Strange

The links I posted are from the BBC and Wired Magazine (I just realised that the third one was just linking to the Wired article). Someone else posted to Science Based Medicine. You mean sceptical and demanding evidence? Sorry if you don't like it but that is how science works. See post #34 for one answer. 1) If placeboes aren't increasing in efficacy, why have drug companies spent so much money trying to figure out why not? It seems they are increasing in effectiveness and drug companies seem to be researching this. 2) How come older drugs such as Prozac have been found to be much worse against placeboes recently? I have no idea. But there were some possible explanations from the researchers in the article I read.

Also, worth noting that the articles I read said that this effect had only been seen in the US. I don't know if that means it has only occurred there or just hasn't been observed elsewhere. I certainly hadn't heard of it. So thanks for bringing it to my/our attention. Why would anyone attack the researchers?

That was a comment on MY post, not yours (I haven't had a chance to look at that link yet - but it may be time for me to admit I am wrong again!) I didn't say anything about science based medicine, did I? The link is reporting on the research the drug companies are doing - I assume there is more going on that will be reported one day. (Not that the articles are from 2009 to 2016.)

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet

So now anyone who has had a different experience or has a different opinion is a lier? Are you related to The Donald?

I have been trying to help by finding and pasting the link you were unable to. But that's OK. Here are a few more links based on your first search suggestion: https://www.wired.com/2009/08/ff-placebo-effect/ https://www.themonthly.com.au/placebos-are-getting-more-effective-drug-makers-are-desperate-know-why-3312 Almost all the posts in this thread have been discussing the idea and why it might be. There have been a few other interesting points made about other aspects of the placebo effect. "I am wondering what you think. Is something outside the realm of known science going on?" Probably not. There seem to be a number of plausible hypothesis (here and in the linked articles). If all of those were disproved, then yes it could be some new science. I can't see a single post where someone has said you are wrong. But maybe I'm wrong (I often am).

No one is saying you are wrong (and certainly not because you can't copy and paste a link). The problem is, if I search for your first suggestion "placeboes are getting more effective drug makers" Google gives me over 1 million results. The first one is the link I posted earlier. If I search for your second suggestion "Prozac, darling drug of the nineties, now doing terribly against placeboes" I get about 63,000 results. But none of them seem directly related to the subject.

Actually, I think placebos still work even if you know about the placebo effects and are told you are getting a placebo! (Although not quite as well as being told it is areal thing.) [i guess I should find a reference to back that up ... ] Here we go: http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/placebo-can-work-even-know-placebo-201607079926 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0015591

See post #12 where I tried to help by posting a couple of links (and just got abuse, but hey ho).

It is still your choice. If a salesman persuades you to buy their product, it is still your choice. I suppose, even if they hold a gun to your head, it is still your choice. If they deliver a new car you have never heard of, and then take the money out of your bank, then that probably isn't an example of free will!

Some evidence of that would be nice. Some evidence of the non-physical mind would be nice. No one compared them. And QM is not based on general relativity. In fact, one of the big challenges currently is how to combine QM and GR.

So it IS derived from our genes and evolution. I thought so. So, biology then. And therefore genes and evolution.

As there is zero evidence for anything called "structured water" I will suspend my credulity until there is some. (That is what the scientific process is for; you don't believe everything until someone disproves it.) But, again, feel free to prove me wrong (it happens frequently) by posting references to peer-reviewed research demonstrating the existence of structured water. (I don't know why you think I would "follow you around" or that I have hurt feelings.)

You can get contact lenses for astigmatism already, so is the question about using 3D printing technology to create contact lenses.

And that is pretty much what I am saying about how a set of chemical reactions can have consciousness and free will. It is a complex interplay of reactions that cause an effect that then changes the reactions that are taking place. Form that emerges "you", your (possibly illusory) sense of consciousness, and your freedom to choose what to do. You seem to be thinking that there is a one directional, one-dimensional and deterministic progress from chemistry to result. That is too naive. There are complex interactions at and between all levels. Your position seems to be similar to those who say that a computer can never be conscious because it is a machine that just does what it is told. That is too naive, in exactly the same way.

There is already a very long thread called "What is space made of" http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89395-what-is-space-made-of/?hl=%2Bwhat+%2Bspace+%2Bmade This subject comes up very frequently. For example, this might be of interest: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/97105-is-space-time-a-physical-entity-or-a-mathematical-model/

Do they? Do you have a reference or evidence for that?

There is no such thing.

Hey, I dug out the evidence that it is a real effect. Other postulated hypotheses for the reason. Some asked for the evidence you failed to supply. Those all seem entirely reasonable critical responses and points for discussion. I'm not sure what else you expected from a science site.

Yeah, the technology of copying and pasting text is pretty daunting (Ctrl-C then Ctrl-V). Anyway, here is one report on it with several plausible hypotheses for the reason: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34572482 And an interesting review of the placebo effect in medical trials: http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1572/1889

OK. I don't really know anything about the relationship between failure to learn language and cognitive development. So I am happy to accept I am wrong there. I imagine studying this is complicated by the fact that the same thing that causes language deficit may have a more direct effect on learning (e.g. being deaf may cut a person out of social interaction which may have an effect as well as late language development).

The BBC has an article about the "dangers" of your clothes (according to the British Chiropractic Association, so probably not much science behind it): http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39266383

That set of chemical processes is you; the you that has free will.

It is the sum of an infinite series, which is not the same thing. Your program can never return the value of the function but it is often possible to calculate the value.

You haven't provided any reason why those four premises should be accepted or that they need arguing against. As far as I can tell, they are just pointless beliefs that explain nothing. You have yet to demonstrate that they have any explanatory value. They are not objectively testable and so cannot be disproved. A lot of people belief that and a lot don't. It makes no practical difference. In a metaphorical sense, maybe. But unless you can explain how this energy can be measured and detected, it again seems a fairly pointless belief. Ah! A prediction. That sounds like science. Where was this prediction? Or is this like those predictions where you roll a six and then say "I knew I was going to do that" (you didn't of course). You have progressed from asking questions to making baseless assertions and now to insults. Not a very constructive approach.