How Homeopathy/TRS Works??

[Kumar]

Hello all,

Homeopathy along with Tissue Remedies systems are still existing & florishing since long in widespread/well-disributed & mass public all over the world. Several countries have accepted/recognized it and included it as a academic regular couse as well as in hospitals. It is observered & experianced by million of people all over the world. It is said to have least side/adverse & toxic effects in opposition to conventional system.

Being small molecular & untramolecular in nature of their lower & higher potentised remedies-- their working science couldn't be yet ascertained with current modren technologies & means. Several theories have been presented by several science & homeopathic people to this effect, but still it is a mystry which is causing lot of confusions, suspicions & contradictions among homeopathic, Modren science & general public communities.

It is the duty of modren science to research & find the reasonings of working of these mystry remedies with their best efforts till this system remain popular OR dies in itself. At the present status of its popularity & widespreadness--it can't be assumed that it is a bogus system or so many people can be fool, illitrate or fraud. Today's public is quite educated, clever & accept it honestly.

Under the above considerations, why its working could not be yet justified by modren science may be due to following reasons:-

1. The resources & funds by the goverment & other big agencies are not equally deployed for this system in consideration of its slow effects or otherwise.

2. It is still a weakness of modren science in understanding it.

3. It is intentionally not looked in to deeply & properly under the influence of modren system's lobby which is more prominent & popular in current times.

4. It is not insisted & pursued by homeopathic community-- may be due to some vested interests OR they do not require/need it because is fully satisfied in its current shape.

Whatever is there, but it is a moral & mandatory duty of modren science to apply its best efforts in finding the justification & science of 'working of homeopathic remedies/TRs for the benefits of humanity at large. By just saying it is plain water or fake, can means, declaring so many people including our fathers & for-fathers as FOOL, ILLITRATE, INNOCENT, FRAUD...OR OTHERWISE-- which seems to be bit imposible & illogical & so WRONG.

All or anyone can discuss it for contributing this topic & for their better understandings on the subject, with suitable justifications.

Best wishes.

[Deetee]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello all,
It is the duty of modren science to research & find the reasonings of working of these mystry remedies with their best efforts till this system remain popular OR dies in itself. At the present status of its popularity & widespreadness--it can't be assumed that it is a bogus system or so many people can be fool, illitrate or fraud. Today's public is quite educated, clever & accept it honestly.

Best wishes.

Kumar, in the hope you are not just trolling again....

First show it works.
Then and only then can we address the question of how/why it works.
Popularity of something does not mean it is true or that it works (cf horoscopes, alien body snatches etc)

[The Don]

I realise that it's not what you want posted to this thread but I feel I have to do so for the record.

There is NO evidence for Homoeopathy and/or Tissue salts working. Both are based on outdated concepts and science. Discussin a mechanism by which they work is about as sensible as dicussing the means by which a cloak of invisibility works.

By posting "positively" to this thread , you are merely feeding Kumar's delusions regarding these subjects.

[Quasi]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello all,

Homeopathy along with Tissue Remedies systems are still existing & florishing since long in widespread/well-disributed & mass public all over the world. Several countries have accepted/recognized it and included it as a academic regular couse as well as in hospitals. It is observered & experianced by million of people all over the world. It is said to have least side/adverse & toxic effects in opposition to conventional system.
[/B]

Kumar,

Just one, basic question. I think the normal objections to homeopathy are well covered on other threads, directly to you. Here it is:

Why is it, with all of the billions of dollars being made by homeopathy companies, schools, etc. is the homeopathy industry not investigating homeopathy where: 1) potencies are made up, 2) placebo vials are made up, 3) patients are treated following homeopathy (as it is commonly practiced) using the assorted, blindly randomized vials? This is quite simple, the homeopaths do not know if the labelled vial contains placebo or homeopathic, and it would cover the array of homeopathic solutions specifically for that patient and their symptoms, so where are the excuses? I know, the patient would have to receive all placebo or homeopathic otherwise there could be objections, any others? Why Kumar? Could it be that homeopathy is comprised of well meaning uncritical practitioners mixed with outright frauds? Could it be that the frauds are exploiting people with phony degrees and pharmacies as well as snake oil? Is there any room for placebo or fraud in your view of homeopathy, or is it all goodness with blue skies and green grass?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello all,
*snip* At the present status of its popularity & widespreadness--it can't be assumed that it is a bogus system or so many people can be fool, illitrate or fraud. Today's public is quite educated, clever & accept it honestly.

Nevertheless, the public is wrong about a number of things. For example, we have several religions that each have billions of followers, yet they contradict each other and at most one of them can be true (since they all claim to be the one and only truth), so most of these people MUST be wrong.

The "fool, illiterate or fraud" bit is a straw-man. It is possible to be neither and STILL be wrong.

Under the above considerations, why its working could not be yet justified by modren science may be due to following reasons:-

1. The resources & funds by the goverment & other big agencies are not equally deployed for this system in consideration of its slow effects or otherwise.

No, because any government or big corporation would love to find a cheap, simple method to improve people's health.

2. It is still a weakness of modren science in understanding it.

No, because science needs not understand things to explore them. For instance, science does still notunderstand in all details how the Sun functions, but that does not keep us from exploring it.

3. It is intentionally not looked in to deeply & properly under the influence of modren system's lobby which is more prominent & popular in current times.

Total nonsense. To reverse your appeal to polularity: How would you suggest that hundreds of thousands of scientists could be coerced into forgoing the fame and fortune in making a break-through discovery in medicine? Not to mention the pharmaceutical companies who would just love to wipe out their competition with simple, easy to make medicines.

4. It is not insisted & pursued by homeopathic community-- may be due to some vested interests OR they do not require/need it because is fully satisfied in its current shape.

It is not pursued by the homeopathic medicine industry, because they thrive off the mysticism. If they tested it, they would loose a very lucrative business. Same goes for professional homeopaths.

Whatever is there, but it is a moral & mandatory duty of modren science to apply its best efforts in finding the justification & science of 'working of homeopathic remedies/TRs for the benefits of humanity at large.

Science has been doing some tests, but they failed to show any effect.

By just saying it is plain water or fake, can means, declaring so many people including our fathers & for-fathers as FOOL, ILLITRATE, INNOCENT, FRAUD...OR OTHERWISE-- which seems to be bit imposible & illogical & so WRONG.

No matter how repulsive we find reality, it remains reality.

All or anyone can discuss it for contributing this topic & for their better understandings on the subject, with suitable justifications.

Best wishes.

To do science we must rid ourselves of preconceived notions. We must observe and weigh our observations logically.

Hans

[Benguin]

Whatever is there, but it is a moral & mandatory duty of modren science to apply its best efforts in finding the justification & science of 'working of homeopathic remedies/TRs for the benefits of humanity at large.

It did, and consistently drew a blank. Why waste more resources on a non-starter when there is so much valuable efficacious research in pressing need of funding? Don't answer that.

You've said all this stuff before, kumar, and never managed to respond properly to any of questions or comments levelled at your fallacious reasoning. Simply pasting it all up again and again is trolling.

I plead guilty to feeding the troll, couldn't resist it.

Move along, move along, nothing to see ...

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
1. The resources & funds by the goverment & other big agencies are not equally deployed for this system in consideration of its slow effects or otherwise.
There have been a number of studies into Homoeopathy. Those which have a good protocol (double blind experimentation, objective measurement of results) have shown no effect from homoepathy.

The money which has been invested has shown it doesn't work.
Originally posted by Kumar
2. It is still a weakness of modren science in understanding it.
Modern science cannot unserstand it because there is NOTHING to understand. This is the same way in which modern science cannot explain how dragons blow fire without exploding.
Originally posted by Kumar
3. It is intentionally not looked in to deeply & properly under the influence of modren system's lobby which is more prominent & popular in current times.
This is quite untrue, the Pharmacological industry would simply love homoeopathy to work. Their margins (and hence profits) would go through the roof if it did.

The only problem is that their studies show that it doesn't
Originally posted by Kumar
4. It is not insisted & pursued by homeopathic community-- may be due to some vested interests OR they do not require/need it because is fully satisfied in its current shape.
I can't speak for the homoeopathy community but I expect that their unwillingness to carry out proper investigations has to do with one or more of the following:

- The just KNOW it works why waste time and money proving it to the sceptics
- The more you monitor it the less well it works, therefore in the interests of their patients, they don't investigate too closely
- They are charlatans who don't want to be exposed

[Kumar]

Deetee,Don, Quassi,

As I mentioned, looking at its popularity & widespreadness, I want to know from you ( science people) now, to tell me how it works? It is not a non-science person's job/capability to prove it according to science, but the scientific community will have to satisfy the public accordingly. Otherwise they can satisfy how & why it is so popular & widespread?

[Benguin]

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM

Look it up if you don't understand.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
I want to know from you ( science people) now, to tell me how it works?
It doesn't
Originally posted by Kumar
It is not a non-science person's job/capability to prove it according to science, but the scientific community will have to satisfy the public accordingly.
They keep trying, they can't get an effect
Originally posted by Kumar
Otherwise they can satisfy how & why it is so popular & widespread?
It's popular and widespread because people would like to believe that they'll get a guaranteed cure from homoeopathy rather than a not guaranteed cure from medicine. Of course the reason why the homoeopathic cure is guaranteed is because the "healer" is lying or mistaken

[Benguin]

Belief the number 13 is unlucky is 'popular and widespread', as is belief the earth is flat, belief in withcraft (voodoo, ju-ju, all similar in different cultural systems).

And as I said already, using your flawed logic, belief in allopathic medicine is more popular and more widespread.

Saying the same thing again and again is not debating Kumar, it is trolling. I'm beginning to think you are a xanta/oaf sock puppet.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Deetee,Don, Quassi,

As I mentioned, looking at its popularity & widespreadness, I want to know from you ( science people) now, to tell me how it works? It is not a non-science person's job/capability to prove it according to science, but the scientific community will have to satisfy the public accordingly. Otherwise they can satisfy how & why it is so popular & widespread? From: Science
To: The widespread public
Re: Homeopathy, wichcraft, tissue salts, touch healing, prayer healing, etc.

Dear widespread public.

We regret to inform you that the abovementioned methods of healing sick people have all been investigated and found to have no objective effect.

The often perceived effect from such regimens are due to placebo efffect, faulty interpretation of natural recovery, and, unfortunately, a number of examples of deliberate fraud.

Best regards,
Science


.... Hans

[Kumar]

Mr. Hans, Benguin, Don,

I don't believe in all that same stuff which you have mentioned so many times. I think, by this time of extreme advanced research & technologies--everything is mostly/already settled & whatever still exists can hold something 'REALITY'. People are also sufficiently become well educated & advanced. So, I can't even think to disbelive so many well educated people. I therefore, insist & demand that the science people to satisfy the common public like me ,the reasoning of the same OR just say (1): We could not know as yet, the science & reasoning of how homeopathic remedies works, but it works. It is very common mentioning in CMS litretures--so no shame in it. (2): that so many people are illitrate, fraud, innocent, fools or otherwise-- as it don't works. The weaknesses are usually anticipated by contradictions & confusions.

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Don

It doesn't

IT is just a story.

They keep trying, they can't get an effect

So many things/aspects couldn't yet be fully/even partly settled by science. It does not mean they left those aspects or not still trying to find the reasonings. REF: Merk's Mannual, for unsettled aspects in tons.

It's popular and widespread because people would like to believe that they'll get a guaranteed cure from homoeopathy rather than a not guaranteed cure from medicine. Of course the reason why the homoeopathic cure is guaranteed is because the "healer" is lying or mistaken

No, it means they are getting benefits but got confused/misguided by so many advertisements & popularity. They become nervous/suspicious in few days of treatment & swith over to CMS without waiting equally as in CMS system. It is also common in other accepted alt. systems & sprituals. I think' lie' word is not usual in homeopathy. 'Mistaken' can be possible as a normal word in MS--but with a benefit gift of of least adverse effects.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
I don't believe in all that same stuff which you have mentioned so many times. I think, by this time of extreme advanced research & technologies--everything is mostly/already settled & whatever still exists can hold something 'REALITY'.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and giong "La, la, la I can't hear you does not change the fact that effects of homoeopathic "remedies" are indistinguishable from the placebo effect. You're entitled to your beliefs. In this case they aer wrong
Originally posted by Kumar
People are also sufficiently become well educated & advanced. So, I can't even think to disbelive so many well educated people.
People are often irrational and mistaken. You're willing to disbelieve the billions of educated people who say homoeopathy doesn't work but not the millions of people who say it does.

If you're doing an argumentum ad populum at least do it properly
Originally posted by Kumar
I therefore, insist & demand that the science people to satisfy the common public like me ,the reasoning of the same
Insist away. There is plenty of research under way. They just can't find the effect
Originally posted by Kumar
OR just say (1): We could not know as yet, the science & reasoning of how homeopathic remedies works, but it works. It is very common mentioning in CMS litretures--so no shame in it.
How many times do we have to say this. It doesn't work. Merely repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Lots of people believing a lie does not make it the truth either.
Originally posted by Kumar
(2): that so many people are illitrate, fraud, innocent, fools or otherwise-- as it don't works. The weaknesses are usually anticipated by contradictions & confusions.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the last few words. "Science" regularly comes out and says there's nothing to homoeopathy. The reason why meny people don't believe this is because they don't want to believe it, they's rather hang on to some mystical fiction.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
They keep trying, they can't get an effect

So many things/aspects couldn't yet be fully/even partly settled by science. It does not mean they left those aspects or not still trying to find the reasonings. REF: Merk's Mannual, for unsettled aspects in tons.[/B]
There are many things science cannot explain exactly. There is however a huge difference between not being able to explain something observable and not being able to explain something which isn't there. The reason science cannot explain how homoeopathy works is that there isn't anything to explain

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
Mr. Hans, Benguin, Don,

I don't believe in all that same stuff which you have mentioned so many times.

That has become painfully clear to us all. If you do not believe anything we say, why do you keep asking questions? It must be clear to you by now that WE do not believe in homeopathy just because some people do.



I think, by this time of extreme advanced research & technologies--everything is mostly/already settled & whatever still exists can hold something 'REALITY'.

These extremely advanced research technologies have found no justification for homeopathy.

People are also sufficiently become well educated & advanced. So, I can't even think to disbelive so many well educated people.

Well, I can.

I therefore, insist & demand that the science people to satisfy the common public like me

You are in no position to insist or demand.

,the reasoning of the same OR just say (1): We could not know as yet, the science & reasoning of how homeopathic remedies works, but it works.

I does not work.

It is very common mentioning in CMS litretures--so no shame in it. (2): that so many people are illitrate, fraud, innocent, fools or otherwise-- as it don't works.

All these people are not illiterate (not ALL of them ;)), fools or frauds. But they are WRONG.

The weaknesses are usually anticipated by contradictions & confusions.

Exactly, and homeopathy, tissue salts and the like theories are full of contradictions and weaknesses.

Hans

[Kumar]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Don


People are often irrational and mistaken. You're willing to disbelieve the billions of educated people who say homoeopathy doesn't work but not the millions of people who say it does.

People who have experianced it regularily can only have right to say & counted for the same. Other skeptic can not have any right. Educated here can also mean-- educated by experiancing these.


Insist away. There is plenty of research under way. They just can't find the effect

It has to go on till.........as I mentioned.

How many times do we have to say this. It doesn't work. Merely repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Lots of people believing a lie does not make it the truth either.

Yes, equally, how many times the experianced person will say that it works. Who are not experianced/educated not entitled to comment on the same.

]

[Benguin]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kumar
People are also sufficiently become well educated & advanced. So, I can't even think to disbelive so many well educated people.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


People are often irrational and mistaken. You're willing to disbelieve the billions of educated people who say homoeopathy doesn't work but not the millions of people who say it does.


Even Arthur Conan Doyle (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm) fell for the famous fairy story, he swung his entire weight behind it's efficacy. I'm not sure if he ever recanted, as I think the girls behind it didn't own up until long after he died.

I deal with educated people every day who hold a supernatural understanding of their computers, not dissimilar to the false understanding of biology that homeopathy involves. Things are much simpler to deal with when you actually understand the cause-effect relationships and don't have to resort to making up nonsense to fit, then expanding and extrapolating it when it fails.

You are being selective in which group of (educated) people you choose to believe. I've said this to you about FIVE TIMES now. If you're trying to appeal only to popularity you fail even before the fallacy is exposed.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
People who have experianced it regularily can only have right to say & counted for the same. Other skeptic can not have any right. Educated here can also mean-- educated by experiancing these.
Okay, so only those people who believe in homoeopathy are allowed to have an opinion on homoeopathy. What about people who have taken homoeopathic remedies byut experienced no benefit ? Are they allowed to have an opinion ?

You've really sunk to the lowest levels of argument here, relying on dogma.
Originally posted by Kumar
It has to go on till.........as I mentioned.
So we keep on looking until we find. Except there's noting TO find and the money and resources and manpower wasted looking into a completely spurious effect cannot be spent profitably looking into real cures.

The lure of homoeopathy is such that research WILL be ongoing and Nobel prizes and huge research grants will be available to the first one to find it. It's just that nothing's been found.
Originally posted by Kumar
Yes, equally, how many times the experianced person will say that it works. Who are not experianced/educated not entitled to comment on the same.
But the experienced person has a personal investment in homoeopathy and cannot be considered a reliable witness. Why not leave it to those people who are impartial ?

[Deetee]

Kumar, why do you believe that something which is popular has to be true?

You have a touching faith in the ability of the general public to critically weigh up evidence and make informed decisions. Most people are completely incapable of this.

I would go further and say that you are more intelligent than the average British school leaver. But even you cannot see through the stupidity of homeopathy, so what hope is there for the general public?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
That has become painfully clear to us all. If you do not believe anything we say, why do you keep asking questions? It must be clear to you by now that WE do not believe in homeopathy just because some people do

Experianced/educated people in this line--who says it works are more or only entitled for voting but certainly not just the speakers.

These extremely advanced research technologies have found no justification for homeopathy.

So many things/concepts are still pending to be settled in science, eventhough are well accepted.

Well, I can.

It is just a skeptic approach or a precieved attitude?
...
You are in no position to insist or demand.

YES, We can. Ultimate money can go from our pockets.

I does not work.

Just an skeptic's words-- yet to be experianced.

All these people are not illiterate (not ALL of them ), fools or frauds. But they are WRONG.

It means similarily. One can't be wrong unless he is ...............;)

Exactly, and homeopathy, tissue salts and the like theories are full of contradictions and weaknesses.

....Weaknesses of current science means.

Hans [/B]

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Deetee
Kumar, why do you believe that something which is popular has to be true?

You have a touching faith in the ability of the general public to critically weigh up evidence and make informed decisions. Most people are completely incapable of this.

I would go further and say that you are more intelligent than the average British school leaver. But even you cannot see through the stupidity of homeopathy, so what hope is there for the general public? Because I might habe been experiancing it regularily(TRS).

[MRC_Hans]

Over and out.
Hans

[Benguin]

Experianced/educated people in this line--who says it works are more or only entitled for voting but certainly not just the speakers.

Unless you respond to the questions about this properly, then this is unintelligent trolling;

1. Many people believing something is true does not mean it is true, it just means it is popular.

2. Even accepting popularity, how can you discount the (majority) of educated and experienced people who know homeopathy is nothing more than placebo.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Kumar
Because I might habe been experiancing it regularily(TRS).

Kumar, one question. Do you believe there is a chance that the effect you have felt from TRS was nothing more than wishful thinking, or are you absolutely 100% certain that TRS works as well or better than conventional medical treatments?

[Kumar]

Benguin,


1. Many people believing something is true does not mean it is true, it just means it is popular.

Many people experiancing something as true does mean it should be true, popularity is a secondary thing. Can't we think that modren system is more popular & homeopathy is not?

2. Even accepting popularity, how can you discount the (majority) of educated and experienced people who know homeopathy is nothing more than placebo

They may be educated & experianced in other subject but not in homeopathy & so say: homeopathy is nothing more than placebo. One experianced may have more weightage than millions not yet experianced. Millions of kids can't be clever than an aged & experianced person.

Donks, Frankly, I do not feel need for medicines in about 60-70% cases. Above it, I don't take the chance. I would have wished that it could have due to wishful thinking, but unfortunetely I didn't find it. However, I consider corrections by wishfull thinking as best and kept it as my last thing.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
Many people experiancing something as true does mean it should be true, popularity it a secondary thing. Can't we think that modren system is more popular & homeopathy is not?
Just because somebody experiences something doesn't mean it happened. I was watching a cricket game yesterday. I was sure the batsman got a nick on the ball, all my fellow supporters were sure, all of the opposition supporters were sure he didn't. We were all SURE but half of us had to be wrong

Just because something happens, doesn't mean that someone's pet theory is the cause. One of my areas of superstition is that Nelson (111) and all multiples thereof almost certainly causes batsmen to get out. If a batman is dismissed on 111 does this make "Nelson" the cause ? Of course not, it was just co-incidence.

Likewise people "get better" after taking homoeopathic remedies. Are they the cause of the cure ? Scientific investigation indicates not.
Originally posted by Kumar
[b]They may be educated & experianced in other subject but not in homeopathy & so say homeopathy is nothing more than placebo. One experianced may have more weightage than millions not yet experianced. Millions of kids can't be clever than an aged & experianced person.
What about people wh have had no response to homoeopathic remedies, should they be excluded too ?

[Kumar]

Hello,

As you are asking, I also have few questions. Pls give true replies.

1. Who will be more justified-- 10 million people with no experiance of homeopathic remedies or one million people who have personal positive experiances in these remedies?

2. Who will have more weightage in voting-- just few who have not felt effects properly or millions who felt & experianced positive effects of homeopathic remedies?

3. Are these people justified to comment on homeopathy--a community who have never experianced, observed in person or surveyed by visting several homeopathic clinics -- the effects of homeopathic remedies?

4. Do the modren medical system also gets several contradictory statements & have several adverses or not?

5. Whether homeopathic remedies, even though bit contradictory but correct & cure anyhow-- is somewhat in the benefit of patients esp. for regular & non risky type of diseases AND where no cure is at all possible(hopeless case) OR not?

Your honest reply or no reply is anticipated.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
1. Who will be more justified-- 10 million people with no experiance of homeopathic remedies or one million people who have personal positive experiances in these remedies?
I think neither of them are in a position to comment. The ones who have conducted studies into the effectiveness of Homoeopathy are certainly entitled to contribute as are those people who have read sthose studies.

Once again, science is not a popularity contest
Originally posted by Kumar
2. Who will have more weightage in voting-- just few who have not felt effects properly or millions who felt & experianced positive effects of homeopathic remedies?
No vote, just science. Bring the evidence of homoeopathy based on peer reviewed, independently verified and published papers.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence (apologies to whoever I nicked that from).
Originally posted by Kumar
3. Are these people justified to comment on homeopathy--a community who have never experianced, observed in person or surveyed by visting several homeopathic clinics -- the effects of homeopathic remedies?
I would say that they are, if anything, more qualified to comment on homoeopathy on the grounds that they haven't been brainwashed.
Originally posted by Kumar
4. Do the modren medical system also gets several contradictory statements & have several adverses or not?
Ceratainly people have adverse reactions to medicine. That's becuase medicine actually does something. An adverse reaction to nothing is quite hard to achieve.
Originally posted by Kumar
5. Whether homeopathic remedies, even though bit contradictory but correct & cure anyhow-- is somewhat in the benefit of patients esp. for regular & non risky type of diseases AND where no cure is at all possible(hopeless case) OR not?
Ahhh. homoeopathy as a a palliative. By all means but make it quote clear ahead of time that there is no medical benefit to the treatment.

Of course the time and energy used could probably be used to execute other complimentary treatments that actually work.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello,

As you are asking, I also have few questions. Pls give true replies.

1. Who will be more justified-- 10 million people with no experiance of homeopathic remedies or one million people who have personal positive experiances in these remedies?


Doesn't matter unless you can produce any figures to back up this extra-ordinary claim. People can respond to nothing and believe they experienced something, that is one definition of the placebo effect (or at least what placebos are meant to eliminate). No trial ever identified homeopathy as offering any benefit over nothing at all.

The figures have no meaning at all unless they are from properly conducted trials. You might very well talk about the power of prayer or avoiding the cracks on the pavement.


2. Who will have more weightage in voting-- just few who have not felt effects properly or millions who felt & experianced positive effects of homeopathic remedies?


That's the point of a trial, and when conducted the people who'd had homeopathy reacted the same way as those who hadn't.

Don't confuse the lack of a scientific explanation with lack of efficacy. I'd be happy to accept your lame argument that science doesn't yet have the explanation for who it works if we had any evidence that it works. we don't so the scientific debate is largely academic.


3. Are these people justified to comment on homeopathy--a community who have never experianced, observed in person or surveyed by visting several homeopathic clinics -- the effects of homeopathic remedies?


If we aren't justified to comment why bother talking with sceptics? I've tried the odd woo remedy ... I'm not wasting my money on more. I tend to only try it if it is complimentary complementary medicine ... :D

Again, no real evidence. You could use the same nonsense argument to talk about ear-candling, laying on hands, praying, spirtual healing. They are all characterised by people who want to believe they work and will claim credit for any positive change and discount negatives. The credulous convince themselves very easy.


4. Do the modren medical system also gets several contradictory statements & have several adverses or not?


Which they acknowledge and work on. That's the difference between proper research and irrationally clinging to faith-based fantasy world of how things work. I'm not sure there are very many contradictions, paradoxes maybe.


5. Whether homeopathic remedies, even though bit contradictory

Totally contradictory


but correct & cure anyhow


Prove it


-- is somewhat in the benefit of patients esp. for regular & non risky type of diseases AND where no cure is at all possible(hopeless case) OR not?


How is scarfing money off desperate people helpful? any more than discouraging them access to proper medical help?


Your honest reply or no reply is anticipated.

You're record is stuck ... at least you are now mixing up argumentum ad populum with appeals to ignorance.

Trying to claim the only people qualified to offer a view are those who've had positive experiences is nonsense. Conventional medicine audits itself and learns the efficacy of its treatments through feedback and constant trial. Sometimes things turn out not to be helpful, or with a poor correllation, so re-examination occurs.

Homeopathy does nothing like this and relies on apocrypha and appeals to silent mass of people who 'know its benefits'.

If you are going to stick to this pointless line of reasoning I suggest you print off the last message you wrote and replace the word 'homeopathy ' with 'allopathy' everywhere you see it. Read it back to yourself and see if you are convinced.

Let me know, as I'm not sure where you'll find yourself.

[steenkh]

Kumar,

Your questions have already been adequately answered. However I have a question regarding your first question:
Originally posted by Kumar

1. Who will be more justified-- 10 million people with no experiance of homeopathic remedies or one million people who have personal positive experiances in these remedies?

Do you believe in UFO abductions? The most convincing explanation for this phenomenon is sleep paralysis. However, if we are to believe the psychologists who make a living of treating these abductees, millions of people have experienced an abduction. Now, most of these people do not know what sleep paralysis is, so they will tend to believe their fashionable hallucinations of UFO abductions. Will the millions of "abductees" be more justified in their conclusions about what happens, than those few people who have not experienced it, but believe it is caused by sleep paralysis?

[glee]

Originally posted by Kumar
Homeopathy along with Tissue Remedies systems are still existing & florishing since long in widespread/well-disributed & mass public all over the world.


As are other ways of making money out of gullible or frightened people.
See 'copper bracelets', 'astrology', 'psychics' ...

Originally posted by Kumar
Being small molecular & untramolecular in nature of their lower & higher potentised remedies-- their working science couldn't be yet ascertained with current modren technologies & means. Several theories have been presented by several science & homeopathic people to this effect, but still it is a mystry which is causing lot of confusions, suspicions & contradictions among homeopathic, Modren science & general public communities.


Absolute rubbish.

"Heinrich and colleagues created several linked logic gates by arranging intersecting patterns of some 500 carbon monoxide molecules on a flat copper sheet. A nudged molecule kicks off a cascade of tumbling molecules -- similar to a row of falling dominoes -- and each cascade transmits a bit of information. "It's beautiful, beautiful laboratory work," lauds James Tour, a nanoresearch chemist at Rice University. "

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/computers/article/0%2C12543%2C437585%2C00.html

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Originally posted by Benguin
You're record is stuck ... at least you are now mixing up argumentum ad populum with appeals to ignorance.


Rather neatly, he is also using the appeal to authority fallacy with his argumentum ad populum when he cites the "well educated" public as havingjudged his alt meds to be efficacious.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey


Rather neatly, he is also using the appeal to authority fallacy with his argumentum ad populum when he cites the "well educated" public as havingjudged his alt meds to be efficacious.

Well I let him have that one, on account of my conan doyle example!

Not sure it matters, he might read our responses but he's not attempting to process them in any way!

[Rolfe]

I can really comment the relaxing and rejuvenating effects of the ignore list, chaps. :D

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Hello all,

Thanks for the replis. But I just requested for the honest replies. You can just assume/suppose these figures & modified ist Q as under:

1. Whose comments will be more justified-- suppose 10 million people with no experiance of taking treatment of any system comments something about that system OR one million people comments who have personal positive experiances of taking treatment of that system ?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Rolfe
I can really comment the relaxing and rejuvenating effects of the ignore list, chaps. :D

Rolfe. Rolfe,

If got relaxed, I was willing to ask one question from you. Can GI tract acidity/alkalinity effect blood/tissues acidity/alkalinity & if yes, then how?

[Chris Haynes]

Kumar...

To answer this question: "How does homoepathy/TRS work?"

Simple it does NOT!!!

It does not work... it is not even thought of as an actual remedy through out most of the world. It is bogus... it is a play on the under-educated. The ancestors of the Aztecs no longer sacrifice someone everyday to make sure the sun will rise... they do check their cell-phones for their appointments.

You are NOT going to get the million dollar reward for anything.

So do yourself a favor... find a real school and take some real classes on real science. Then get a real job.

[Kumar]

HC,

IS IT A REPLY OR FRUSTRATION? JUST SAYING ' NO' HAS no MEANING.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Kumar
HC,

.. JUST SAYING ' NO' HAS no MEANING.

Apparently for you, that is true.

And yes... it is in frustration because you seem so obtuse to all the answers given to you.

Give it up... homeopathy is a sham, a waste and a fraud. If it were not for the self-serving legal wrangling of a congressman (who happened to be a homeopath in addition to being a polititian) in 1938 it would have been erased from American pharmaceutical industry right along with the other snakeoil shams.

It does not work, it will never work... and you can never prove it works because it just does not work.

All hail the beauty of true science!

Let us not forget the true laws of thermodynamics that shall never be broken (unlike the fake laws of homeopathy which were just made up for fun and profit):

1) You can't get something from nothing.

2) You can't even break even.

3) You can't leave the game.

( http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae280.cfm )

Editted for grammar

[Zep]

Kumar,
<center>
HOMEOPATHY
DOES
NOT
WORK.


TISSUE SALTS
DO
NOT
WORK.

Science HAS proven this.
Get over it.</center>

[Kumar]

HC,Zep,

Bit more frustrated.

DOES THE SCIENCE BECOME PERFECT, ABSOLUTE OR FINAL? IF NOT, FUTURE POSSIBILITIES CAN"T BE PREDICTED OR DENIED, IF YES, THEN WE CAN SAY SO, IN SCIENCE ONLY.

[Zep]

Kumar, do you believe in fairies?

[steenkh]

Kumar,

Science is not perfect, but on the other hand, it is not stupid either.

Why should science look for causes when there is no effect?

It has already been proved that homoeopathy does not work. What you can do in order to get your theories moving is to disprove that result. Prove that homoeopathy works!

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
Hello all,

Thanks for the replis. But I just requested for the honest replies. You can just assume/suppose these figures & modified ist Q as under:

1. Whose comments will be more justified-- suppose 10 million people with no experiance of taking treatment of any system comments something about that system OR one million people comments who have personal positive experiances of taking treatment of that system ?

Answer:
It's now Argumentum ad numerum (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum). It is also a fallacy of presupposition, or 'begging the question'. There is assumption integral to your argument already in the question.

one million people comments who have personal positive experiances

As I don't accept that the question has no real meaning.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by steenkh
Kumar,

Science is not perfect, but on the other hand, it is not stupid either.

Why should science look for causes when there is no effect?

It has already been proved that homoeopathy does not work. What you can do in order to get your theories moving is to disprove that result. Prove that homoeopathy works! Anyone who is not perfect or absolute CAN be stupid. Show must go on till the science is perfect & so should find the cause in anticipation of million's people experiances etc.

Science can/should only prove anything in science not homeopathy or any other system.

Zep, I believe in true stories.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep, I believe in true stories.
That's not exactly true. You believe in stories which back up your point of view. We can produce as many anecdotes as we like which say "homoeopathy and tissue salts didn't work for person X" and you will disregard them on the grounds that (pick at least one)

- The stories are "untrue"
- The people didn't BELIEVE so the cure didn't work
- The samples produced (of failure) are statistically insignificant compared to your successes

[Kumar]

Don, Do you want that I should say that these do not work--just for you inspite I experianced these(TRs) for quite a long time. Will it satisfy you or serve your purpose? However I just like/respect birth/creation not death/destruction, I don't know about you.

[steenkh]

Kumar,

Prove that it works, THEN find out why. If you have all these millions of people who are happy about it, it should not be so difficult proving that it works, right?

[Kumar]

steenkh,

I think I am demanding science to prove it because it is observed & experianced as positive by so many people. Homeopathic clinics are a good source to survey it.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
Don, Do you want that I should say that these do not work--just for you inspite I experianced these(TRs) for quite a long time. Will it satisfy you or serve your purpose? However I just like/respect birth/creation not death/destruction, I don't know about you.
In the abscence of objective proof, gathered in a properly conducted clinical trial that TRs "work"...... (and I understand that they have conducted them and found no effect)

The experiences you have had relate to one or more of...

- The person would have got better anyway (without TR)
- The person didn't get better (they just FELT that they did)
- The person was never sick in the first place
- The person was sick but something less critical/chronic

Unless you can produce evidence to the contrary.

I think it potentially VERY dangerous if people are conned into accepting treatment for a serious condition where this treatment has NO evidence of working. What makes this even worse is cases where people have given up perfectly effective treatments in order to take the ineffective ones (and their condition fails to improve or they go on to die - there is evidence of this).

On this and other threads there are examples of diseases/conditions which are fatal but which are easily treated using actual medicine. Recommending anything else instead is tantamount to manslaughter.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Kumar
steenkh,

I think I am demanding science to prove it because it is observed & experianced as positive by so many people. Homeopathic clinics are a good source to survey it. Kumar, this is the basic problem and the reason that you are perhaps being treated a little roughly around here:

You believe that these things work. Fine! Nobody denies you the right to believe that (there is an issue with people who might miss necessary treatment, but let's forget about that for now). In short, believe all you want. But I and a lot of other people do not believe that it works.

You have tried to convince us that it works, but failed. End of story. Still no problem.

The problem is this:

You KNOW that you do not have any arguments that will convice us, and you KNOW that our arguments are not going to convince you, yet you insist on carrying on the debate. This is bl00dy annoying, Kumar. You think you can DEMAND science (and us) to try and investigate your claims, but you have no right to make such demands.

If you want homeopathy and TSR to be investigated scientifically, you have to do it yourself (or get other believers to help you). It is not the duty of anybody else to do it.

Hans

[steenkh]

Originally posted by Kumar

I think I am demanding science to prove it because it is observed & experianced as positive by so many people. Homeopathic clinics are a good source to survey it.

Science has already done it. It does not work. What now?

In your opinion it should be done over and over again until it gets the result that you like.

[Kumar]

Don, When you will survey the homeopathic clinics you may find that a true homeopath may be keeping all considerations of risky types in his mind. Just read the following quote:

"§ 1
The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed."
Our Master states clearly in the preface of second edition of " Organon", second paragraph that Homeopathy is based on past and present experience of experiments of naked eyes. So every time one should not insist on the cardinal principles only. After all " The high and the only mission of a physician is to cure disease, rationally as it is termed. So understand the meaning of the world "rationally". It does not advocate the application of cardinal prenciples every time. Hence mother tinctures are used on it's physiological and toxicological knowledge of the treating Homeopathic physician.

[The Don]

Ah, the "one true homeopath" argument......

How do you respond to the fact that in properly conducted clinical trials, homoeopathy has been shown not to work time and again ?

How could a reputable physician with any concern for his patients' welfare possibly suggest a "remedy" for which there is no reliable evidence of it working ?

Or are you suggesting that homoeopathic "remedies" should only be deployed where there is no effective medical intervention ?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Kumar, this is the basic problem and the reason that you are perhaps being treated a little roughly around here:

You believe that these things work. Fine! Nobody denies you the right to believe that (there is an issue with people who might miss necessary treatment, but let's forget about that for now). In short, believe all you want. But I and a lot of other people do not believe that it works.

You have tried to convince us that it works, but failed. End of story. Still no problem.

The problem is this:

You KNOW that you do not have any arguments that will convice us, and you KNOW that our arguments are not going to convince you, yet you insist on carrying on the debate. This is bl00dy annoying, Kumar. You think you can DEMAND science (and us) to try and investigate your claims, but you have no right to make such demands.

If you want homeopathy and TSR to be investigated scientifically, you have to do it yourself (or get other believers to help you). It is not the duty of anybody else to do it.

Hans I FEEL IT TO BE PROPER TO DISCONTINUE THESE DISCUSSIONS IN THIS TOPIC IN CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE QUOTED POSTING OF MR. HANS. LET US SWITCH OVER TO OTHER USEFUL TOPICS.

Thanks for the comments & contributions.

[steenkh]

:)

My head-ache is gone!

(Or was it because I just drank a glass of water? Who knows what might have been in touch with that water once ;) )

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Kumar
...

Science can/should only prove anything in science not homeopathy or any other system.

Zep, I believe in true stories.

Science is the study and understanding of the world we live in. It is not a seperate "system". I recently picked up book by Isaac Asimov called Understanding Physics which has in the first chapter (as far as I have read at the present) a bit of history of how science began and developed. It would increase your understanding a bit more.

Now to repeat:

All hail the beauty of true science!

Let us not forget the true laws of thermodynamics that shall never be broken (unlike the fake laws of homeopathy which were just made up for fun and profit):

1) You can't get something from nothing.

2) You can't even break even.

3) You can't leave the game.

( http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae280.cfm )

The last one means that you cannot change reality... you cannot create another "system". There is no other reality than the one you live in... and in the reality of the REAL world homeopathy, magic and astrology are imaginary... and do not work.

[Kumar]

The followings can be the ' Tools for understanding the homeopathic mentioned working/effects ':-

1. Physiological (apperant not real or physical) deficiencies of various body substances esp. inorganic ones due to any physiological disorder.

2. Physiological Homeostasis.

3. Curable Disease/disorder.

Note: Physical or real deficiency of any body substance in a supplement, replacement & compliment so can be treated as common tool to all system so not mentioned sepretely.

If you want to understand 'what homeopathy can do?' You may have to first list all the diseases/disorders related to abovementioned tools.:)

[flume]

Originally posted by Kumar: 1. Physiological (apperant not real or physical) deficiencies of various body substances esp. inorganic ones due to any physiological disorder.Could you please reword that first phrase so that it is clear what you mean? I do not know what you mean by "apparent not real or physical". Physiology is a description of real, physical processes, so your phrase is a contradiction. You need to say it in a different way.

In fact, I really don't understand what you mean at all by this post.

[Kumar]

flume, It is bit my understanding. Sugar really deficient in system mean less sugar in system/body-- I mean physical or real, whereas sugar deficient due to dibetes, insulin resistance, insulin deficiency etc. inspite excess/accumulated in system/body is physiological ( apparent) deficiency. You may mention in your language.

[flume]

Okay, I see what you're saying now in that phrase.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Done it!

I've finally worked out what the KumarBot is for.

It's a Scientific Perspective Adjuster, also call a Mis-Direction Device. At its heart is an amazing chipset recently released by the Wootel corporation under the trade name Irrelevant Correlator.

It functions to take trival, but, importantly, not untrue pieces of information and use them as the central core of a completely skewed model of reality.

This morning I entered some data concerning astrophysics and botany into the device and have calculated that daisies evolved to intercept solar photons and protect the outer Solar System from excessive levels of solar radiation.

I have a pre-production model and it is one of these we have been communicating with in recent months. Having ironed out a few teething difficulties in which some medical input failed to result in an answer involving Schussler's Tissure Salts or Homeopathy it will soon be released into the market. It will be available via all good crystal rubbing emporia under the name The Bass 'Ackwards Machine.

I am concerned that the device is not yet fully stable and this should be seen as a beta release. but if Microsoft can do this all the time, why shouldn't Wootel. Certainly users should watch for the Chelation Therapy instability in which data that should yield results that include only Schussler or Homeopathy have recently been contaminated with chelation theory.


Please note the device is fully feng-shui compatible.

Not to be operated under the influence of a scientific education or by persons with an IQ higher than their European shoe size.


Edited to add: Just worked out where the Chelation Therapy Drift was coming from. The Idee Fixe Compensator had become unstable allowing incompatible model schemata to cross-contaminate. I think it's repaired now. Please notify the technical staff at;

misinfo@hahnemann.woo

if further problems arise.

[Kumar]

Just try to understand one concept: 'homeopathy cure a person not a disease' whereas chelation therapy/CMS/others may just treat a disease. TRS may probably, do the both--disease & person, cure & treat.:)

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
Just try to understand one concept: 'homeopathy cure a person not a disease' whereas chelation therapy/CMS/others may just treat a disease. TRS may do both--disease & person, cure & treat.

Kumar, these are just pretty phrases. Like Holisticism and treating root causes and not symptoms. They're all nice ideas, and conventional medicine aspires to them too, where appropriate.

The reality is Homeopathy cannot by demonstrated to work in theory or in practice, so it really doesn't matter a jot what it is supposed to be, conceptually or otherwise.

[Kumar]

Your mentionings have some value at current status of science. We/science/anyone don't know about the future. Till then let the things run according to the Nature.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
Your mentionings have some value at current status of science. We/science/anyone don't know about the future. Till then let the things run according to the Nature.

What is the relevance of that?

If homeopathy cannot be proved to work in theory or practice (as I said) then it is not worth considering.

Who knows what wonderful cures and therapies might be discovered in the future? I look forward in awe and anticipation.

They might come from the world of science, or they might come from somewhere else and science will have to go away and think about it for a while .... but understand what that means.

Either a demonstrable, reproducible theory is drawn up and then someone works to apply it. (In other words, from science)

Or, a therapy is found that can demonstrate curative properties in placebo trials and then an explanation must be found (Science goes for a think).

Homeopathy fits neither of those categories. And neither does that TRS stuff.

[Rolfe]

In spite of having him on ignore, I've looked at a few of Kumar's most recent posts. They make no sense whatsoever. He seems to be saying the same two or three things over and over again, and they make no more sense the last time than they did the first.

Science doesn't know everything, so invisible pink unicorns may be the cause of all disease! (Or the cure of all disease, who knows?) Go and think about that. And while you're at it, do a Google search and do all my work for me (sorry, we had that one last November if I remember rightly).

I'm beginning to think that he really is a troll, laughing himself sick at how he has us all conned into thinking he's a naive homoeopathy believer seeking enlightenment, and figuring out just how outrageous he can be before we get wise to him. Boy, do I feel silly for all the time I spent genuinely trying to help him because I stupidly believed he really wanted to learn!

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Since, we have already discussed these things most of the time with no materiastic/creative value--we may ignore/avoid the same for our future discussions.

[The Don]

And he's starting to troll the other forums too. His latest venture is in Politics where I think he's trying to build a case for astrology forming the basis for a legal defence.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Rolfe
In spite of having him on ignore, I've looked at a few of Kumar's most recent posts. They make no sense whatsoever. He seems to be saying the same two or three things over and over again, and they make no more sense the last time than they did the first.

Well he seems to oscillate between the unintelligible pseudo-scientific theories about how it might work and the 'proof through observation' argument of seeing it work in practice.

He simply switches between them when he gets thoroughly caught out on one.

Having tried to explain argumentum ad populum/numerum to him so many times and in so many ways I'm coming round to the idea of KumarTroll too.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Kumar
Your mentionings have some value at current status of science. We/science/anyone don't know about the future. Till then let the things run according to the Nature.

What measure do you use to decide between fantasy and reality? Without personal observation how do you decide between the two?

[Kumar]

Science/unrelated/undesired person may have not yet noted the observations but what about so many educated & inteligent modren world's people--who are experiancing it--positively. Just carry out a survey of homeopathic clinics--that is all & end.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Kumar
Science/unrelated/undesired person may have not yet noted the observations but what about so many educated & inteligent modren world's people--who are experiancing it--positively. Just carry out a survey of homeopathic clinics--that is all & end.

Thats not the answer to the question i asked, please state how you decide between fantasy and reality. If you have no personal obsevations of a matter, how then do you decide between fantasy and reality?

[garys_2k]

Time once again for....




































100,000 DOCTORS!!!

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
Just carry out a survey of homeopathic clinics--that is all & end.

Given I, like many other mass-existing and educated persons, believe (or should that be know) homeopathy is a fraud, and these clinics are peddling snake-oil to the desperate and credulous, how is this likely to be a reasonable response?

I contend, for instance, journalists are too lazy to do proper investigation. You would say 'go and ask lots of journalists'

Or you contend, politicians are dishonest when it suits them. I would say 'go and ask lots of politicians'

What is the likelihood of getting an honest or reasonable answer? Given my initial skepticism how is this likely to be persuasive?

It defies belief that you think this is a credible answer in a skeptical forum.

Forget the line completely and, as Prester John suggests, try sticking to answer questions put rather than moving the debate on when it gets tricky.

Prester asked how you decide between fantasy and reality. I want you to answer that too.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Benguin
Given I, like many other mass-existing and educated persons, believe (or should that be know) homeopathy is a fraud, and these clinics are peddling snake-oil to the desperate and credulous, how is this likely to be a reasonable response?

CMS can't be said as fraud or killing people if mass-existing other people say so. However, you meant to declare those educated & current world people who are benefiting from homeopathy--as illitrate, fraud, fool, innocent or otherwise & that is since long. If you can't reach/touch the SUN-- it can't be considered that SUN is not there.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Kumar
If you can't reach/touch the SUN-- it can't be considered that SUN is not there.
Yes, but there is independent evidence that the sun does in fact exist. Whenever an attept has been made to gather independent evidence of the effectiveness of Homoeopathic "remedies", the effect disappears.

Show me the evidence of peer reviewed, independent double blind trials and I'll believe that homoeopathy works. Anything else is just anecdotal.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
CMS can't be said as fraud or killing people if mass-existing other people say so.

What is CMS?

And in any case, that is complete nonsense Kumar. There are plenty of things that lots of people believe that;

a) are fraud

and

b) kill people

Do you need me to give examples? I'm sure if you bother to think about it you'll find some of your own. Homeopathy fits both categories neatly, but you can find others if you like. I'll give you a clue that will google nicely; Ponzi had many believe in him, and many still believe in the same stuff when faced with it.

And has been explained to you ad nauseum, there is an important and fundamental difference between the truth and popular opinion.

I did not declare the people you describe as illiterate, or fools or any such thing. People faced with the evidence who refuse to acknowledge homeopathy has no efficacy (such as yourself) may fall into that category, but I don't resort to ad hominems, I stick to provable facts. You'd do well to follow the same method.

Bringing us neatly back to the question you are refusing to are answer how do you decide between fantasy and reality?

Your Sun argument is silly solpsism, by the way.

[Prester John]

Your Sun argument is silly solpsism, by the way.

and also avoids the question that i have asked of Kumar, namely, how do YOU decide what is real and what is fantasy ......

Popular opinion is not a determinator of truth, as the Aztecs show. If all the homeopaths say that 1 + 1 = 3 they are still wrong and 1 + 1 does not = 3.

Come now Kumar, you ask many questions but are rather reluctant to answer them..

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Prester John

Come now Kumar, you ask many questions but are rather reluctant to answer them..

I'm not sure he asks questions so much as does lots of this (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#complexq).

So come on, Kummy, Fantasy and Reality, how do you tell the difference?

[Zep]

Here's my prediction: Ask Kumar a question on this, his own subject, and you will NEVER get an answer from him. Ask him to discuss it and you will never get any discussion.

I don't normally bet, but this one's a dead certainty.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Prester John
and also avoids the question that i have asked of Kumar, namely, how do YOU decide what is real and what is fantasy ......

Popular opinion is not a determinator of truth, as the Aztecs show. If all the homeopaths say that 1 + 1 = 3 they are still wrong and 1 + 1 does not = 3.

By logics, by its natural & spritual angles, by discussions, by studies, by TRS theory, by its existing in mass & distributed public since long, by its adverse/toxic effects, by vested interests, by selfish motive, by intentions of the providers, by its observations & results, by experiancing it personally, by understanding it with satisfaction, by its financial burdens.....etc. but not fully on its modren science as it do/can also change with change in theory/new research-- as Mr hans previously mentioned. I am bit bold & flexible in shape not in contents & so like less changeble things in contents. You have/mention only bad examples like Aztecs & which do not exists now. Most of the thing which exists now in mass.......can be good examples. All times can have good & bad example--who knows that in future--if next generations may say that current conventional systems were llike Aztecs--probably. You only say homeopathic view as 1+1=3, but it can be 2 or 11 in their words. It is just ones own opinion for vested interests or innocency.

[Benguin]

You have/mention only bad examples like Aztecs & which do not exists now. Most of the thing which exists now in mass.......can be good examples.

I can think of no examples of belief in woo-woo unprovable nonsense being 'good'

I gave you Ponzi. and Homeopathy and TRS.

How about;
Astrology, Remote viewing, Laying on hands, Creationism, Flat Earth, Biorhythms, ad nauseum.

Science is fact, not a matter of belief or opinion. That whoch requires faith doesn't enter into it.

ANSWER THE QUESTION

How do you distinguish between Fantasy and Reality? before one of us cracks and puts a poll up.

[Prester John]

By logics, by its natural & spritual angles, by discussions, by studies, by TRS theory, by its existing in mass & distributed public since long, by its adverse/toxic effects, by vested interests, by selfish motive, by intentions of the providers, by its observations & results, by experiancing it personally, by understanding it with satisfaction, by its financial burdens.....etc. but not fully on its modren science as it do/can also change with change in theory/new research--

Logic - Homeopathy is internally contradictory, it has no logic
Natural & Spiritual Angles - subjective, not helpful for defining the reality of occurences

Discussion, obviously requires access to acurate information otherwise is a futile exercise

Studies - Studies of homeopathy show it to be as sham, possibly inducing some effects by a variety of means, none of which has anything to do with homeopathy as calimed by the homeopaths.

TRS theory - don't know what you mean by this but i suspect it is a bias you have

existing in mass + distrubuted public - appeals to popularity - popularity may indicate something is happening but gives no indication as to a mechanism

by its adverse/toxic effects - see studies comment, these are explainable without recourse to presuming homeopathy is real
by vested interests, by selfish motive, by intentions of the providers - all rather subjective and dependant upon your opinion of the person.

by its observations & results - uncontrolled observations are of limited value, controls nullify the effects of homeopathy.

by experiancing it personally - very subjective and easily fooled. What about if you do not experience it ?

by understanding it with satisfaction - understanding presumes knowledge, circular argument.

by its financial burdens.....etc - I have a bridge - do you want to buy it?

but not fully on its modren science as it do/can also change with change in theory/new research -So you discount evidence because it does not agree with your world view?

Using your reasoning it is possible to prove just about anything exists. eg Santa Claus has a wide well distributed reality for many many people, financial implications, is obsevable, with photographic evidence etc.

You have stated how you believe in something, but not how you rule out a falsehood. Disprove Santa Claus for me Kumar. Not everything is true Kumar

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Prester John
..... Not everything is true Kumar

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

[Zep]

Go on! Ask Kumar a question! ANY question! I double-dog dare you!

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Zep
Go on! Ask Kumar a question! ANY question! I double-dog dare you!

Oh I keep asking. Between us, Prester and I have asked him the same simple question 8 times in a row on this thread alone.

Yet to see an answer, several more evasive comments and diversionary unrelated ramblings, tangential questions.

Here for the ninth time;

Kumar, how do you tell the difference between fantasy and reality?

[Benguin]

I found a really useful quote you'd be well advised to follow, Kummy.

After you've told us how you distinguish between fantasy and reality you can comment on what you think of this description on how the ideal physician should be;

His mission is not (...) to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant ....

It's quite old, but I actually agree with it. Even if the guy didn't have much else of use to offer. What do you think? (after the fantasy/reality question that is)

[Chris Haynes]

After reading some Kumar posts today... I believe he lives in a different world. Much like "Rimmer World" on Red Dwarf... he is in a kind of "Kumar World" where everything is caused by GI what-cha-ma-callit, even genetic diseases.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Benguin
Oh I keep asking. Between us, Prester and I have asked him the same simple question 8 times in a row on this thread alone.

Yet to see an answer, several more evasive comments and diversionary unrelated ramblings, tangential questions.

Here for the ninth time;

Kumar, how do you tell the difference between fantasy and reality? I wasn't counting, but I did note the repetition after a while. Good luck getting a response!

[Kumar]

SAME OLD ROTTEN TALKS, JUST 'YES & NO' OR 'THIS & THAT' NOT EVEN ' IF & BUTS' . I CONSIDERED TO AVOID THESE TYPES OF TALKS. HOWEVER YOU MAY CONTINUE FOR YOUR PERSONAL CHOICES, NEEDS OR INTERESTS.

I just got an indication from your postings that ' there can be a well organised fraud is going in all or most 'other type therapies' & millions modren peoples from all over the world of all categories esp. educated ones may be intentionally involved in this fraud because foolish & innocent persons can't organize, a fraud with this much of magnitude. What an organisation in present modren times? Really surprising!! IS IT NOT SO????????:D

Not everything is true PJ. So we may have to continuue in finding the observations.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
SAME OLD ROTTEN TALKS, JUST 'YES & NO' OR 'THIS & THAT' NOT EVEN ' IF & BUTS' . I CONSIDERED TO AVOID THESE TYPES OF TALKS. HOWEVER YOU MAY CONTINUE FOR YOUR PERSONAL CHOICES, NEEDS OR INTERESTS.

I just got an indication from your postings that ' there can be a well organised fraud is going in all or most 'other type therapies' & millions modren peoples from all over the world of all categories esp. educated ones may be intentionally involved in this fraud because foolish & innocent persons can't organize, a fraud with this much of magnitude. What an organisation in present modren times? Really surprising!! IS IT NOT SO????????:D

Not everything is true PJ. So we may have to continuue in finding the observations.

Come on, stop trolling. It's not a simple yes or no thing. You are making a false dichetomy. Unless you are trying to suggest the concept of Fantasy vs Reality as separate states is a false dichetomy.

Stop being evasive and answer the question.

As for your suggestions about conspiracy theories ... did I suggest organisation or coordination to 'create' a fraud? I think not ... you are still playing with argumentum ad populum, it doesn't work.

Back to basics kummy,

"What is the difference between fantasy and reality?" (for the 11th time).

I haven't decided yet whether to put that on my sig line, I don't think I'll put you on ignore just yet

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Benguin

"What is the difference between fantasy and reality?" (for the 11th time).

If you want me to repeat (for the last time) I just oblize you to repeat:-

"By logics, by its natural & spritual angles, by discussions, by studies, by TRS theory, by its existing in mass & distributed public since long, by its adverse/toxic effects, by vested interests, by selfish motive, by intentions of the providers, by its observations & results, by experiancing it personally, by understanding it with satisfaction, by its financial burdens.....etc. but not fully on its modren science as it do/can also change with change in theory/new research-- as Mr hans previously mentioned. I am bit bold & flexible in shape not in contents & so like less changeble things in contents. You have/mention only bad examples like Aztecs & which do not exists now. Most of the thing which exists now in mass.......can be good examples. All times can have good & bad example--who knows that in future--if next generations may say that current conventional systems were llike Aztecs--probably."

If it does not suits you-- it is your look out but not mine. We can't rely on 'said as truth' but can be changed with new reserach.

[Benguin]

Well I'm sorry but your answer does not address the question at all.

With the greatest respect, you are avoiding the question again. So much so, I had not realised it was intended to be the answer, for which I apologise.

Please try to answer in very general terms, without reference to other posts, TRS or whatever.

If I tell you there is a large rock 1metre cubic hanging in space in front of you, how would you determine if it is a fantasy or reality on my part?

[Prester John]

Kumar, as Benguin has said, you have not answered the question. Perhaps if we put it another way it would help you answer. How do you decide what it false ? What are your criteria for discarding an idea as being unworthy of futher consideration? Have you thought about how you do that ?

Do you believe in Santa Claus ? If not tell me why you don't, and using your criteria i will prove he does exist.

[Kumar]

I believe in mass public's views & experiances as existing on date. Moreover, if I also experiance it positively--I do not doubts it.

I believe all spritual aspects if it justify at least first sentance, because I noted that most of the things might have been shown in differant languages & forms considering practical aspects. But If I could translate those, I feel no doubt in those. Just try to link mentioned spritual mentionings with any language & form as mentioned in current science's theories. Just understand & take indications-- but don't discuss it furthur being may be bit secret in HIS system for the current age. To balance the Present status of created natural imbalances, it may probably lie in destructions, follishness, idiocy etc. not in creation, maintainance, intelligency, knowledges etc. Although nature balances itself & HE has to deal with it accordingly.

[Zep]

Oh, please! Don't pander to him! We've done that enough already! He's simply trolling you all along, so leave the ball in his court and don't try and hop the net and fetch it for him.

[Prester John]

Thankyou for telling us what you believe Kumar, however incase you didn't notice that is not the question.

Oh Yes Santa Claus has
mass public's views & experiances as existing on date.

You believe something because lots of other people do ? Therefor you must believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, even middle earth maybe ?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Prester John
[BOh Yes Santa Claus has
You believe something because lots of other people do ? Therefor you must believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, even middle earth maybe ? [/B] I already indicated as in differant language & differant form it might have been shown, so need not to doubt it.

Just look at the exchange of knowlege example here. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37113)

[Zep]

Originally posted by Prester John
Oh Yes Santa Claus has "mass public's views & experiances as existing on date". You believe something because lots of other people do ? Therefor you must believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, even middle earth maybe ?
Originally posted by Kumar
I already indicated as in differant language & differant form it might have been shown, so need not to doubt it.

Just look at the exchange of knowlege example here. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37113)
Shall I preserve this for posterity? Kumar admits belief in Santa Claus, tooth fairy and Middle Earth...

[Benguin]

Yes, I understood it that way too ... I'm sure he didn't mean that.

Kumar, does this mean when the Aztecs believed they needed to keep slaughtering people to get the sun to rise it was, by your definition, true at that time?

How does the mass-existing idea work when mass-existing people hold conflicting views ... religion being the best example, I mean they can't all be right! In fact only a small percentage can, given the diversity.

A mass-existing group of people think homeopathy is complete nonsense, does that mean QED, it does not exist?

[Zep]

Benguin, just to cut this one a bit short - there's still an outstanding question for Kumar to answer on exactly this subject: Does Kumar believe that if something is observed by billions of people for over 10-20,000 years that it therefore, according to his "mass-sightings" criteria, must surely be absolutely certainly true?

We have yet to get a response from Kumar on this...



Incidentally, the thread on the other forum Kumar just pointed to has nothing whatsoever to do with Santa Claus, tooth fairies, or Middle Earth. (It's that silly old insulin and stomach acidity tricycle again!)

[Kumar]

Just consider what people believe not what they don't believe. Non belief may be theoritical but belief can be practical. Since most of wrong theories are already dead or dying--we may need not to example them. We may example those theories which are still existing since long & progressing. Increase & decrease or life & death in any existing things can be an indication to their credibilities. So mention good examples not bad & dead ones. However, we still sacrifice botanical, zoological & material things for getting the grace. Any denaturing may mean similarily if no selfish intrest consideration is there.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Kumar
Just consider what people believe not what they don't believe. Non belief may be theoritical but belief can be practical. Since most of wrong theories are already dead or dying--we may need not to example them. We may example those theories which are still existing since long & progressing. Increase & decrease or life & death in any existing things can be an indication to their credibilities. So mention good examples not bad & dead ones. What "bad & dead theories" might these be, Kumar? And how does that relate to the outstanding question I asked?

[Kumar]

For prctical purposes to 99%+ people, it is right to say both for earth & Sun accordingly as commonly said as well as similarily to too many people about homeopathy, TRS & other systems being all are observation based.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Kumar
For prctical purposes to 99%+ people, it is right to say both for earth & Sun accordingly as commonly said as well as similarily to too many people about homeopathy, TRS & other systems being all are observation based.

You are talking gibberish Kumar, stop evading and answer how do you decide what is real and what is not. How do you decide if something exists, be it an effect or object. As has been pointed out popularity leads to belief in anything and everything. Your eyes can be fooled, go watch a film, seeing is not beleiving.

Answer the question Kumar.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
Just consider what people believe not what they don't believe. Non belief may be theoritical but belief can be practical. Since most of wrong theories are already dead or dying--we may need not to example them. We may example those theories which are still existing since long & progressing. Increase & decrease or life & death in any existing things can be an indication to their credibilities. So mention good examples not bad & dead ones. However, we still sacrifice botanical, zoological & material things for getting the grace. Any denaturing may mean similarily if no selfish intrest consideration is there.

Cobblers

I believe a substance must be present to act as an agent in medical treatment.

So do millions of others (though they might express it less clumsily)

I believe medicine must demonstrate efficacy to be considered valid and not woo. There, another.

I believe Mass belief indicates only a widely held opinion not a fact.

Our 'good example' is homeopathy. It's mass existing and present but it is nothing. Like the sacrifices to the sun gods. Only difference is is that was for a few thousand years a long time ago. Homeopathy is only a couple of hundred years old and has never commanded the same popular support in it's audience that the aztec sacrifices did.

And didn't you recognise the quote about how a physician should be ?????

His mission is not (...) to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant ....

I'm afraid your inability to recognise that immediately and spot the irony marks you out as a troll.

And you still haven't answered PJs question. must be 14 times or so now. How do you distinguish between fantasy and reality?

Another clue, It shouldn't involve the opinion of others. Unless you can present that case better.

[Kumar]

I also respect this mentioning:-

"Therapies which have such undefined boundaries, that they may at any time accept new remedies, and may like wise retain or reject old remedies, cannot offer the security necessary in service of a
patient, and in the intrest of science. To create a therapy with sharply defined boundaries, has been for a long time, my endeavour"

...By Dr.William.H.Schuessler,1874

[flume]

It all depends on what boundaries you choose.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Kumar
For prctical purposes to 99%+ people, it is right to say both for earth & Sun accordingly as commonly said as well as similarily to too many people about homeopathy, TRS & other systems being all are observation based.

Out of curiousity, and to get down to REAL baisics: What do 99% of the people think is the acceleration of gravity?

(editted for grammar)

[Benguin]

Is gravity accelerating?

:p

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Out of curiousity, and to get down to REAL baisics: What do 99% of the people think is the acceleration of gravity?

(editted for grammar)

If they know it's an acceleration, 10.

Please note the lack of units there.

Then let me tell you that if you were below the academic level in my high school for science class, that's what you were taught as being the acceleration of gravity.

[Benguin]

I always understood it to be 9.81Nm-2 (at sea level, normal air pressure, this planet, etc).

As that is what every other civil engineer I studied with used, I'd be damned worried if we're wrong!

[LostAngeles]

Nope, you're right Benguin.

[Benguin]

Well us engineers only bother with three significant figures. I'm not sure why, because we just double it at the end to be on the safe side :D

[Chris Haynes]

Shhh.... I want Kumar to figure it out.

And Bearguin... I did a tiny bit of analysis on a consulting job for a British oil company some 20+ years ago... and I was shocked they were using a "kilogram-force". argh It is about as bad as a "pound-mass".

I used to be a structural dynamics and loads engineer... I liked to keep the mass and acceleration separate.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Shhh.... I want Kumar to figure it out.

...

*sigh* I'll gag myself next time. Promise.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Shhh.... I want Kumar to figure it out.

And Bearguin... I did a tiny bit of analysis on a consulting job for a British oil company some 20+ years ago... and I was shocked they were using a "kilogram-force". argh It is about as bad as a "pound-mass".

I used to be a structural dynamics and loads engineer... I liked to keep the mass and acceleration separate.

Do you mean Benguin? Bearguin is a guy with a King penguin chick as his avatar, mine is a full grown Macaroni penguin.

Don't you know anything ?!?!?!

I've some recollection of kilogram force, I think my lecturers still bandied it about in torque calculations, it was less inappropriate there, but still weird and confusing. These were guys who used RPN calculators insisting they were better and never once got a right answer before one of the students.

[Chris Haynes]

oops... my bad... Sorry, Benguin.

Anyway... it is kind of a "mass knowing" kind of question for Kumar... since there is lots of confusion over gravity (force? acceleration? mass? does F=ma or F=d(mv)/dt ?... what did Newton really mean in his 2nd law of motion?, what is the relation to mass, mole and Avogadro's number?).

To restate in a less confusing manner (I checked this http://www.physchem.co.za/Motion/Gravity.htm ) and found I did somewhat mistate it:

Kumar: what do 99% of the people think is the acceleration due to gravity?

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
oops... my bad... Sorry, Benguin.

Anyway... it is kind of a "mass knowing" kind of question for Kumar... since there is lots of confusion over gravity (force? acceleration? mass? does F=ma or F=d(mv)/dt ?... what did Newton really mean in his 2nd law of motion?, what is the relation to mass, mole and Avogadro's number?).

To restate in a less confusing manner (I checked this http://www.physchem.co.za/Motion/Gravity.htm ) and found I did somewhat mistate it:

Kumar: what do 99% of the people think is the acceleration due to gravity?

I think you might be really challenging Kummy with this, I mean his english isn't great and his understanding of logic is even more challenged.

We didn't even adequately resolve the question of what is '1+1' of a million people say it is three question.

Which reminds me of a naff joke about mathemticians, statisticians, scientists and engineers. I'll spare you it unless you insist. It's incredibly naff, and I'm sure you've heard it.

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Benguin
..Which reminds me of a naff joke about mathemticians, statisticians, scientists and engineers. I'll spare you it unless you insist. It's incredibly naff, and I'm sure you've heard it.

Yes, I think I know what you mean... it seems to be the difference between "mass knowing" and actual use. Also his English seems to come and go, possibly depending on where he is in Kumar World.

...and I think I know the joke... it may be similar to the tire swing joke (as ordered, as envisioned, and as delivered).

(oh, great that reminds... I'm being asked when I am going back to work --- now I have to figure out how to remember everything and I will be taking some statistics course soon. Something I had to use at work, but only understood slightly as my brilliant ex-boss led me down the random vibration road, perhaps it is time I actually learned about it).

[Benguin]

The tire swing one is much better .. it comes with an easy to digest pictorial cartoon.

I've only just been dragged back to the office after a long medical absence. No-one seems to have noticed I've forgotten how to do my job, but then none of them knew what I did in the first place.

Keep sending the cheques (or checks).

[Zep]

Gentlemen, you might care to keep in mind that Kumar is most likely a troll, as he has a much better understanding of English than he lets on...

[Zep]

Kumar:
I also respect this mentioning:-

"Therapies which have such undefined boundaries, that they may at any time accept new remedies, and may like wise retain or reject old remedies, cannot offer the security necessary in service of a patient, and in the interest of science. To create a therapy with sharply defined boundaries, has been for a long time, my endeavour"

...By Dr.William.H.Schuessler,1874If you respect Schuessler's point of view on this, Kumar, then you are a bigger fool than I thought you were. If you believe this is a "good thing" then you will reject any and all medicine developed since the late 19th century. Such things as antibiotics, antiseptics, all the modern surgical procedures, everything that has made modern medicine the undoubted success it is. Schuessler says very clearly that "Therapies which...may at any time accept new remedies...cannot offer the security necessary in service of a patient". In other words, Kumar, Schuessler did not accept that there would be any new medical discoveries to be made that he would accept. He was clearly a fool. And you are a bigger one of you think he wasn't.

[Benguin]

He still hasn't identified the quote I gave him (who else knows?)

And avoided saying what he thinks of it;
[The physician's] mission is not (...) to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant ....

[Kumar]

Zep, may be possible. I am bit uncomfortable with even twelve & wish if these could be just three representing stomach acid, bile & intestinal alkalinity by bicarbonate, Three body's basic constitutions as in "Ayurveda" Vatta, Pitta & kapha or carbo-nitrogenoid, Oxygenoid & Hydrogenoid, which probably may take care every of most of the required & possible conditions.

Btw, why pH is said as ' environment' & what does it mean & its implications?

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Zep
Gentlemen, you might care to keep in mind that Kumar is most likely a troll, as he has a much better understanding of English than he lets on...

Who enjoys making word pie. Interestingly he also has very simiar thread going at scififorums. I wouldn't be suprised if he to some extent is playing off the boards against each other.

I noticed a while back that his apparent bad english didn't stop him understanding what was written, lapsing into complex sentences, and having the ability to nit pick through the finer points of medical/woo woo websites.

Of course that he hasn't actually made any points doesn't seem to bother him, i think he just enjoys seeing us run round in circles, also thus why he doesn't answer any questions put to him.

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Kumar
Zep, may be possible. I am bit uncomfortable with even twelve & wish if these could be just three representing stomach acid, bile & intestinal alkalinity by bicarbonate, Three body's basic constitutions as in "Ayurveda" Vatta, Pitta & kapha or carbo-nitrogenoid, Oxygenoid & Hydrogenoid, which probably may take care every of most of the required & possible conditions.

Btw, why pH is said as ' environment' & what does it mean & its implications?

Hmm, got a load of webpages ready for the reply Kumar? Mind you i don't think you'll get any answers beacuse first you have a question to answer....


How do you differentiate between fantasy and reality?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Prester John

How do you differentiate between fantasy and reality? By reality & fantasy. By idiocy & inteligency. By this & that. By you & me. So many alike things, but I just want to save jref's capacity.

Zep,

Environment: The sum of the total of the elements, factors and conditions in the surroundings which may have an impact on the development, action or survival of an organism or group of organisms.

The environment is as opposed to genetics. We are the product of our genetic inheritance and our environment.

What will pH environment mean?

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Prester John
Who enjoys making word pie. Interestingly he also has very simiar thread going at scififorums. I wouldn't be suprised if he to some extent is playing off the boards against each other.

I noticed a while back that his apparent bad english didn't stop him understanding what was written, lapsing into complex sentences, and having the ability to nit pick through the finer points of medical/woo woo websites.

Of course that he hasn't actually made any points doesn't seem to bother him, i think he just enjoys seeing us run round in circles, also thus why he doesn't answer any questions put to him. Made to contradict & critisize, but for nothing else-- truely, materialisticly & differantly. WHY WE ARE/SHOULD BE HERE?????????

[Prester John]

Originally posted by Kumar
By reality & fantasy. By idiocy & inteligency. By this & that. By you & me. So many alike things, but I just want to save jref's capacity.



sigh, you really are having trouble with this one Kumar, try again. I think it is apparent that you don't really have a mechanism whereby you can evaluate different claims and distinguish between what is real and what is fantasy. Its just what fits in with your world view, and everything else is false. Well you are entitled to think like that, but we are also entitled to dismiss what you say as ill thought out, illogical and trolling.

[Benguin]

Maybe he is a solipsist in the true sense, and this question is therefore of little relevance to him?

[Chris Haynes]

Originally posted by Kumar
..., Three body's basic constitutions as in "Ayurveda" ....

Ah, something I can understand... Ayurveda, a cause of lead poisoning in some folks who use Ayurveda medication:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm

Yikes!

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Ah, something I can understand... Ayurveda, a cause of lead poisoning in some folks who use Ayurveda medication:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5326a3.htm

Yikes! " Although approximately 95% of lead poisoning among U.S. adults results from occupational exposure "

Any wrongly prescribed or wrongly prepared healing physical substance can do that.

[Chris Haynes]

Ah HA!!!

Proof he does read some of the references given... and since he only answers questions with incomprehensible babblings.... and then asks the same questions over and over again with no regard to how the real world works or with any regard to the answers already given, this is definite proof:

:tr:

Though I would remove the word "perhaps"

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide

:tr:

Though I would remove the word "perhaps" Kumar first joined this forum on 18th October last year. The first suggestion that he might be trolling was made by BillyJoe on 23rd October, and the first use of the above smilie with reference to Kumar was very shortly afterwards in the same thread (by yours truly).

Important question about diabetes (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28980).

Actually, looking back at the first few threads Kumar started in October is quite instructive, and I see the idea that all homoeopathic remedies might really be the all-powerful Tissue Remedy silicea by an accident of preparation implicit in about his fifth post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870144887#post1870144887).

I was later persuaded (partly by MRC_Hans) that Kumar was not a troll but was a very naive poster who genuinely wanted to learn. I spent quite some time trying to help him, as did a number of other people. I now think that perhaps the initial impressions were correct. From the start Kumar has never been open about what he thinks or believes, or what his purpose is in asking a particular question. As BillyJoe said, some people might call that trolling.

Quite.

Just - what on earth is there in it for anyone to behave so obtusely in post after post, never getting anywhere, just trying to be as annoying as possible?

Dunno.

Rolfe. (putting Kumar back on ignore now....)

[MRC_Hans]

My reason for defending Kumar from troll accusations was experience from homeopathy forums. I still believe that Kumar is not a deliberate troll. ..... But since the end-effect is the same, it doesn't matter.

So my new position on Kumar, based on much experience is: Don't bother. He/she/it is a complete waste of time.

Hans

[Benguin]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
My reason for defending Kumar from troll accusations was experience from homeopathy forums. I still believe that Kumar is not a deliberate troll. ..... But since the end-effect is the same, it doesn't matter.

So my new position on Kumar, based on much experience is: Don't bother. He/she/it is a complete waste of time.

Hans

Yes, he has determinedly refused to address this quote I offered him;

[The physician's] mission is not (...) to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant ....

As it is page 1 of Hanneman's Oragnon he is either being incredibly obtuse or is, in fact, not at all informed in his own claimed area of expertise.

I find it amusing that his own attempts to cast around bizarre speculations for how Homeopathy works is a practice Hanneman himself is so clearly unimpressed with.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Benguin
Yes, he has determinedly refused to address this quote I offered him;



As it is page 1 of Hanneman's Oragnon he is either being incredibly obtuse or is, in fact, not at all informed in his own claimed area of expertise.

I find it amusing that his own attempts to cast around bizarre speculations for how Homeopathy works is a practice Hanneman himself is so clearly unimpressed with. Anyone can be wrong in some senses unless he is 'HE'. A human who contradicted this concept can't/should not advice similarily. However it is much seen in current systems--just follow. Why people just suggest/accept compounder's work. Healing is not a easy job to understand & follow completely & with full justification. Dr.Hahn. may mean that it may just a work of research people not of physians. Then why so many litretures to read???

[Rolfe]

Who is "HE", Kumar? What is your usual name for "HIM"?

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

GOD or Creater, maintainer & destrutor of nature. Omni in nature. We may think some sense 'NATURE' also.

[Rolfe]

As addressed at the beginning of this post here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41520), am I right?" OM NAMAH SHIVAI "I'm not being critical here, just trying to get to the facts.

Rolfe.

[Kumar]

Originally posted by Rolfe
As addressed at the beginning of this post here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41520), am I right?I'm not being critical here, just trying to get to the facts.

Rolfe. That was just a prayer. We some 'ASEANS';) just worship HIM.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by Kumar
Anyone can be wrong in some senses unless he is 'HE'. A human who contradicted this concept can't/should not advice similarily. However it is much seen in current systems--just follow. Why people just suggest/accept compounder's work. Healing is not a easy job to understand & follow completely & with full justification. Dr.Hahn. may mean that it may just a work of research people not of physians. Then why so many litretures to read???

Whatever

How come for all your claimed expertise you did not recognise this kumartroll?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Oops! I hit "Reply" in the wrong thread! Move on folks. Nothing to see here.