Homeopathy, again!

[Meme101]

My first major post here so please bear with me.

Allthough I am a major sceptic in the true sense of the word I am always cautious to not let my scepticism result in me "missing" something. Homeopathy crops up again and again as something I need to reconsider and I want to get a few views on the following:

A chemist called Rey, conducted experiments based on thermoluminescence, whereby he picked up the exact same substances in above 10C homeopathic dilutions as in the actual samples at normal dilutions.

There are the experiments of Professor Madeleine Ennis, where motor cells of rats were subjected to a toxin, causing it to severely contract. When an above 10C homeopathic preperation of Belladonna (apparently the medicine of choice for poison), were administered, the contractions seized.

In all the negative press on homeopathy I read about the dilution aspect (ie Avogadro's number). When one makes off the above on face value it would be that as we cannot find one molecule of the proposed substance in the homeopathic preperation, it therefore cannot work.

Can it not be that we know too little about the "quantum" properties of water to be able to come up with a viable scientific explanation? I am also cautious about pseudoscientific mumblings where you use the word quantum and a fringe "science" in one sentence, but the experimental proofs I found so far does show that there is more than what meets the eye.

Please don't respond by telling me that since the scientists mentioned did not head James Randi's $1m challenge they do not have actual proof. I would appreciate a bit more intellectual interaction on this matter.

[Oualawouzou]

(word of advice: to be taken seriously, try to avoid starting with "I'm a skeptic" followed by the exact same arguments used by woos)

but the experimental proofs I found so far does show that there is more than what meets the eye.

Funny, all the experimental proofs that aren't fraught with methodological problems found that there is not more than meets the eye.

If you wish, provide us links to these experiments you speak of so that we can look at their protocol, data analysis and such.

[fls]

Have the results been replicated?

Linda

[RichardR]

A chemist called Rey, conducted experiments based on thermoluminescence, whereby he picked up the exact same substances in above 10C homeopathic dilutions as in the actual samples at normal dilutions.
Citation please.

There are the experiments of Professor Madeleine Ennis
...which could not be replicated (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml).

Can it not be that we know too little about the "quantum" properties of water to be able to come up with a viable scientific explanation?
You first have to establish that there is anything to explain.

[John Jackson]

Allthough I am a major sceptic in the true sense of the word


Say no more. :D

but the experimental proofs I found so far does show that there is more than what meets the eye.


I suggest reading a little more on the subject - like a major skeptic in the true sense of the word would. ;)

[Freethinker]

"quantum" properties of water

What exactly are quantum properties?

[JJM]

Have the results been replicated?

LindaMay I add- independently and competently replicated. Many years ago Benveniste replicated his work on dilution, as did a few other labs that promote homeopathy. However, Benveniste was unable to replicate the results with skeptics watching. Homeopathic research is fraught with incompetence, and fraud.

As for quantum mechanics, unless you become a chemical physicist you will never have use for the quantum effects found at the molecular level in water (okay, a microwave oven works on one such principle). There is a fool (Lionel Milgrom) who writes extensively on quantum homeopathy without a shred of evidence http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/06/your_friday_dose_of_woo_its_no.php . Milgrom assumes that homeopathy works, and assumes the explanation is found in QM, without a shred of evidence for either assumption. He has a fertile imagination.

This is true of all the people who invoke QM (e.g., Chopra). I taught rudimentary QM in university courses on Introductory Chemistry, I have literally forgotten more that Chopra will ever know.

[ChristineR]

Meme, the theory that shaking water can somehow alter its properties on a quantum level sort of sounds possible, but first someone has to prove that it happens. The simplest possible test I can think of is distinguishing potentized water from ordinary water. So far as I can tell, no one has done this.

The Rey paper (http://www.vhan.nl/documents/Rey.thermoluminescence.pdf).

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Can it not be that we know too little about the "quantum" properties of water to be able to come up with a viable scientific explanation?
Surely we will learn more about the "quantum properties of water," but homeopathy requires that these properties be able to replicate the effects of any substance dissolved in the water, even though none of that substance is any longer present, while still retaining the usual properties of water.

I don't think so.

~~ Paul

[cyborg]

Can it not be that we know too little about the "quantum" properties of water to be able to come up with a viable scientific explanation?

"Quantum" is not a synonym of "magic".

[Mojo]

Homeopathy crops up again and again as something I need to reconsider and I want to get a few views on the following:

A chemist called Rey, conducted experiments based on thermoluminescence, whereby he picked up the exact same substances in above 10C homeopathic dilutions as in the actual samples at normal dilutions.

There are the experiments of Professor Madeleine Ennis, where motor cells of rats were subjected to a toxin, causing it to severely contract. When an above 10C homeopathic preperation of Belladonna (apparently the medicine of choice for poison), were administered, the contractions seized.


I'd worry about whether homoeopathy works before worrying about its lack of any currently plausible mechanism.

[Pipirr]

Ennis has been very quiet of late. I don't know if she has even tried to develop or repeat her groundbreaking work.

Not wishing to cast aspersions or spread scurrilous rumours, but I'd heard that one of Benveniste's researchers (one that was particularly successful at getting positive results) went to work for Madeline Ennis, where he repeated his success. I have looked in vain for much confirmation of this.... anyone know more?

Meme101, it is difficult to just dismiss homeopathy, when it's adherents can come up with peer reviewed papers like those from Ennis and Rey. But as I understand it, it is statistically likely that some experiment, somewhere in the world, will occasionally give a positive result, even if the effect it is measuring is not real. To prove that the effect is real, the experiment needs to be repeated, it needs to be repeatable, and it needs to be refined, by other, independent researchers. As far as I know, Benveniste, Ennis and Rey's work has not been successfully repeated at all.

Why?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm guessing since "quantum" refers to things that only happen below the size of the atom that our self-proclaimed "major sceptic" Meme101 thinks mixing and shaking water can split the atom?

[Slimething]

Woos love to use "quantum" as a prefix because no one understands it fully. The human mind boggles at the very large or the very small, especially the real yet outlandish phenomena these worlds incorporate. The subatomic world is only knowable through mathematics. These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense. I sure wish the woos would leave this area of physics alone!

[Michael C]

Here's a problem: how do those who scientifically test homeopathy (and those who make the medicines, for that matter) know that the water they are using is uncontaminated from other homeopathic dilutions?

Water, we are told, has a memory for anything that has been diluted in it. This memory is incredibly robust, since the more you dilute, the stronger it gets. But the water you use for the diluting must come from somewhere: how do you know that this water has no memories?

[Meme101]

I will dismiss all the "nice" replies (its like calling magic, quantum) and get straight to some answers.

ChristineR thanks for the link to the Rey paper. I know I need more studying on the matter before I can decide but I am trying to use this forums knowledge base to further that education. So please bear with me. I am not trying to pull a fast one on you.

With quantum properties of water I was trying to say that maybe we do not yet know all there is to know. I am not imposing that not knowing all should now be treated with things where we cannot proof any of it. Just asking if we should not be cautious to fell judgement when we do not know all yet.

And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?

I do in my absolute minimal knowledge of quantum physics disagree with Slimething when he said:
These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense
These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely. The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.

[ChristineR]

I will dismiss all the "nice" replies (its like calling magic, quantum) and get straight to some answers.

ChristineR thanks for the link to the Rey paper. I know I need more studying on the matter before I can decide but I am trying to use this forums knowledge base to further that education. So please bear with me. I am not trying to pull a fast one on you.

With quantum properties of water I was trying to say that maybe we do not yet know all there is to know. I am not imposing that not knowing all should now be treated with things where we cannot proof any of it. Just asking if we should not be cautious to fell judgement when we do not know all yet.

And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?

I do in my absolute minimal knowledge of quantum physics disagree with Slimething when he said:
These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense
These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely. The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.

I'm sure you can come up with some sort of system for perturbing the quantum states of the water molecules and creating water with different properties.

No such changes are predicted in the theory, but you can always create one by introducing an unknown force. You don't even need a force. You can just say that under some mysterious circumstance the state of the water is altered. Then you could work backwards to find a force that alters the water that way.

But there is no experimental data to work with. There are perhaps half a dozen studies on homeopathy that show a positive effect and are not so badly designed as to be useless. Some of these studies were later shown to have subtle problems, and some were never replicated, meaning it was just a lucky fluke.

If you had some sort of consistent, measurable effect in homeopathic experiments a theorist could start guessing at things that might be awry in the quantum math. He could introduce random alterations into the equations and look and see if his alteration matched the experimental data. Then if he had a match he could ask himself what sort of phenomenon could alter the data in this way.

This kind of thing happens everyday in particle physics. It's not outrageous.

But there is no evidence that there is a homeopathic effect to match, so there's nothing to do.

Let me give you a more concrete example. Let's say the theorist is trying to devise a formula which predicts what a 3C dilution will act like compared to a 6X dilution. These are both 1 to 1,000,000 dilutions, and chemistry predicts that they will be identical. What does homeopathy predict? My understanding is that a 6X is supposed to be much weaker than a 3C. How much weaker? If I came up with a theory that predicted that 3C was twice as powerful as 6X, would my theory be tenable?

I could speculate that chanting in the light of the moon will alter this unknown quantum property of water molecules, or that playing 78 rpm recordings of Dixie will do it. Why would I look for a theoretical model of how these things change water when no one except me believes that they will change water?

First, convince me homeopathy does something, then speculate on what sort of unknown principle of physics might do it.

[Madalch]

I do in my absolute minimal knowledge of quantum physics disagree with Slimething when he said:
These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense
These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely. The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.
Disagreeing with Slimething's statement only proves that you have an absolute minimum knowledge of quantum mechanics.

If you take a glass of water and look at a single water molecule, you'll see it moving, and therefore it will have some kinetic energy. There are slightly different forms of kinetic energy at the molecular level- translational (how fast it's moving as a whole), rotational, and vibrational. Quantum mechanics says that the amount of energy that the molecule has (in each of its forms) has only certian allowed values- generally, some whole number multiple of some constant.

But there's nothing mystical, spiritual, or mysterious about this energy- it's the same kind of kinetic energy that you have when you're running around, or a rock has when it's tumbling downhill.

We can measure the total amount of such energy in a glass of water. Actually, what we can most easily measure is the average kinetic energy of all the water molecules in the glass- pop in a thermometer, because that's what temperature is a measure of. If you "energize" the water by increasing the "quantum energy" of the water, all you're doing is heating it up.

Note that this is an average- not all the molecules have the same energy (look up "Boltzmann distribution"), and they're contantly transferring energy from one molecule to another. If you "energize" one molecule by any means, it loses that energy very quickly.

That energy does not, in case you are wondering, carry any information with it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?
Yes, that's all very lovely, but why would we bother worrying about this until someone actually demonstrates that homeopathic remedies do anything at all? How about putting them through safety and efficacy trials like pharmaceutical companies do?

~~ Paul

[anor277]

Just to add 2 cents, Rey's paper reported a solid-state phenomenon; it was not a solution phenomenon. He hypothesized that what he was seeing related to the structure of water, but did not test that hypothesis by recording the equivalent spectra of salts that are water-structure breakers. Finally, all his experimental results could be invalidated by contamination; it wouldn't have taken a lot.

[fishbob]

[QUOTE=Meme101;2556921Can it not be that we know too little about the "quantum" properties of water to be able to come up with a viable scientific explanation? [/QUOTE]

Would "quantum" properties of water be something like the "purple" properties of gravity or the "magnetic" properties of the legal system?

[geni]

Evidence of water behaveing in ways not allowed for by our current models?


[quote]
And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?

Can't rule out the posibilty that there is a dragon in my garage. What of it?


I do in my absolute minimal knowledge of quantum physics disagree with Slimething when he said:
These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense
These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely.
The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.

Yeah but you get hit by the uncertianly principle which puts a limit on information storage.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Sigh:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=39548

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=6451

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=40321

There are a few others... but I believe that there is sufficient discussion to go back on about this paper.

[Eos of the Eons]

Just to add 2 cents, Rey's paper reported a solid-state phenomenon; it was not a solution phenomenon. He hypothesized that what he was seeing related to the structure of water, but did not test that hypothesis by recording the equivalent spectra of salts that are water-structure breakers. Finally, all his experimental results could be invalidated by contamination; it wouldn't have taken a lot.
I'm sure meme will not understand any of this. First he would have to understand what the difference is between a solute, solution, solid, and gas.

Does he know what is meant by contamination?

Heck, getting crystals that were barely over 0.009 contaminate lost me many marks on my lab work in Organic Chemistry. Er, that was 10 years ago, I think I know what I'm talking about. Basically, 0.01 was a pass, and 0.0150 was not good at all, and often yielded ugly crystals that looked more like sand in some cases.

Um, salts?

Anyways, I'm wondering why Meme figures there is anything to homeopathy, never mind that quantum hooey.

[Eos of the Eons]

These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely.


OHHHHH ENERGY!!! Heh. That mysterious FORCE. Hmm.

Trasitions and states too! I'm seeing it all more clearly now.

Basically science is ignored in place of wishy washy definitions of energy and states and uh... transitions.

Grade school should have cleared that up long ago, but for some reason people aren't even that educated anymore. Sigh.

[Jackalgirl]

My first major post here so please bear with me. ...

Howdy, Meme, and welcome --

Am I correct in that you're working from the assumption that homeopathy works, and you're trying to figure out how? I just want to make sure I'm understanding your OP.

Do you think that there is something to homeopathy? Why? Is it because of the studies you've mentioned?

If so, could you post some links? I know this has been asked before, and I know you're also new so there are some limits, but you can do it if you just put spaces into your links: h t t p : / / www. thisplace. org

So far, folks have come up with a pretty good rundown of experimentation protocol (and how a bad protocol can lead to bad conclusions) and the importance of being able to independently duplicate an experiment's results. So far, homeopathy hasn't held up to any kind of rigorous study -- that's the gist of things.

It is quite true that the explanation of how something works might be beyond us -- that we may simply not understand (yet) the scientific principles that explain how something works. Totally, completely true statement. However, the important part of that statement is "how something works" -- that is, the assumption that "something works".

With homeopathy, as has been pointed out, it isn't a case of "it works, we don't know how". It's a case of "it doesn't work at all."

[JoeTheJuggler]

With quantum properties of water I was trying to say that maybe we do not yet know all there is to know.

First of all, you're attempting to use an argument from ignorance (which is a fallacy). What science does NOT know isn't evidence in support of anything.

Second, we do know that "quantum" is a term for sub-atomic structures. Mixing various things with water and shaking them up will NOT split apart atoms. In fact, it won't even break apart molecules of water.

If you are claiming that water has a capacity for memory, it's up to you as the claimant to come up with some proof. (And saying we don't know everything there is to know in the universe is not proof of anything.) In fact, I defy you to discriminate between a homeopathic remedy and plain old water if you are presented with unknown samples of each.

I also defy you to find any lab capable of creating solutions as dilute as are claimed in homeopathy. There is no lab able to keep contaminants out (from the air, from the machines used to do the mixing, from the containers, etc.) at the ultra-dilute levels claimed (like way beyond parts per trillion).

Did you know that the homeopathic remedy called Oscillococcinum purports to be a 200C preparation of rotten duck's heart and liver? 200C means a dilution of one part per 10^400--which is orders of magnitude larger than the estimated number of particles in the entire universe. So that's one molecule of rotten duck's heart (or liver) to a quantity of absolutely pure water many times larger than the entire universe if the universe were nothing except water. Get it? That's why we say it's magic.

[Slimething]

With quantum properties of water I was trying to say that maybe we do not yet know all there is to know. I am not imposing that not knowing all should now be treated with things where we cannot proof any of it. Just asking if we should not be cautious to fell judgement when we do not know all yet.

Perhaps this is where you're making your first logical error. Water is the most studied compound on the face of the planet because it is central to life, is the most abundant compound on earth, is a favored product in chemical reactions due to its stability, it has bizarre physical properties and is a marvelous solvent. So, you can't go around waving the "we don't know everything about it" flag so easily with water. The physical properties of water are very well understood. For your argument to hold any water (heh, heh), you must tell us precisely what aspect of water is not understood that leaves enough room for homeopoeitic properties to exist. So, please, do that.


And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?


Your line of questioning does not make any sense. I feel water is understood well enough that memory effects in water can be ruled out. If memory effects were true, there would be no method of making unpotable water potable. Also, there is NO science in homeopathy. None. If you believe there is, please present any such evidence that follows the scientific process. Peer reviewed would be a plus but anything that followed true scientific methodology would be a surprise. And, homeopathic claims have nothing to do with the properties of any other liquid than water, which is not always a liquid.

I do in my absolute minimal knowledge of quantum physics disagree with Slimething when he said:
These mathematics deal with energy transitions and states, not macro effects like "water memory" or any other such nonsense
These energy trasitions and states will be able to influence another energy system surely. The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.

This is where you come off really badly, meme. I can't say the rule is 100% but most skeptics are scholarly types and, as such, would extensively research our claims before posting them. You obviously have made no such effort. On my worst day, I would not have read something posted about a matter I knew little about and had the effrontery to disagree with the poster. After I'd done my due diligence, I might have disagreed if I still felt I was right but certainly not before a lot of work on my part.

"Quantum mechanics" is two words. Quantum is the name given to discrete, indivisible amounts of energy which electrons require to do what they do. Mechanics is the branch of physics which describes the effects of forces on matter. The field is a mathematically driven area of study that is backed up by a fair mountain of experiments showing agreement between the math and the modeled phenomena. Yes, electrons being excited or relaxing can and do impart energy to other molecules in their vicinity but that has nothing to do with memory effects. The quanta of energy emitted or stored by water cannot affect anything that is not there. If you still want to argue about QM or entanglement, you'll have to post your math. Otherwise, drop it as you'll just make a fool of yourself.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Meme

The biggest question that is staring you in the face, is why these papers are so few and far between when this is allegedly a powerful system of medicine whose robust affects can be achieved by nitwits who have been to a few night-classes, nitwits who apply the principles of their therapy so inconsistently that it is almost impossible to find any real agreement among a bunch of homeopaths as to what the corect theory is, yet they all claim it works.

You also should ask why the few papers that support homeopathy always involve ludicrously complex experimental models of exactly the type which can conceal deliberate cheating, or, to be more generous, make it hard to exclude subtle errors.

That would be the sceptical approach and should be applied just as actively to all medical and scientific claims. What bugs the homs is that when it is applied to them, they have nothing left- you winnow their evidence base and it turns out to be all chaff, whereas real medicine has a large mass of good wheat. Ironically, chaff has an extensive military use to distract attention from the real target and in homeopathy badly performed experimental studies are thrown out to divert attention from the vacuum of real hard evidence.

[Michael C]

Either water has a memory, or it doesn't.

- If water doesn't have a memory, homeopathy cannot possibly work.

- If water does have a memory, all the water on this planet must be full of memories.

How do the makers of homeopathic remedies erase the memory of water? How do they ensure that the water used for making the 10c preparation of belladonna is not contaminated by memories of duck's piss, frog's ****, chemicals from the purification plant, metal from the pipes, etc., etc.?

[neon]

I'm sorry, the "memory" of water?

I wasn't aware that water was a thing with a brain.

[cyborg]

I will dismiss all the "nice" replies (its like calling magic, quantum) and get straight to some answers.

Oh, you think it was an impertinent point do you?

Well here's the rub - anyone who says anything is 'quantum' without referring to energy quanta is merely using a section of physics whose predictions about the nature of the operation of the very small run counter to our macroscopic perspectives. As such they use the word but they do not use its meaning. The meaning they want to use is 'magic' as in:

"Water uses the principles of magic in order to store a memory of what it contains."

That would be accurate.

"Water uses the principles of quantum mechanics in order to store a memory of what it contains."

That would be nonsense. You might as well say:

"Water uses the principles of black holes in order to store a memory of what it contains."

Black holes containing a significant amount of physics that the lay person finds hard to comprehend. All three statements are just as explicative - i.e. they are not at all.

With quantum properties of water I was trying to say that maybe we do not yet know all there is to know.

That is obvious. However we do know what quantum mechanics is because that is the physical explanation we have derived for quantum effects. If you're not talking about quantum effects you are not talking quantum mechanics. As such one cannot interject random musings on possible phenomena and insert random physics terminology because the validity of talking about the phenomena in that domain has not been established.

I am not imposing that not knowing all should now be treated with things where we cannot proof any of it. Just asking if we should not be cautious to fell judgement when we do not know all yet.

The irony of course is that such statements are usually followed up with some made-up explanation which the adherents of whatever unscientific nonsense then expect scientists to take seriously.

Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered?

Just as sure as there's nothing scientific about trying to purify lead in order to create gold.

Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?

Homeopathy does not require us to attain a fuller understanding of liquids - it requires that we abandon what we do know, not simply about liquids but more fundamental things like thermodynamics.

The proponents of homeopathy will quickly jump on this argument as state that the water's "energy" is entangled in the water molecules or something to that extend.

That's nice of them. Now when they pony up the mathematics that shows the plausibility of this statement with regards to the well-established quantum mechanics we have thus far people might take this seriously. Until then quoting "energy" merely sets off the bullsh*t alarm.

[Meme101]

I bow down humbly before the majority of contributors on this threat. Even though I sense the fury that you defend this issue with (and I am not a converted Homeopathy believer), I would dread to feel that unleached on a true devout homeopathic surporter.

But I really did get a fire christening from this round one that I learned a lof from. It is clear that the majority of your contributors are knowledgeable in various field of science. I am persue my scientific studies further in order to be able to support remarks with more facts.

Thanks for having me on this round. I will take a lot of your arguments with me and trust to meet you all again in a few months time, maybe a bit wiser, but surely trying a bit harder to make sense of it all.

Regards

MEME101

[Mojo]

Homeopathy does not require us to attain a fuller understanding of liquids - it requires that we abandon what we do know, not simply about liquids but more fundamental things like thermodynamics.


More than that, it requires us to abandon what we know while providing no good evidence that we need to do so.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm sorry, the "memory" of water?

I wasn't aware that water was a thing with a brain.

...or any other information storage mechanism.

[Eos of the Eons]

I will take a lot of your arguments with me and trust to meet you all again in a few months time, maybe a bit wiser, but surely trying a bit harder to make sense of it all.
Hmm, so Meme has the skeptic side on this issue now. He assures us that our questions have answers in trying to figure this out? Or will the "creative" answer be just as mind boggling incredible as they always have been?

Hey, I watched a really dumb show-Sons of Hollywood-or something. These quantum woo weirdos were trying to get Rod Stewart's son to appear in yet another "energy" movie. This time it will be about the moon.

Yep, the moon's ENERGY causes tides, it is soo strong this moon energy, so this moon energy must affect us humans too! The stupid lady going on about all this was talking about her "theory" about how this quantum moon energy affects us all! Yes, because quantum energy is just the smallest measure of all things' afffects on each other, blah blah.
:boxedin:

[Jeff Corey]

I bow down humbly before the majority of contributors on this threat. Even though I sense the fury that you defend this issue with (and I am not a converted Homeopathy believer), I would dread to feel that unleached on a true devout homeopathic surporter...

No true devout homeopathic supporter should go unleached.
Bring on the leaches.

[Rolfe]

Hi Xanta.

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

Hi Xanta.

Rofe.

:eye-poppi That is not how you spell Rolfe.

*squints*

And that is totally the wrong avatar. It's not even a cat.

Hmph.

And I was all excited that Rolfe was back. Sigh.


*jumps up and down and points*

*and yells, "heyyyy everyboddyyyy, look, it's Rolfe, Rolfe is back!!!*

[Rolfe]

Oops, butterfingers. (Fixed it.)

The avatar will return after the election. How long after depends on whether I can ever get an internet connection at the New House with this different account system BT insists on giving me, which will inactivate my current dial-up number.

I'm not accusing anyone of sockpuppetry, really. Just try to remember who last jumped into the forum with her first post a hymn to the Rey experiment.

And wonder.

Rolfe.

[Eos of the Eons]

Oops, butterfingers. (Fixed it.)

The avatar will return after the election. How long after depends on whether I can ever get an internet connection at the New House with this different account system BT insists on giving me, which will inactivate my current dial-up number.

I'm not accusing anyone of sockpuppetry, really. Just try to remember who last jumped into the forum with her first post a hymn to the Rey experiment.

And wonder.

Rolfe.;) :D

[Mobyseven]

I bow down humbly before the majority of contributors on this threat. Even though I sense the fury that you defend this issue with (and I am not a converted Homeopathy believer), I would dread to feel that unleached on a true devout homeopathic surporter.

But I really did get a fire christening from this round one that I learned a lof from. It is clear that the majority of your contributors are knowledgeable in various field of science. I am persue my scientific studies further in order to be able to support remarks with more facts.

Thanks for having me on this round. I will take a lot of your arguments with me and trust to meet you all again in a few months time, maybe a bit wiser, but surely trying a bit harder to make sense of it all.

Regards

MEME101

See, this kind of response confuses me. Wait, confuse isn't the right word...I think what I'm trying to say is:

I don't buy it.

If someone is going to come to a site asking questions about homeopathy, and they are given the answers to those questions, what on earth is difficult about then understanding those answers? What on earth could take a few MONTHS to digest here???

NEWBIE: Hi, I'm new - so, what is the de-al with that 'Homeopathy', eh?

FORUMITE: Homeopathy is bunk. This is exactly why it is unscientific. This is all the information you really need, condensed into tiny, post-size, form.

NEWBIE: Ah...what about the 'quantum effects'?

FORUMITE: What effects?

NEWBIE: I see. You've given me a lot to think about, this could take a few months for me to understand...

It's almost as silly as the following exchange I concoted out of thin air:

NEWBIE: Hi, I'm new - so, what is the de-al with that 'Gravity', eh?

FORUMITE: Well, gravity exists, that we know for certain. We still don't know a great deal about it though, and there are a lot of hypothesis as to how it might work.

NEWBIE: But how can I know gravity exists if science doesn't explain it to me?

FORUMITE: Jump up. See how you came back down to the ground. That's gravity.

NEWBIE: I see. You've given me a lot to think about, this could take a few months for me to understand...


As a wise man once said, "Beware the mark of woo, for its many forms belie a dangerous attack on the scientific method." I think it was Confuscious. Or it might have been me...

[MRC_Hans]

I bow down humbly before the majority of contributors on this threat. Even though I sense the fury that you defend this issue with (and I am not a converted Homeopathy believer), I would dread to feel that unleached on a true devout homeopathic surporter.

But I really did get a fire christening from this round one that I learned a lof from. It is clear that the majority of your contributors are knowledgeable in various field of science. I am persue my scientific studies further in order to be able to support remarks with more facts.

Thanks for having me on this round. I will take a lot of your arguments with me and trust to meet you all again in a few months time, maybe a bit wiser, but surely trying a bit harder to make sense of it all.

Regards

MEME101Mmmmmokay, fine. ... Excuse us for not slapping your back, jumping up and down and congratulating you for your speedy return to the realm of reality. It's just that we see this about once a week: Somebody enters, declares him/herself basically a skeptic, but there is this here thing that makes them wonder. Then after a few explanations, they declare that this has given them much food for thought, and they are almost convinced. Unfotunately, the most usual course from that point on is that they return and show themselves quite more entrenched in their beliefs than the opening suggested. There has certainly been exceptions. Here's to hoping you're one of those.

Now to homeopathy:

Ultradilution is really just incidential to homeopathic theory. Of course, the lack of credibility of ultradilute remedies does reflect on homeopathy, but you need to give the basic framework some thought as well.

Fortunately, I don't need to write all this every time a homeopath comes along, I can just paste from an article here:

http://www.hans-egebo.dk/skeptic/Homeopathy%20article.htm

History

The history of homeopathy has been told often, so I will try to make it brief. Around 1800, the German medical doctor Samuel Hahnemann, obviously appalled with the still mostly medieval medical practices of his contemporaries, set out to revolutionize medical science. During a long lifetime of hard and dedicated work, he wrote several books and constructed the mainstay of what was to become homeopathic medicine. His books and teachings still form the foundation and the main substance of homeopathy to-day. Starting from sound clinical practice, Hahnemann built a complete system of alleged natural laws (Hahnemann tended to declare his theories “laws of nature”) and an extensive pharmacopoeia of homeopathic medicines.

Main principles

The basic principle of homeopathy is the notion that health and disease is based on the functioning of a “vital force”, which is described as a non-materialistic property of all living creatures. If the vital force is functioning well, the creature is healthy, if not, the creature becomes ill. Disease is defined as a unique set of symptoms characteristic for the particular condition of the particular patient. Homeopathy only recognizes disease causes as disturbing agents for the vital force, and distinct diseases only as categories of cases that display similar symptom profiles. Hahnemann specifically discouraged looking for hidden internal causes and diagnosing diseases per name.

The homeopathic diagnostic method centers around what is called a “taking” of the profile of the patient. Ideally, this involves a meticulous investigation of the patient’s background, family conditions, hereditary body conditions, work situation, social situation, plus all the symptoms perceived by the patients and, preferably, also by persons close to the patient. By “symptom” homeopathic practice refers to anything perceived as not usual.

To cure, one needs medicines, and as homeopathy basically only recognizes symptoms, which are interpreted them as disturbances in the functioning of the vital force, it follows logically that medicines must be substances that are somehow able to affect the vital force, causing some kind of symptoms to emerge. Elaborating on this train of logic, Hahnemann divided medicines into three groups:

1) Antipathic; medicines that cause effects that are opposite of those of the disease.
2) Homeopathic; medicines that cause effects similar to those of the disease.
3) Allopathic; medicines that cause effects that are neither similar, nor opposite to those of the disease.

Based on some practical observations and on logic, Hahnemann developed a theory he called “the law of similars”. According to this theory, a medicine that causes the same symptoms as those of the disease will override the disease, such that the morbid function of the vital force is now caused by the medicine, not the original disease, and as the effect of the medicine wears off, the patient will be left cured. Thus, Hahnemann declares the group of homeopathic medicines to be the one and only path to cure.

To find out what symptoms various substances caused, Hahnemann used a purely empirical approach: He administered the substance to healthy persons (often himself) and carefully recorded the effects. This is called “proving”. Thus, if a substance caused headache, it should be assumed to be able to cure headache. It is not as simple as that, however, because just as a disease is not viewed as a single symptom, but as a complete symptom profile essentially unique to each case, the effect of a substance on a healthy person is rarely a single distinct symptom, but rather a set of symptoms. Hahnemann recorded anything that the test subject felt during testing as caused by the medical substance, unless it was very evidently something the person had also been experiencing prior to the proving.

The result of the provings were compiled into a work called the Materia Medica, which has later been expanded by Hahnemann’s followers. The idea of homeopathic treatment is that the patient’s symptom profile is taken, then the Materia Medica is carefully perused to find the medicine that provides the best (ideally perfect) match of that symptom profile. That is assumed to be the medicine that cures that particular case. During this matching, interestingly, a medicine is sought that matches as many of the patient’s symptoms as possible, whereas any symptoms recorded for the medicine, but NOT matching the patient’s profile are normally ignored; according to Hahnemann, some unspecified selective mechanism ensures that the right properties of the medicine are activated. This is very practical since most medicines have many symptoms on their list, sometimes hundreds.

(Since the article is my own, there is no issue on how much I quote from it)

So, you see, accepting homeopathy is not just about musing about some obscure and yet undiscovered propery of water (and alcohol and lactose). It is also assuming that everything we have discovered about chemistry and pathology in the 200 years since Hahnemann's time is seriously flawed.

Best regards, Hans

[Meme101]

Thanks for that Hans.

That is the type of replies I came here for. As for some of the other replies.............

And yes I was talking about "unleashed" in my previous post not leach. Freudian slip...........

It will take me a month or two to get back on the issue as I work during the day at a job where I cannot access this forum. As I do not believe in halve measures I would prefer getting to grips with the likes of quantum mechanics, statistics and some additional psychology. Cannot see any problem in that. Surely the empirical sciences will strengthen the conclusion I hope I will come to.

And I cannot only base my conclusions on homeopathy on one or two posts telling me that it is bogus for the same reason I cannot base it on another site telling me that water has "memory". It is therefore necessary for me to pursue the matter until I know I have weighed up all the evidence. Much the same way you debunk any of the major religions ; - )

Till next time

Meme

[Ashles]

It is therefore necessary for me to pursue the matter until I know I have weighed up all the evidence.
All what evidence?

Much the same way you debunk any of the major religions ; - )
I must have missed when we managed to do that. Or even attempted to.

Meme's response still continues to confuse me.

Homeopathy makes claims - 3 main areas which contradict our current scientific understanding of nature (like cures like, efficacy of ultradilutions, water has "memory").
On this thread people have explained clearly why these claims contradict known science. And this isn't even really in disagreement with homeopaths who on the whole agree there is no known mechanism by which these work. They often aren't interested in the mechanism. Their main focus is simply claiming it works.

And that's really the main issue here - why get into a long debate about water memory etc. when the primary issue is... does homeopathy work?
I could talk at length about how quantum fluctuation and biopolarisation fields can make me hover in the air, but is there really much point in doing so before I actually demonstrate the hovering?

So to start from basics Meme, what evidence makes you think homeopathy works in the first place?

[Mobyseven]

Meme, pay attention to what Ashles has said to you here.

While I'm sure studying quantum mechanics and whatnot would be interesting, before you try to apply it to something like homeopathy, you have to ask yourself: Does homeopathy work in the first place?

If it works, then we would need pour money into researching the mechanism by which it works.

If it doesn't work, we don't need to do jack.

All the evidence overwhelmingly suggests that homeopathy doesn't work...so why would you want to research the mechanisms by which it work when it is highly likely they don't exist in the first place?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Thre is no useful evidence for homeopathy, Meme. When it seems to work it is either a coincidence, the placebo effect or someone telling lies.

There is no mystery to explain.

You should not fool yourself that obtaining an amateur's grasp of physics or statistics will change that simple fact, though it might enable you to share our amusement at the fools who abuse the terminology of science to line their pockets.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Surely the empirical sciences will strengthen the conclusion I hope I will come to.Jeez... The conclusion you hope you will come to. You've got that the wrong way 'round, it's us sceptics who are supposed to be accused of having the closed minds, you could at least get your lines right.
Richard Dawkins coined the term meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme), which first came into popular use with the publication of his book The Selfish Gene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) in 1976. Dawkins based the word on a shortening of the Greek "mimeme" (something imitated)Hmmm... something imitated eh? Gosh, how clever. :bwall

Yuri

[Civilized Worm]

And this brings me to my next question: Are all you sceptics of homeopathy sure that there is nothing scientific about it that we have not yet discovered? Are the scientific principals at play in homeopathy all been 100% verified or do we still have room for improvement on some knowledge level that we apply to dismissing homeopathy? Like maybe still not fully understand the properties of liquids etc?


The principles behind it are grossly unscientific, vague and conflicting, and whats more it has never been to actually work. What more do we need to be able to dismiss something?

I really don't understand folks that advocate homeopathy or claim to be agnostic about it, to they think that one day we will discover that it actually has been working all this time?

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Compare and contrast.

Allthough I am a major sceptic in the true sense of the word...

Surely the empirical sciences will strengthen the conclusion I hope I will come to.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Once again I must say, Meme, this is not supposed to be some subtle phenomenon that must defeat the best scientific brains who might try to demonstrate it. The effects of homeopathy are claimed to be amazingly robust and reliable even when half-trained eejits use it.

If it's that hard to show there is a real effect the advocates have already lost the argument. Do you really not get this point?

[Ashles]

I really don't understand folks that advocate homeopathy or claim to be agnostic about it, do they think that one day we will discover that it actually has been working all this time?
I really like that - an excellent way of putting it.

[Civilized Worm]

Cheers, I'm quite pleased with it.

[MRC_Hans]

*snip*
It will take me a month or two to get back on the issue as I work during the day at a job where I cannot access this forum. As I do not believe in halve measures I would prefer getting to grips with the likes of quantum mechanics, statistics and some additional psychology. Cannot see any problem in that. Surely the empirical sciences will strengthen the conclusion I hope I will come to.

*snip*

Meme

If you make a logical conclusion, then the empirical sciences will strengthen it. It may not be the one you hoped for, however.

The thing is, Meme, while there is indeed some observational evidence for homeopathy, there exists (to my knowledge, and I have researched this subject quite throughly) absolutely no evidence that needs homeopathy.

Do you understand what this means? It means that every observation that has been reported for homeopathy has also got other possible explanations. And quite plausible ones.

In other words, there is nothing in our present image of the world that needs homeopathy to be explained.

Hans

[Eos of the Eons]

There isn't any observation evidence in favor of homeopathy. Anecdotes are not evidence. They are simply biased stories.

As well, if doing nothing yields the same result (placebo affect), then why bother with the homeopathy?

Doing nothing will not yield the same result in serious cases.

Let's see homeopathy cure prostate or breast cancer before it metastasizes. Too bad that's really not ethical for serious scientists to do such a study. Any homeopaths and doctors willing to take on dozens of cases of proven cancer patients with the exact same type of cancer at the exact same stage? One group gets real proven effective treatment, the other group will only get homeopathy. We'll see which group has the highest survival rate. I'd like to see the informed consent on that. They'd have to sell the homeopath treatment as "all natural" with "no side effects", but with absolutely no real reason as to why it would work, and with a predicted 100% mortality rate.

[Mojo]

As well, if doing nothing yields the same result (placebo affect), then why bother with the homeopathy?

Doing nothing will not yield the same result in serious cases. It'll yield the same result as homoeopathy.

[Eos of the Eons]

It'll yield the same result as homoeopathy.
er yes,

it just won't be percieved as "positive" in the serious case.