Any true "kooks" posting lately... [Archive]

T'ai Chi

31st August 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Tai Chi...

If you even give Homeopathy more than one seconds thought...then you are a kook...

Sorry...

But thats real life....

I mean...come on ...get real...use your common sense...

If everyone did that...there would be no paranormal sh*t...ever...

Homeopathy...yeh right...my a**

Get your head straight....

DB

DeBunk, I disagree.

We must examine the evidence, wherever it may lead.

If a study says that something is significant, there could be an effect or there could be some type of error in the experiment, etc.

Either way, follow-up studies give us knowledge. Stopping any and all tests, doesn't.

We, or I at least, must remain impartial and scientifically study things. Yes, even homeopathy. And many do.

If there is nothing there, fine. If there is something there, to quote Randi, I want to know about it.

31st August 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I am, however, an advocate of scientifically testing things, bypassing silly 'it won't ever work!' opinions, and getting straight to the heart of the matter by doing tests.

Really, then how do you explain your scientific misbehavior in several threads where I've had to whup you upside the head?

I'm not sure why I'm not igoring you today, except maybe to point DB's keyboard at you.

31st August 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by woodguard
Wouldn’t a true skeptic look at each and every claim.

No, they wouldn't look at the same claim over and over again, even when put forth by different people.

Just because some people who make audio cables claim that they create room-temperature cooper pairs, for instance, but that their materials aren't superconductors or anything like that, but have zero impedence, doesn't mean I need to look at their claims twice, for instance.

Some claims, via the misinformation in the claim, require nothing but a quick twitching motion.

Some claims in audio, for instance, repeatedly shown but never ONCE in a DBT, don't need to be examined AGAIN when the experimental methodology is known to be fatally flawed, and when that flaw has been pointed out again and again.

Homeopathy is like that, too, the only evidence "for" is egregiously, completely flawed. It's not my job to show that it doesn't work, the presumption is that it doesn't UNTIL SOMEBODY SHOWS THAT IT DOES in a proper experiment.

So, no, a real skeptic does not investigate the same loser claim over and over again.

woodguard

31st August 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by jj

Just because some people who make audio cables claim that they create room-temperature cooper pairs, for instance, but that their materials aren't superconductors or anything like that, but have zero impedence, doesn't mean I need to look at their claims twice, for instance.

This is a good example, because even if 1000 people make the clam. Someone will make a superconductor at low temperature some day.

The truth is, you have to do a science study of each claim. You cannot really call everyone who is bending a spoon, a fake. Even if one in a billion is doing it with his mind.

Science is slow and pain staking and so is the truth. There are no easy or quick answers.

thaiboxerken

31st August 2003, 01:45 PM

This is a good example, because even if 1000 people make the clam. Someone will make a superconductor at low temperature some day.

People already do. But a superconductor at near-room temperatures is nigh-impossible. One thing, though, when people try to make superconductors, they are actively researching and using science to get there. Homeopathy, however, does not use any scientific procedure and they've been using the same type of quackery since it's invention in the 1800's.

The truth is, you have to do a science study of each claim. You cannot really call everyone who is bending a spoon, a fake. Even if one in a billion is doing it with his mind.

Yes you can. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence that what they have is real.

Next, you'll tell me that I have to test everyone in the world to claim that people can't shoot lasers out of their eyes.

Iamme

31st August 2003, 01:49 PM

de_bunk---Just go turn on your tv and tune into the Osbournes some night. That should give you your daily minimum requirement of kookiness. It's Ozzy himself. I like it when he mumbles stuff..like when the cat is on the couch or something. It be neat if we could get Ozzy to post over here.

People in general I think get into watching/listening to kooks. You know...someone completely 'gone'...'off the deep end'...'not all there'...'off their rocker'...'nuts'...'lunatic'...'a pickle short of a Big Mac'...'a french fry short of a happy meal'. I think the networks should give us more kooks to watch.

We could play this out and ask readers/posters to name the celebrities or the tv shows that present the kookiest people. There was the Adams Family...but what is kooky now? Mike Tyson up and got kooky, didn't he?

gnome

31st August 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by woodguard

This is a good example, because even if 1000 people make the clam. Someone will make a superconductor at low temperature some day.

The truth is, you have to do a science study of each claim. You cannot really call everyone who is bending a spoon, a fake. Even if one in a billion is doing it with his mind.

Science is slow and pain staking and so is the truth. There are no easy or quick answers.

I would not say that any idea should not continue to be tested and verified... by those that remain interested in it. But doesn't there have to be some rationing of effort by the "skeptical community" as it were?

woodguard

31st August 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

But a superconductor at near-room temperatures is nigh-impossible

Next, you'll tell me that I have to test everyone in the world to claim that people can't shoot lasers out of their eyes.

If you use science you have to test them. Science is based on facts, it does not prejudge.

And high-impossible is not impossible. If you think in the next 100 years we will not discover a low temperature superconductor ?:confused:

thaiboxerken

31st August 2003, 02:42 PM

If you use science you have to test them. Science is based on facts, it does not prejudge.

Hardly, they have to present their evidence to science. There is a difference. You seem to imply that skeptics have the burden of evidence and responsibility to test claims. This is false, otherwise science would be a black-hole of a resource. No, the ones that have the new "discovery" or claim must provide their own research and evidence.

And high-impossible is not impossible. If you think in the next 100 years we will not discover a low temperature superconductor ?:confused:

We have many, many low temperature semiconductors. Maybe you're just not intelligent enough to realize that. However, I doubt we'll discover ROOM-temperature superconductors in the next 1000 years. I'm willing to be proven wrong, when someone discovers a superconductor that works above 30F-degrees, give me a call.

reprise

31st August 2003, 02:53 PM

lekatt (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=4782) has managed to get himself an semi-officially declared a kook on talk.atheism (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6g2ost%2467t%40rac2.wam.umd.edu&rnum=1).

Leroy Kattein 2 stars lekatt@XXXXX
Near-death experiences prove God; disagreement is illogical and insulting.

He's also attracted attention inspired a Pit thread at the SDMB.

Lekatt, if one could sell ignorance, you'd be Walmart (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=207073)

You can find a list of his contributions to the JREF forums here (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=133355).

thaiboxerken

31st August 2003, 03:01 PM

Steve Grenard is back, now THAT's a true kook.

arcticpenguin

31st August 2003, 03:13 PM

I could be a kook if I wanted to be.

asthmatic camel

31st August 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I could be a kook if I wanted to be.

How can you be so self-assured ? Where is your evidence ? I demand that you demonstrate your kookiness immediately.

Regards,

AC.

woodguard

31st August 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B] they have to present their evidence to science.

I will remind your of one of the JREF's goals.

Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

I will also remind you, insulting someone intelligents is a real poor debating skill, and a little childish.

And because you believe something is truth or false does not affect reality, that is woo woo thinking.

31st August 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by woodguard

This is a good example, because even if 1000 people make the clam. Someone will make a superconductor at low temperature some day.

Quite obviously you don't understand their claim, which is self-contradictory, claiming both have a room-temperature superconductor and NOT having one simultaneously.

The truth is, you have to do a science study of each claim. You cannot really call everyone who is bending a spoon, a fake. Even if one in a billion is doing it with his mind.

Really? That's the "truth"?

I have to examine the same claim 449,328 times because 449329 people have read the same mistaken advertisement?

Science is slow and pain staking and so is the truth. There are no easy or quick answers.

Easy to say. What's your credentials?

31st August 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by woodguard

If you use science you have to test them. Science is based on facts, it does not prejudge.

Really? In your world the facts are on the side of the claimant in all cases?

Well, I claim, just because, you should give me 10,000,000 US Dollars.

Gonna do it?

And high-impossible is not impossible. If you think in the next 100 years we will not discover a low temperature superconductor ?:confused:
You're not understanding the original claim, which involved a claim that something was a superconductor, that it wasn't, and that whatever it was operated at room temperature.

I think you're grasping a bit hard here.

No, we do not need to test EVERY claim, novel claims, claims supported by evidence, they have a chance. The SOS, however, is just a waste of time.

31st August 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by woodguard

I will remind your of one of the JREF's goals.

Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

I will also remind you, insulting someone intelligents is a real poor debating skill, and a little childish.

And because you believe something is truth or false does not affect reality, that is woo woo thinking.

I see, and if one concludes that a claim is false, say, because it is internally self-contradictory, that is woo woo thinking?

Really?

I think that you are seriously confused about what science is, how it works, and what constitutes "proof", what constitues "disproof", and what constitutes a simple unscientific claim.

woodguard

31st August 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by jj

Really? In your world the facts are on the side of the claimant in all cases?

You're not understanding the original claim.

I am not really on one side or the other.( Not any more)
I believe you have to look at each claim. Just because the first 100 were fake or wrong, the next one might be real.

I don't feel you can say all Homeopathic is wrong. None of them may work but you still have to test each one.

This will never happen in the real world. I am being idealistic here, in a perfect world every claim would be tested.

Because a claim sound wrong, does not make it wrong.

If it were regulated the hole thing would crash and burn.
I personal don't think any of it works.

woodguard

31st August 2003, 06:58 PM

Originally posted by jj

I see, and if one concludes that a claim is false, say, because it is internally self-contradictory, that is woo woo thinking?
.

If something was self-contradictory, that fact would make it wrong. But not all claims are that easy to disprove.

The facts of the claim should be judged, not how you think or feel.
Making decidion on feeling is woo woo thinking.(To me anyway.)

woodguard

31st August 2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by jj

Easy to say. What's your credentials?

None, I am an ex-woo woo.

And I don't what to be the oppsite of a woo woo, which is someone who think everything it wrong without looking.

reprise

31st August 2003, 07:15 PM

Hey D_B, the OP of this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=208281) is definitely deserving of the title "kook".

woodguard

31st August 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by jj

No, we do not need to test EVERY claim, novel claims, claims supported by evidence, they have a chance. The SOS, however, is just a waste of time.

Let me try to explain what I am trying to typing.

If you have 100 different homeopathic products.
Do you test only the first 10 and say the rest are wrong?
Or do you test all 100.
If product #34 sound silly do you test it or say if wrong because its silly? ( this is woo woo thinking).

Now could be wrong but I thought that was how science is done.

I think the big question is how many time do you listen to the sample claim, and act on it.

reprise

31st August 2003, 08:51 PM

Originally posted by woodguard

Let me try to explain what I am trying to typing.

If you have 100 different homeopathic products.
Do you test only the first 10 and say the rest are wrong?
Or do you test all 100.
If product #34 sound silly do you test it or say if wrong because its silly? ( this is woo woo thinking).

Now could be wrong but I thought that was how science is done.

I think the big question is how many time do you listen to the sample claim, and act on it.

woodguard, while what you suggest might be an appropriate way of testing herbal remedies, the basic underlying theory of homeopathy is flawed. What if we test 10 bottles of #34 and find no active ingredient in those - should we then test every other bottle in the same batch because those molecules of active ingredient must have ended up "somewhere" in the batch?

Ratman_tf

31st August 2003, 09:04 PM

Beyond that, the theory of sucussion and water having memory has no evidence to back it up, and no explanation of how it could work. Add in the evidence that Homeopathy produces 'remedies' that have the same effect as a placebo, and I think we can move beyond Homeopathy, scientifically.
Unless someone comes up something new in the Homeopathy field, but then it is on them to provide the evidence, since they would be the one making the claim.

Here in this thread I claim that no human can fly under his/her own power. How many people should we throw off the Empire State Building before being resonably sure this is true? :D

woodguard

31st August 2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by reprise
woodguard, while what you suggest might be an appropriate way of testing herbal remedies, the basic underlying theory of homeopathy is flawed. What if we test 10 bottles of #34 and find no active ingredient in those - should we then test every other bottle in the same batch because those molecules of active ingredient must have ended up "somewhere" in the batch?

That is true. I think what I am missing is the true definition of homeopathic.
I have been including herbal and eastern medicine in homeopathic.

wert

31st August 2003, 10:32 PM

Our dowsing friend Edge seems to have faded away. Guess he got tired of posting off topic UFO pictures and petulantly claiming he would re-take the challenge when the "time is right". Which seems more and more to be "never".

T'ai Chi

31st August 2003, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by reprise

...the basic underlying theory of homeopathy is flawed

That, however, is not automatic scientific grounds for not examining the evidence.

Chemistry could behave differently that people previously thought. There could be some mind-matter interaction present. Research could lead to innovations in some other area. We could discover previously undiscovered new laws and ways things work. We could discover fundamental (or complicated) flaws in the research. There could be statistical and/or practical significance dispite our assurance of the impossibility of homeopathy working, and despite a lack of coherent theory for its working.

In other words, things can obviously still work if we don't have a theory written down on paper, so not examining homeopathy because the theory isn't worked out really isn't a good excuse for not being willing to scientifically examine the evidence.

That would be akin to saying that you don't want to scientifically examine acupuncture because there is no single coherent theory of ch'i.

SRW

1st September 2003, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by woodguard

That is true. I think what I am missing is the true definition of homeopathic.
I have been including herbal and eastern medicine in homeopathic.

good place to start (http://www.randi.org/jr/040403.html)

Woodguard,

Here is a good link to learn about homeopathy.

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 12:12 AM

Woodguard, it is highly advised to do a Google search and get information on homeopathy from a healthy variety of sources.

The link they gave you is simply from Randi's commentary, and is in no way scientific evidence for or against homeopathy.

It is entertaining though.

reprise

1st September 2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

That, however, is not automatic scientific grounds for not examining the evidence.

Chemistry could behave differently that people previously thought. There could be some mind-matter interaction present. Research could lead to innovations in some other area. We could discover previously undiscovered new laws and ways things work. We could discover fundamental (or complicated) flaws in the research. There could be statistical and/or practical significance dispite our assurance of the impossibility of homeopathy working, and despite a lack of coherent theory for its working.

In other words, things can obviously still work if we don't have a theory written down on paper, so not examining homeopathy because the theory isn't worked out really isn't a good excuse for not being willing to scientifically examine the evidence.

That would be akin to saying that you don't want to scientifically examine acupuncture because there is no single coherent theory of ch'i. [/B]

Homeopathy has been scientifically tested - and the theory is flawed as well.

Bottles of homeopathic remedies have indeed been scientifically analysed and found to contain no active ingredient.

There almost certainly is a mind/matter effect at work when homeopathy gives (unmeasurable) positive results - we call it "the placebo effect" and its been extensively studied by science.

If studies showed that homeopathy worked, you can bet your bottom dollar that science would continue investigating it until answers to the questions "how" and "why" were found. It isn't the absence of a coherent theory or our current understanding of chemistry which disinclines scientist towards expending their time, energy, and research funds on further investigating homeopathy - it's the fact that when subjected to scientific testing, it doesn't produce the results claimed by its practitioners.

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 12:33 AM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I could be a kook if I wanted to be.

I would teach you. If you were a worthy student, that is.

Here are some basic steps:

1. act holier than thou
2. call others "kooks"
3. yet still claim to be rational
4. post a lot

Hey, you are 3/4ths of the way there already!
;)

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by reprise

Homeopathy has been scientifically tested - and the theory is flawed as well.

I agree, it has been scientifically tested. Some studies revealed no effect, and others revealed effects. So I guess it needs to be scientifically tested more.

Bottles of homeopathic remedies have indeed been scientifically analysed and found to contain no active ingredient.

That is because they are diluted. You do know what homeopathy is, don't you? :D

The bottles could contain air, scotch, plain water, or whip cream for all I care. The point is that some studies show significance, and this needs to be investigated scientifically more, to see if it is an effect, or error.

This has very little to do with theories written down on paper.

reprise

1st September 2003, 12:42 AM

That is because they are diluted. You do know what homeopathy is, don't you?

Yes, but it appears that you don't know what "dilution" means.

Perhaps you would like to link us to some double blind placebo studies on homeopathy which demonstrated the significant effects which you believe scientists should further investigate.

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by reprise

Perhaps you would like to link us to some double blind placebo studies on homeopathy which demonstrated the significant effects which you believe scientists should further investigate.

They've been posted elsewhere on this board many times, so you can find them here, or through a simple Google search.

Don't be lazy and ask others to find what you should put in the effort to find yourself if you are truly curious about it.

You can be your own gopher. You don't need me to do it. Just my opinion.

De_Bunk

1st September 2003, 01:40 AM

I come from the common f****** sense, school of thought...

If something is explained totally logically to me...then i will understand it and believe it...

If something is explained to me in a total nonsense way...with no logical thinking behind it...then i will laugh and dismiss it...totally..

As with the entire Paranormal / Homeopathy / Supernatural BS..

So far...nothing can be logically explained...since the beginning of mankind....no one has logically explained the entire spectrum of paranormal claims...

Not once...not ever...

DB

athon

1st September 2003, 02:11 AM

a) Homeopathy does work - it's mechanisms are are little understood, how it affects a body of minutely varying chemical levels is not understood at all, its affects on common drugs is unstudied and undocumented, its impact on endocrinology, nervous tissue and body microflora is as yet undescribed and nobody can reproduce the effects in a quantitative manner on more than one individual.

b) Homeopathy does not work at all, and people who subscribe to it as a remedy for any affliction put themselves at risk of non-treatment for that condition.

Either a or b is correct. Both are dangerous. Both are good reasons for banning homeopathic remedies from sale in all countries.

So while idiots hide behind statistical anomalies in support of this form of 'alternative' medicine, they are missing the big picture. Either way you look at it, this belief is serious and dangerous.

Athon

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by De_Bunk
I come from the common f****** sense, school of thought...

De_Bunk, I belong to the same school of thought as you do. However, common sense works very well for everyday things, but not so well for scientific study.

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by athon

while idiots hide behind statistical anomalies in support of this form of 'alternative' medicine,

There is no hiding, there is only examining the evidence. You seem to equate, erroneously, examining evidence with "support"ing the medicine.

ceptimus

1st September 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

There is no hiding, there is only examining the evidence. You seem to equate, erroneously, examining evidence with "support"ing the medicine. When a claim has already been tested several times, and has no plausible explanation as to how it could work anyway, don't you think it is a waste of resources to continue examining it?

If homeopathy 'worked', then most of our current chemical theories would be seriously injured. The theories that would be injured have served us well in the past, and continue to do so at present. Of course, they will surely be replaced by better theories in the future, but homeopothy working would just smash the theories apart, without offering any new theories to replace them.

Do you really believe that every claim that has no apparent basis in existing science should be tested and retested forever?

Have you read about David Deutsch's 'grass cure' theory? This is the theory that the common cold can be cured by eating a kilogram of lawn cuttings. As far as I know, nobody has ever tested the theory, and it would be ludicrous to do so. But if we were to test it, then some people would doubtless report that it worked (people do get better when they have a cold, you know). Then, people like you would insist that there might be 'something in it' and insist that the 'grass cure' be tested over and over again for the rest of time.

My current sig has another example to ponder.

thaiboxerken

1st September 2003, 10:54 AM

I will remind your of one of the JREF's goals.

Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

Yea, but that's not my goal. I also don't think that we should waste my tax dollars researching such nonsense that has failed to work time and time again. Sorry, but the homeopaths should be bringing their evidence to the scientific community for scrutiny. Science should not have to go out to debunk such claims.

I will also remind you, insulting someone intelligents is a real poor debating skill, and a little childish.

Yea, but it's fun. Especially when it's true.

And because you believe something is truth or false does not affect reality, that is woo woo thinking.

That's true, so... does anyone have any real evidence that homeopathy works? I didn't think so.

thaiboxerken

1st September 2003, 10:57 AM

I am not really on one side or the other.( Not any more)
I believe you have to look at each claim. Just because the first 100 were fake or wrong, the next one might be real.

I think that I can kick you in the nuts and it won't hurt. Now, if it hurts the first time, that's just because I didn't do it right. You'll have to let me kick you again and again until we get to that point where it just doesn't hurt. If we find out it didn't hurt because you went into shock or passed out, that will nullify the test. We'll have to start over. One of those times, the kick to the nuts won't hurt, right?

I don't feel you can say all Homeopathic is wrong. None of them may work but you still have to test each one.

Why? Shall we kick you in the nuts again?

Because a claim sound wrong, does not make it wrong.

If it were regulated the hole thing would crash and burn.
I personal don't think any of it works.

The evidence and studies back up your opinion that it doesn't work. It's not really an opinion, it is a fact that it does not work.

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
When a claim has already been tested several times, and has no plausible explanation as to how it could work anyway, don't you think it is a waste of resources to continue examining it?

Evidence should be examined, regardless of no viable theory. Theories don't determine evidence. Words on paper don't determine what is or could be out there.

Second, I feel that if a study shows significance, then it should be inspected further. There might be an effect, or there might be error. Either way, the study of the outcome is important, and, to quote Randi, 'I'd like to know about it.'

Do you really believe that every claim that has no apparent basis in existing science should be tested and retested forever?

Well, not forever. Unfortunately, there is no magical stopping rule that says after n tests, there is no basis, etc. When to stop is more decided by society than by any rule.

Have you read about David Deutsch's 'grass cure' theory? This is the theory that the common cold can be cured by eating a kilogram of lawn cuttings. As far as I know, nobody has ever tested the theory, and it would be ludicrous to do so. But if we were to test it, then some people would doubtless report that it worked (people do get better when they have a cold, you know). Then, people like you would insist that there might be 'something in it' and insist that the 'grass cure' be tested over and over again for the rest of time.

That is a little over 2 pounds of grass! If it is feasible to test something, then test it. We can only make decisions by examining the outcomes of scientific tests. The fact that you or I have an opinion that something is silly (and I certainly consider eating over 2 pounds worth of grass hard to swallow), is irrelevant to the scientific questions.

My current sig has another example to ponder.

I turn off sigs and avatars. I find them distracting.

thaiboxerken

1st September 2003, 11:07 AM

Evidence should be examined, regardless of no viable theory.

It has been examined countless times and has been found lacking. There is no credible evidence that homeopathy works, NONE.

Theories don't determine evidence. Words on paper don't determine what is or could be out there.

This is true, but the lack of evidence coupled with the lack of theory tells me that homeopathy doesn't work.

Second, I feel that if a study shows significance, then it should be inspected further. There might be an effect, or there might be error. Either way, the study of the outcome is important, and, to quote Randi, 'I'd like to know about it.'

The studies that show "significance" in homeopathy have been found to be unreplicable and lacking in protocol. They just don't stand up to scrutiny by the scientific and medical community.

Well, not forever. Unfortunately, there is no magical stopping rule that says after n tests, there is no basis, etc. When to stop is more decided by society than by any rule.

I think that one or two test negative is enough, especially if there is no science behind the claim. There is no science behind homeopathy and testing of the claims show that the claims are false.

That is a little over 2 pounds of grass! If it is feasible to test something, then test it. We can only make decisions by examining the outcomes of scientific tests. The fact that you or I have an opinion that something is silly (and I certainly consider eating over 2 pounds worth of grass hard to swallow), is irrelevant to the scientific questions.

It is not feasible to test it because there is no evidence or science behind the claim.

athon

1st September 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

There is no hiding, there is only examining the evidence. You seem to equate, erroneously, examining evidence with "support"ing the medicine.

You seemed quite happy to focus on that one line of my post. What, the rest of it make too much sense?

Examining the evidence is one thing. Do you now deny that homeopathy has demonstrated an effect outside of statistical probability?

Athon

woodguard

1st September 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]
I think that I can kick you in the nuts and it won't hurt.

I think that is hiting below the belt? :rolleyes:

I love you hot-heads, your come backs are so Intelligent ! :p

But I don't think I will feed a troll today?

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by athon

Examining the evidence is one thing. Do you now deny that homeopathy has demonstrated an effect outside of statistical probability?

Athon

I'm saying that if there is a study (and there are) that show some complementary medicine is statistically significant, that it should be explored further.

thaiboxerken

1st September 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I'm saying that if there is a study (and there are) that show some complementary medicine is statistically significant, that it should be explored further.

Uh huh. And what if these studies are not replicable? What if these studies are found to have poor protocol? What if these studies are shown to be flawed?

Do you know of any studies that have been replicable and has withstood the scrutiny of the medical and scientific community?

thaiboxerken

1st September 2003, 03:48 PM

I think that is hiting below the belt? :rolleyes:

Is it? I think it illustrates the point very well. But, you probably still don't get it.

I love you hot-heads, your come backs are so Intelligent !

I'm hardly "hot" about your idiotic position, I'm simply having fun at your expense because of it.

But I don't think I will feed a troll today?

This sentence makes ZERO sense. Is english your second language?

SRW

1st September 2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I'm saying that if there is a study (and there are) that show some complementary medicine is statistically significant, that it should be explored further.

I'm not sure I follow the is/are above, but if there is or are a study or studies that show this please provide evidence. (and yes I know how to google, but I did not make the claim you did.)

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by SRW

(and yes I know how to google, ..

Apparently, you don't.

woodguard

1st September 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Woodguard, it is highly advised to do a Google search and get information on homeopathy from a healthy variety of sources.

The link they gave you is simply from Randi's commentary, and is in no way scientific evidence for or against homeopathy.

It is entertaining though.

I thought the water thing was only one aspect of the homeopathy. We have several homeopathy stores in town. They sell herbs and other odd things. They even teach cources on it??

But how I have both feet in my mouth and no ground to stand on!
I think i will slowly leave the thread with my head bowed.
:hb:

thaiboxerken

1st September 2003, 04:31 PM

I thought the water thing was only one aspect of the homeopathy.

Superdiluted solutions (ie water) is homeopathy. Everything else is other forms of quackery. Of course homeopaths will sell herbs and other stuff because there is alot of money in it.

SRW

1st September 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Apparently, you don't.

Another non-answer from T'ai why am I not supprised.

T'ai Chi

1st September 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by SRW

Another non-answer from T'ai why am I not supprised.

At least I am capable of using Google.

Anyway, I've read articles in the past. I don't have them on instant recall for you and anybody that asks for them.

You can try Google. You can try getting in touch with a complementary medicine association.

Ratman_tf

1st September 2003, 05:45 PM

A lot of stuff turned up in a web search is suspect. There's a lot of sites (Answers in Genesis comes to mind) that have an axe to grind and are not above making stuff up and misrepresenting information to make their case.

I use links in arguments myself, but always keep in mind that anyone can make a webpage about anything at any time and link to it as 'proof'.

Much better as you say to actually go to the source. But that takes some effort and slows the discussion to a crawl while people are checking out their sources. Hardly practical or desirable in an internet discussion.

So, here after doing a Yahoo search, I have found no sites that support Homeopathy being anything more than a placebo. Everything that I have read or experienced have pointed to that conclusion. Most sources that support Homeopathy are slanted, skewed, biased and/or flawed. If you have a better source, Ta'i, I'd like to see it.

SRW

1st September 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

At least I am capable of using Google.

Anyway, I've read articles in the past. I don't have them on instant recall for you and anybody that asks for them.

You can try Google. You can try getting in touch with a complementary medicine association.

So you have conveniently forgotten the name of the article?

Instant recall, you do not need it. I'll give you all the time you need.

I don't take complementary medicine so I doubt I'll be dying anytime soon.

thaiboxerken

1st September 2003, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

You can try Google. You can try getting in touch with a complementary medicine association.

LOL. Ask the quacks if their "medicine" works, and of course they'll say it does. Let's stick with evidence-based associations like JAMA.

thaiboxerken

1st September 2003, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by SRW

So you have conveniently forgotten the name of the article?

Instant recall, you do not need it. I'll give you all the time you need.

I don't take complementary medicine so I doubt I'll be dying anytime soon.

It's typical of believers to make claims and then ask YOU to go find their evidence. T'ai Chi has just demonstrated that he has no interest in an actual discussion, he just wants to make claims.

reprise

1st September 2003, 06:58 PM

When there's such a dearth of evidence supporting the validity of a fringe practise such as homeopathy, wouldn't you think that those people who claim its efficacy has been substantiated in clinical trials would bookmark the website on which they read these credible studies.

Hell, I don't think there's anything paranormal about NDE's, but I have the more credible studies into the phenomenon bookmarked.

Even when it isn't possible to directly link to good research on something (such as the meditation studies published in New Scientist), I at least make a note of the details of the research so that I can refer other people to it and easily locate it again myself.

BTox

1st September 2003, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Chemistry could behave differently that people previously thought. There could be some mind-matter interaction present. Research could lead to innovations in some other area. We could discover previously undiscovered new laws and ways things work. [/B]

I wish I had a dollar every time I read that tired old excuse. Chemistry does not behave differently, this is simply a fact of science. Sure you don't want to believe it, but that doesn't change the reality.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

We could discover fundamental (or complicated) flaws in the research. There could be statistical and/or practical significance dispite our assurance of the impossibility of homeopathy working, and despite a lack of coherent theory for its working. [/B]

We have discovered fundamental flaws in the few clinical trials that show homeopathy has any effect above placebo. Which is why no one is clamoring for more studies, except folks like you.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

In other words, things can obviously still work if we don't have a theory written down on paper, so not examining homeopathy because the theory isn't worked out really isn't a good excuse for not being willing to scientifically examine the evidence.
[/B]

You don't seem to understand this point. There is a theory written down on paper as to how homeopathy "works". Hahnemann wrote it. It is complete garbage. All the tenets and "laws" he came up with have been disproven. The clinical evidence has been examined. It does not work. End of story.

1st September 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I agree, it has been scientifically tested. Some studies revealed no effect, and others revealed effects. So I guess it needs to be scientifically tested more.

No, that's not quite right. Please be forthright in the future. The only 'test' that's revealed any effect has been shown to be methodologically horrid.

If you want to prove it works, you can run another, correct test, but until then, there is no credible evidence.

Until then, "scientific testing" is unanamous.

Find some EVIDENCE that is credible, and somebody may do more testing.

You need to find the evidence.

Until YOU do, there is nothing visible and demonstrable to "test".

1st September 2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by woodguard

Let me try to explain what I am trying to typing.

If you have 100 different homeopathic products.
Do you test only the first 10 and say the rest are wrong?
Or do you test all 100.
If product #34 sound silly do you test it or say if wrong because its silly? ( this is woo woo thinking).

Now could be wrong but I thought that was how science is done.

No, in science, the person wishing to put forth the theory, in this case homeopathy, gathers evidence, performs experiements, test, etc, and publishes this evidence.

Others read the material, repeat the tests, etc, and science proceeds.

There is NO presently credible evidence for homeopathy, the basic "pro" experiment having been shown to be tragically flawed.

So, the onus is on the side of the homeopath to show that something is happening.

Then the scientific process can begin.

athon

1st September 2003, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I'm saying that if there is a study (and there are) that show some complementary medicine is statistically significant, that it should be explored further.

OK. In itself, it's a sensible statement. And assuming it applies to trials of homeopathy (which as has been argued so often on this board, is not), it makes sense.

But there is a massive leap from a few interesting statistics and using the technology for treating a person's health.

And even you cannot deny that.

Athon

T'ai Chi

2nd September 2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by SRW

So you have conveniently forgotten the name of the article?

Um, I recall reading several such articles in the past. I usually did journal articles searches while I was on lunch at work. If I knew then I'd be having this conversation now, I would have written them down somewhere. So yes, I have apparently "conveniently" forgot the authors, page numbers, journal title, and volume number of the articles I read. I'll see if I can hunt them down though- it shouldn't be difficult.

I don't take complementary medicine so I doubt I'll be dying anytime soon.

That's wonderful.

If you knew the definition of 'complementary', you'd realize that your sentence makes no sense. People take complementary treatments with 'regular' treatments. You must be thinking of 'alternative' treatments.

T'ai Chi

2nd September 2003, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by athon

But there is a massive leap from a few interesting statistics and using the technology for treating a person's health.

And even you cannot deny that.

Athon

Right, which is why I am saying if there is significance, we should examine it further to see if it is an effect or if error is present.

T'ai Chi

2nd September 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by BTox

I wish I had a dollar every time I read that tired old excuse.

So you don't think it is possible that chemistry could behave differently than people previously thought. Ok, that is reasonable. But do you think there is the possibility of mind-matter interaction? Do you think that research could lead to innovations in some other area? Do you think that scientists could discover previously undiscovered new laws and ways things work? Do you think that such research could add to the total body of science and medical knowledge? Is there even the slightest possibility that chemistry could behave in other ways?

We have discovered fundamental flaws in the few clinical trials that show homeopathy has any effect above placebo.

Watch out! People might start asking YOU to see these few clinical trials where effects exist... ;) ;) ;) I'm sure you won't get asked though...

You don't seem to understand this point. There is a theory written down on paper as to how homeopathy "works". Hahnemann wrote it. It is complete garbage. All the tenets and "laws" he came up with have been disproven.

When a scientist today does homeopathy experiments, he is not necessarily doing what Hahnemann did exactly, either in theory or in methods (ie. no modern scientist, I believe, is reading Hahnemann's write-ups from the 1800's before they do their experiments). Just like when an M.D. performs acupuncture experiments, they are not necessarily doing identical work like the ancient Chinese did years ago, and are probably not using the theories and methods Chinese did way back then.

In fact, it is entirely probable that most scientists do divorce themselves partially or entirely (mostly partially I'd say) from homeopathy theories and methods of the past and test homeopathy in its modern form (for lack of a better word).

To say that the present approaches are complete garbage because of the past is not entirely correct I feel. For example, perhaps it is possible that such methods could work in spite of what Hahnemann wrote down on paper. We also have much more sensitive testing equipment and more modern methods of analyzing experimental data (ie. computers for one, statistical methodologies, more scientific results in every discipline, including mind-matter research, that could all, possibly, be important to determining if homeopathy has any real effect) that people of the past did not have.

thaiboxerken

2nd September 2003, 05:34 AM

So you don't think it is possible that chemistry could behave differently than people previously thought. Ok, that is reasonable. But do you think there is the possibility of mind-matter interaction?

Not anything more than placebo. Your "possibility of mind-matter interaction" question is rather silly. Here, I'll ask some questions that are just as sill. Do you think it's possible that maybe pixies sometimes help make homeopathy work? Do you think it's possible that maybe sometimes demons are making the results in the real science trials fail? Do you think it's possible that a person has to say the correct magical incantation to make homeopathy work?

Do you think that research could lead to innovations in some other area?

Not in homeopathy.

Do you think that scientists could discover previously undiscovered new laws and ways things work?

Not when it comes to homeopathy.

Do you think that such research could add to the total body of science and medical knowledge? Is there even the slightest possibility that chemistry could behave in other ways?

When it comes to homeopathy, no.

Watch out! People might start asking YOU to see these few clinical trials where effects exist... ;) ;) ;) I'm sure you won't get asked though...

What trials? Any trials that shows effects with homeopathy have been found lacking in protocol an/or have been unreplicable.

When a scientist today does homeopathy experiments, he is not necessarily doing what Hahnemann did exactly, either in theory or in methods (ie. no modern scientist, I believe, is reading Hahnemann's write-ups from the 1800's before they do their experiments).

Yea, scientists today are using real science protocols with double-blind studies to find out that Hahnemann's results cannot be replicated. This really shows that Hahnemann's tests were lacking, not that homeopathy works.

Just like when an M.D. performs acupuncture experiments, they are not necessarily doing identical work like the ancient Chinese did years ago, and are probably not using the theories and methods Chinese did way back then.

No, they are using real medical knowledge and finding out that the neuro responses cause acupuncture to work. Clinical trials support that notion and that acupuncture can work. Homeopathy, however, doesn't have any clinical trials to back it up, nor do they have scientific theories to explain how it works.

In fact, it is entirely probable that most scientists do divorce themselves partially or entirely (mostly partially I'd say) from homeopathy theories and methods of the past and test homeopathy in its modern form (for lack of a better word).

It's because neither the modern or the past forms of homeopathy work. How many times must one get kicked in the nuts to realize that it's gonna hurt every time?

To say that the present approaches are complete garbage because of the past is not entirely correct I feel.

Yes, but your "feeling" is more an emotional response than an intelligent reason.

For example, perhaps it is possible that such methods could work in spite of what Hahnemann wrote down on paper. We also have much more sensitive testing equipment and more modern methods of analyzing experimental data (ie. computers for one, statistical methodologies, more scientific results in every discipline, including mind-matter research, that could all, possibly, be important to determining if homeopathy has any real effect) that people of the past did not have.

Which have been used to find out that homeopathy doesn't work. One doesn't need such "sensitive" equipment, though, just double blind studies to find out the effectiveness of homeopathy. The effectiveness of homeopathy is no more than placebo.

Thanz

2nd September 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Uh huh. And what if these studies are not replicable? What if these studies are found to have poor protocol? What if these studies are shown to be flawed?

Do you know of any studies that have been replicable and has withstood the scrutiny of the medical and scientific community?
Uh, TBK, how would we know any of the above unless we explored the test further? I think that this is the approach that Tai Chi is advocating.

Let's say a study comes out that says X homeopathic substance cures Y disease. What should we do? Should we pull a De_Bunk and say that since obviously homeopathy is BS, the study is wrong? Or, should we actually examine it, see if the results are replicable, see if the protocol is sound, and see if the studies are flawed? Should we not actually exmine the evidence to see if the results can withstand medical scrutiny?

As I read Tai Chi's posts in this thread, this is all he is saying. When one of these studies comes out, we need to examine it to see why it came out like it did: was there one or more errors? Or, is there actually something going on?

Without the scientific scrutiny, you cannot say that a study is bunk. If the study is bunk, then a scientific analysis of it will reveal that. Tai Chi is advocating this analysis.

thaiboxerken

2nd September 2003, 07:38 AM

Uh, TBK, how would we know any of the above unless we explored the test further? I think that this is the approach that Tai Chi is advocating.

My questions were more rhetorical, as I already know the answer. Any studies that have had successful effects with homeopathy have been found to have poor protocols and/or inability to have reproduceable results.

Let's say a study comes out that says X homeopathic substance cures Y disease. What should we do?

Check the protocols and see if the results can be reproduced. Thus far, all "success" stories of homeopathy have been lacking in protocol and reproduction.

Should we pull a De_Bunk and say that since obviously homeopathy is BS, the study is wrong?

Yes, because all of them have been shown to be wrong.

Or, should we actually examine it, see if the results are replicable, see if the protocol is sound, and see if the studies are flawed?

Been there, done that. Yes, they were all flawed.

Should we not actually exmine the evidence to see if the results can withstand medical scrutiny?

Been there again, done that again. They failed to withstand medical scrutiny.

As I read Tai Chi's posts in this thread, this is all he is saying. When one of these studies comes out, we need to examine it to see why it came out like it did: was there one or more errors? Or, is there actually something going on?

He's ignoring the fact that not one success story of homeopathy has withstood scrutiny.

Without the scientific scrutiny, you cannot say that a study is bunk. If the study is bunk, then a scientific analysis of it will reveal that. Tai Chi is advocating this analysis.

I agree. But, Tai Chi is ignoring the fact that all homeopathic studies that show success have failed under scrutiny.

Thanz

2nd September 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Thanz: Should we pull a De_Bunk and say that since obviously homeopathy is BS, the study is wrong?

TBK: Yes, because all of them have been shown to be wrong.
No, I disagree completely. If a new study comes out that says homeopathy works, we need to actually look at the study to find the flaws. Jus because the other studies were flawed, does not mean that all future studies will also be flawed.

It is highly likely that the study is flawed, and by now we should have a good idea of what flaws to look for, but we cannot simply conclude that a NEW study is flawed simply because all of the OLD studies were flawed. That is sloppy thinking.

2nd September 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by BTox

I wish I had a dollar every time I read that tired old excuse. Chemistry does not behave differently, this is simply a fact of science. Sure you don't want to believe it, but that doesn't change the reality.

Perhaps Mr. Chi has let his chi slide too far into his *** ****.

In any case, it may be that Mr. Chi is making an argument to ignorance in disguise here, since we don't know everything...

But he ignores the fact that it is possible to dismiss dumb ideas that would cause outcomes in often-repeated experiments to be different.

And that's what homeopathy would require.

We have discovered fundamental flaws in the few clinical trials that show homeopathy has any effect above placebo. Which is why no one is clamoring for more studies, except folks like you.

Yep, well, no, not me, but in context I agree. :)

You don't seem to understand this point. There is a theory written down on paper as to how homeopathy "works". Hahnemann wrote it. It is complete garbage. All the tenets and "laws" he came up with have been disproven. The clinical evidence has been examined. It does not work. End of story.
And the theory is at odds in many places with actual experimental outcomes. THIS is what people seem not to want to digest.

2nd September 2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Right, which is why I am saying if there is significance, we should examine it further to see if it is an effect or if error is present.

All the tests I'm aware of that have produced positive results, at this point, are shown to have some methodological problem.

So, when you find something with significance that is not a flawed study, get back to us.

2nd September 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In fact, it is entirely probable that most scientists do divorce themselves partially or entirely (mostly partially I'd say) from homeopathy theories and methods of the past and test homeopathy in its modern form (for lack of a better word).

What is its modern form? What constitutes the modern theory? Where is this theory tested properly?

The onus is on YOU to tell us that, not on us to defend ourselves against a ghost of an idea you might have heard once.

2nd September 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

Let's say a study comes out that says X homeopathic substance cures Y disease. What should we do? Should we pull a De_Bunk and say that since obviously homeopathy is BS, the study is wrong? Or, should we actually examine it, see if the results are replicable, see if the protocol is sound, and see if the studies are flawed? Should we not actually exmine the evidence to see if the results can withstand medical scrutiny?

You left out "examine the experimental method and see if it is free from accidental (or worse intentional) bias".

After that, so far, we've been left without any evidence.

Got some?

thaiboxerken

2nd September 2003, 02:16 PM

No, I disagree completely. If a new study comes out that says homeopathy works, we need to actually look at the study to find the flaws. Jus because the other studies were flawed, does not mean that all future studies will also be flawed.

This might be the case, but until homeopathy comes up with some science behind their claims, it is a waste of time and money to keep entertaining their claims. How many times must a person be kicked in the testicles before they realize that it will hurt every time?

T'ai Chi

2nd September 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

No, I disagree completely. If a new study comes out that says homeopathy works, we need to actually look at the study to find the flaws. Jus because the other studies were flawed, does not mean that all future studies will also be flawed.

That seems sensible Thanz.

We have to scientifically examine the evidence and see if there are any effects or errors.

I personally wonder about some "freethinkers" (or "brights" or "clears", or whatever they call themselves nowadays) who insist that there must be some coherent completely agreed upon theory of homeopathy in order to do homeopathy experiments or to get any benefits out of the results of the experiments. Look at the JREF challenge.. Randi specifically says that he doesn't care about theories, etc.

Go demand that he ask everyone for theories first before testing applicants. But the challenge isn't science, so I guess it is excused.

thaiboxerken

2nd September 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

That seems sensible Thanz.

We have to scientifically examine the evidence and see if there are any effects or errors.

I personally wonder about some "freethinkers" (or "brights" or "clears", or whatever they call themselves nowadays) who insist that there must be some coherent completely agreed upon theory of homeopathy in order to do homeopathy experiments or to get any benefits out of the results of the experiments. Look at the JREF challenge.. Randi specifically says that he doesn't care about theories, etc.

Go demand that he ask everyone for theories first before testing applicants. But the challenge isn't science, so I guess it is excused. [/B]

The JREF challenge is open to homeopathic claims as well. Go find a competent homeopath and ask him to beat the JREF challenge and get the prize.

You keep ignoring the fact that science HAS examined the evidence for homeopathy and found it to be quackery. Holy freaking christ, how many times do I have to point this out?

BTox

2nd September 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I personally wonder about some "freethinkers" (or "brights" or "clears", or whatever they call themselves nowadays) who insist that there must be some coherent completely agreed upon theory of homeopathy in order to do homeopathy experiments or to get any benefits out of the results of the experiments. [/B]

Who insists on a complete agreed upon theory? All we're asking for is the some glimmer of scientific basis for the claims being made. Some of what you call "alternative" medicine have a kernel of sound science that offers at least a slim chance of becoming viable treatment, and are under study. Others, like psychic healing and homeopathy, have none. Homeopathy was dreamed up by someone over 200 years ago without the knowledge of how chemistry, physiology and physics works. Just like medical practices from the dark ages, which have long been proven worthless, so has homeopathy. Yet some cling to the tattered remnants...