darksmeesh Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 ive been reading the warning section on this site, does this mean discussing reflexology, homeopathic medicine and other methods of natural healing, that conventional science doesnt understand?is this neo facist darwinism accepted because there are some things we cant fully comprehend?
Sayonara Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 It's perfectly possible to discuss homeopathic science, reflexology etc in a scientific fashion. If the discussion is not scientific, it's not very likely to be welcome on a science discussion board. The guides in the pseudosicence forum are supposed to make it clear that the approach is considered pseudoscientific, not the subject matter. The homeopathy threads for instance started in General Science and there they stayed for a good long while, until eventually they were moved to pseudoscience when it became clear there was not going to be any more scientific discussion from the people who should have been presenting evidence.
swansont Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 I think the problem is that science does understand that it's coprolitic nonsense.
Sayonara Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 What's coprolitic nonsense? (Nice word... I like that. Almost as amusing as calling someone a coprophage).
swansont Posted October 21, 2003 Posted October 21, 2003 Sayonara³ said in post #5 :What's coprolitic nonsense? (Nice word... I like that. Almost as amusing as calling someone a coprophage). Homeopathy, etc. (I assume you aren't asking for the definition, here. Coprophage...I gotta remember that one )
darksmeesh Posted October 21, 2003 Author Posted October 21, 2003 nonsense?i dont think so, i had a reflexologist that sorted my diet by examining my foot!conventional science is connected with drug companies, thats why homeopathic medacine is slandered, the companies lose money
blike Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 uh-oh, I sense it coming. Check out the homeopathic threads in the psuedoscience section. (ps, that radiohead song rocks)
NavajoEverclear Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 i have a comment about darksmeeshes signature--- if you feel it, it must be caused by something, what you decide the feeling is caused by may be false, but SOMETHING is causing you to feel, so it is real, the only problem may be misinterpreting what IT is. Is that the radiohead song blikes refering to? I don't listen to them so i don't know. I think i'll go check out some clips on Amazon now.
swansont Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 A problem is that saying "I did X and then I felt better" relies on the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Happened after, therefore was caused by. You may drink water (homeopathic remedy) and feel better, but you don't know that you wouldn't have felt better anyway. Most common ailments improve with no real action on our parts - just time. That's why conventional medecine requires double-blind tests to show that there's a real, causal link between the remedy and the cure. Show me a homeopathic remedy that's passed this hurdle.
atinymonkey Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 Water isn't a homeopathic remedy. Plus homeopathy has conventions, which make it conventional. You surely aren't suggesting the homeopathic method is to try something once and then never try it again? Most common ailments improve with direct action from ourselves, as in an immune response. As homeopathic methods deal directly with this response, you might want to rethink your position. Sweeping statements about homeopathic methods will just encourage arguments. Play nice
blike Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 atinymonkey said in post #12 :Water isn't a homeopathic remedy. Plus homeopathy has conventions, which make it conventional. You surely aren't suggesting the homeopathic method is to try something once and then never try it again? I think water was just the first example that came to his head. His point was that just because you feel better after taking some random herb, doesn't mean the herb made you feel better. Even if it happens repeatedly. If we would subject homeopathic remedies to the same testing the FDA subjects potential drugs here in the US, the real effectiveness would be shown. As homeopathic methods deal directly with this response, you might want to rethink your position. I suspect he'll rethink his position when he sees what he has asked for in his post; a homeopathic remedy that has passed the random double blind hurdles. Until then, it is unreasonable to ask anyone to rethink their position.
swansont Posted October 22, 2003 Posted October 22, 2003 atinymonkey said in post #12 :Water isn't a homeopathic remedy. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it homeopathy is basically extreme dilution of a solution, well past any meaningful concentration compared to contaminants in the water, and often past a factor of 1024 per mole, meaning there's a good chance the water doesn't have any of the original solute in it.
Glider Posted October 23, 2003 Posted October 23, 2003 darksmeesh said in post #7 :nonsense?i dont think so, i had a reflexologist that sorted my diet by examining my foot! Was your original diet wrong? If so, in what way and what was its effects? Is your new diet better? If so, how and what are the effects? Why didn't you see a dietician? swansont said in post #14 : Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it homeopathy is basically extreme dilution of a solution, well past any meaningful concentration compared to contaminants in the water, and often past a factor of 1024 per mole, meaning there's a good chance the water doesn't have any of the original solute in it. This is one homeopathic approach. This one has been tested scientifically (randomised, placebo controlled double-blind) and on a large scale. No evidence was found to support it. The results showed any reported effect to be random.
darksmeesh Posted October 23, 2003 Author Posted October 23, 2003 Glider said in post #15 : Was your original diet wrong? If so, in what way and what was its effects? Is your new diet better? If so, how and what are the effects? Why didn't you see a dietician? yes the new diets better, this isnt about that though. in this case homeopathy identifies the problem.i didnt know anything was wrong cos id been like that 4 years
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now