, and he has never claimed an inability to do so? Would that be a fair test?

It just seems to me that "I can find an ancient burried streambed" and "I can find a dry spot" are two totally different things, the one does not imply the other. You are entitled to disagree, but the burden of proof is yours.

But given the fact that there are no dry spots, it's probably not worth spending too long researching your reply..

[princhester]

I don't think when Randi says "dry spot" he means a spot where the rock and soil literally has no moisture content at all. I don't doubt for a moment that pretty much everywhere on the planet has some moisture content.

In fact, if you look at the responses you had to your question, they do not support your position at all. Even "Expeditious Turtle" who you cite so favourably (and he certainly seems to know what he's talking about) says:

"there are many geological formations that can result in little to no groundwater" [my emphasis]

When you pressed him and put an extra modifier in your question ("totally" dry) he said "you may find a clay formation that is virtually no permeability and thus no free water can be extracted from the pore spaces". For my money, that's a dry spot as far as a well is concerned.

And then look at Leong's answer: "The common problem with boring for water is hitting blue-metal or other hard rock without striking a wet layer. If the water isnt flowing down over that rock layer, you would have to drill through it, and thats quite expensive, and you wouldnt know what was below the rock layers - perhaps a wet layer, and perhaps just rock and more rock."

Leong is clearly asserting that there are areas where there may be no wet layer before you come to "rock and more rock". That is, no water within drillable distance. Exactly what Randi says.

So despite your vigorous assertions to the contrary, your research once again supports Randi.

As to the rest of your post, I'll frame my point another way. You have asserted above that "dowsers claim the ability to find those "ancient buried streambeds" with the 800gpm flow" ie exceptionally high yield water. This is a positive assertion on your part.

Unless you can prove this assertion, there is no reason to assume that it is unreasonable of Randi to set a test that asks dowsers to distinguish between wet and dry.

[Kopji]

princhester
Sorry, I've gone off topic enough, and there are easier ways than a VPN. My point was that an IP address is not precise enough to establish forum identity 100%.

Peter Morris
My one experience with a dowser was unfortunate, and excuse me if I've shared this before somewhere.

We were at a church camp work weekend out in the desert mountains near Prescott. (My younger days.) One of the chores was to locate a buried pipeline from a water tower at the top of a nearby ridge to the mess-hall. Nobody could remember where it was. The weekend organizers had hired a popular local dowser to find the pipe, and had been at it for several hours, carefully focusing on a spot that was not between the tank and building. Several people were digging deep holes in the hard dirt.

A quick look around the area showed that there was a slight depression directly between the two structures. If I were going to bury a pipe, that's where I'd put it... so I started digging at the deepest spot and found the pipe easily within about 10 minutes.

Rather than getting a 'thanks' I was met with a gruff response like I had insulted the guy or something. I was the bad guy.
I try and keep this lesson in mind when I run into people who want to believe no matter what.

So... if a dowser huffs off if Randi asks to find a 'dry' spot, I am more inclined to think they took it as a sign of disrespect, an affront to their authority. This is not a reasoned reaction to being given an impossible task, but just an excuse.

And I really do try and stay on topic, so I will now.
fadetoblack

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
I don't think when Randi says "dry spot" he means a spot where the rock and soil literally has no moisture content at all. I don't doubt for a moment that pretty much everywhere on the planet has some moisture content.

In fact, if you look at the responses you had to your question, they do not support your position at all. Even "Expeditious Turtle" who you cite so favourably (and he certainly seems to know what he's talking about) says:

"there are many geological formations that can result in little to no groundwater" [my emphasis]

When you pressed him and put an extra modifier in your question ("totally" dry) he said "you may find a clay formation that is virtually no permeability and thus no free water can be extracted from the pore spaces". For my money, that's a dry spot as far as a well is concerned.

Okay, you think that Randi would count that as a dry spot?

The trouble is that, as established in the information given by the geologists, most of the world gives "little to no water"

Randi has challenged the dowsers to locate a "dry spot" and offered a million dollars for doing so. If you are correct in your belief that "little to no" water counts as a dry spot in Randi's definition, then winning the million would be easy. All I would have to do is pick a spot at random, (and I have no geological knowledge or dowsing skill) and I would virtually be certain to hit a spot with "little to no water" and win the milliion.

The fact that nobody has done so yet is pretty good evidence that Randi does not count "little to no water" as a dry spot. If he did, the prize would have been won years ago.


I'll put this another way. Randi has repeatedly said that there is reachable water under more than 90% of the Earth's surface. Now the fact is, most of the Earth's surface only contains trace amounts of water. Randi's statement is true only if he considers trace amounts of water to not be "dry".

So, a spot with "little to no water" might be a dry spot for your money, but Randi quite clearly has a different opinion.

I'll put it yet another way. Randi constructs his tests so that there is no judging required. It has to be obvious to any observer. You can't select a spot with "little to no water" and ask an adjudicator to judge whether this counts as "dry" or not, you have to pick a spot where there is no water at all.

It is impossible to find a spot anywhere on the planet that Randi would recognise as "dry."

[apoger]

>Okay, you think that Randi would count that as a dry spot?

>It is impossible to find a spot anywhere on the planet that Randi would recognise as "dry."



Standards for success in the JREF challenge are agreed upon by the JREF and claimant prior to the testing. Debate over what a particular claimant can or cannot do, and the definitions of such things as "water" or "dry" are worked out on an individual basis.

This is done to avoid the type of semantic game that you are now playing.

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by princhester
As to the rest of your post, I'll frame my point another way. You have asserted above that "dowsers claim the ability to find those "ancient buried streambeds" with the 800gpm flow" ie exceptionally high yield water. This is a positive assertion on your part.

Unless you can prove this assertion, there is no reason to assume that it is unreasonable of Randi to set a test that asks dowsers to distinguish between wet and dry.


I can indeed prove my assertion that dowsers claim this ability.

I don't say they actually CAN do so.

I merely prove that they SAY they can do so.

You seem to be denying that they say they can.

http://waltonfeed.com/old/dowse.html

"Underground rock is normally fractured or broken in different places. Water is going to take the path of least resistance. Ground water is the same as surface water in that it will also flow in the path of least resistance. If you turn a hose on the water will move through the path of least resistance through the hose to it's opening. Water in the ground does the same thing, following the path of least resistance though the cracks and fissures in the rocks. Many underground aquifers are in very tight formations such as shale, basalt or granite. You'll find the water will follow the cracks and fissures through the rock. The whole purpose of the rods is to find the cracks and fissures where the water is moving through the rock formations, then tap into that rather than going down into solid rock where no water is found. "

http://www.irishwizards.com/about/comments.html

"It was ridiculously easy!! I had never used rods before but after just three hours tuition I was finding underground streams, figuring out how wide they were and what way they were flowing. Seeing everyone else in the line finding the edge of the stream at the same time as me made it even more thrilling - I knew then I wasn't making it up! "

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/betz/14.html

" A total analysis of this data led the authors to the conclusion that dowsers are able to sense karst water channels"

So, there we have it, positive proof that dowsers CLAIM the ability to find underground channels.

Whether they can REALLY find them is another matter entirely.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
If you are correct in your belief that "little to no" water counts as a dry spot in Randi's definition, then winning the million would be easy.

The question of the extensiveness of "little to no" water areas does not appear to me to be a subject that we have got to the bottom of.

"JF Cornwall" from your other fact finding expedition said, as we have discussed, "you can find *some* water most anywhere, if you drill deep enough and don't need much water. Does a gallon per minute count?"

"John" says most wells would yield a considerable amount.

"Expeditious Turtle" contradicts him, and says most wells would find nothing. Maybe you should clarify with him whether he means nothing at all or nothing useful?

It seems to me that Randi's 90 to 94% receives considerable support.

All I would have to do is pick a spot at random, (and I have no geological knowledge or dowsing skill) and I would virtually be certain to hit a spot with "little to no water" and win the milliion.

Why don't contact you Randi and challenge on this basis then? Either you win the million or you prove your point (ie if Randi sets an "absolutely dry" criteria).

As to your three cites, the first guy says he can dowse and tell how much the flow will be. He gives an example of a friend who could allegedly precisely predict the number of gallons per minute. He says you can dowse just by visualising what you are looking for. So he could visualise "dry spot" and find one. Supposedly.

The second cite is from someone who tried dowsing one afternoon. I don't think this person is someone who is going to be applying to Randi, so what they say they can and can't do is pretty irrelevant.

The third cite is from a test of dowsers, the location of which had been carefully chosen because it was mostly rock (ie no water) but with known galleries through it. The dowsers were told beforehand that there was a "gallery" (ie high yield) spot that they had to locate in a "no yield" area. I don't think this indicates anything at all about whether or not the dowsers in question believe they could have distinguished high yield from low yield spots because that simply wasn't on the agenda.

Peter I'd have to say that very probably if you look hard enough you will find a dowser somewhere who says he can find high yield spots but can't distinguish between high and low yield spots. That person would clearly not be able to pass a "find a dry spot" test.

But I think the quotes you have found in which Randi says he tests all dowsers the same way ("find me a dry spot") are generalisations. We both know that Randi doesn't literally test all dowsers that way because we have discussed the "piped water" tests that Randi has participated in before.

I think that if you applied to Randi, saying that you could find high yield spots and distinguish them from low-to-no yield spots, and if you were prepared to agree a protocol that had sufficiently well defined boundaries in that respect, and if you were prepared to pay for what would be a massively expensive test if done in natural circumstances (because of the number of test bores required) then Randi would be happy to test you on that basis.

I doubt anyone has ever offered this because no one silly enough has that much money.

There are definitely practical limits imposed on the ability to test dowsers in natural environments.

[magicflute]

Look, all you do is get the dowser to agree on 10 spots that are 'dry', then get him to agree on the minimum amout of water he can detect at ground level. Then place that amount randomly at the 10 spots preselected by the dowser as 'dry' and see if he does better than chance. End of story, end of excuses.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by magicflute
Look, all you do is get the dowser to agree on 10 spots that are 'dry', then get him to agree on the minimum amout of water he can detect at ground level. Then place that amount randomly at the 10 spots preselected by the dowser as 'dry' and see if he does better than chance. End of story, end of excuses.

Ahhh - but then you get the "it has to be free flowing water" or "it has to be natural water" caveats.

It is like most paranormal claims IMHO, as soon as you start to try and find out what they can ACTUALLY do, they move the goal posts.

The funny thing is that given the non-blind test before hand they always seem to do amazing well and are happy bunnies, but it all changes when the test goes blind...funny that :rolleyes:

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by Stitch
Skeptic: One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. Sceptic: One who accepts as probably true only those things for which there is supporting evidence, with the probability of truth being in proportion to the amount of evidence.

[BillyJoe]

quadruple post

[BillyJoe]

quadruple post

[BillyJoe]

quadruple post