Homeopathy
Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 5:53 pm
Here's more of the exchange between Darrel and Coralie:
Darrel: If you are
going to have a group of critical thinking leaders/teachers, [a projected tv program]
there is going to be a conflict with those who espouse
belief in pseudo-science which includes most of (but not all
of) alternative medicine.
Coralie: I agree with Lynda that not all conflict is bad, unless it becomes the focus of the discussion and takes up too much of the energy. We could just agree to disagree and go on to the next topic.
I don't like the phrase "espouse belief" re pseudo-science which for you includes most of alternative medicine. I would prefer the phrase "open to evidence." Even the NIH is engaged in testing some of these therapies.
I am quite skeptical of the New Agey sort shown in the Dawkins film.
Darrel: In fact my homeopathy presentation
was carefully tuned to be as polite as possible for you
since I know you have beliefs about this. But one can only
put so much sugar on the medicine. Homeopathy is pure pseudo
science by any normative meaning of the words
Coralie: I wonder how you know that I have beliefs about homeopathy. I'm not a strong defender and haven't really studied up on it. Certainly the historical genesis of homeopathic beliefs that you presented, and the more mystical-sounding reasons given by some practitioners about how it is supposed to work, all sound absurd today. But there is still a possibility that it could work, under some circumstances, even if those who 'believe' in it don't know what they're talking about. That is why the NIH is testing it, with mixed results so far.
Perhaps some formulations work and not others. Perhaps it works for some of the conditions it's intended for and not others. I found that one particular formulation worked for me to ease leg cramps and stiff legs. I refuse to believe that is just some placebo effect, because I try some things that help various problems and other that don't. The placebo effect should work for all or none, I should think. Or am I supposed to be gullible on alternate Tuesdays?
If homeopathic principles are utterly absurd, how do immunizations work? Isn't it a related principle to homeopathy? Also I understand that some substances such as dioxin are toxic at very low concentrations, parts per million.
Everybody misunderstood what I was trying to say about the dilution example you and/or film gave about the homeopathic remedy being so dilute that there wouldn't be a molecule in an ocean or even all the oceans. This seemed to me hyperbole and illogical. The homeopathic lab or factory could not possibly dilute anything with enough water to equal the mass of the ocean. OF COURSE I understood the argument that the remedy was so dilute that it might not contain even a molecule of the original substance. (Although presumably some of the batches might contain a molecule or two, because the original drop would not have disappeared entirely.)
The fact that nobody else there was recognizing this ocean thing as an absurd argument frankly drove me so crazy that I couldn't get to sleep that night.
Darrel: Ninety nine percent of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are
outlandish, laughably false and easily debunked.
Let's save this one for another day. I really need to get writing on my book today.
Darrel: If you are
going to have a group of critical thinking leaders/teachers, [a projected tv program]
there is going to be a conflict with those who espouse
belief in pseudo-science which includes most of (but not all
of) alternative medicine.
Coralie: I agree with Lynda that not all conflict is bad, unless it becomes the focus of the discussion and takes up too much of the energy. We could just agree to disagree and go on to the next topic.
I don't like the phrase "espouse belief" re pseudo-science which for you includes most of alternative medicine. I would prefer the phrase "open to evidence." Even the NIH is engaged in testing some of these therapies.
I am quite skeptical of the New Agey sort shown in the Dawkins film.
Darrel: In fact my homeopathy presentation
was carefully tuned to be as polite as possible for you
since I know you have beliefs about this. But one can only
put so much sugar on the medicine. Homeopathy is pure pseudo
science by any normative meaning of the words
Coralie: I wonder how you know that I have beliefs about homeopathy. I'm not a strong defender and haven't really studied up on it. Certainly the historical genesis of homeopathic beliefs that you presented, and the more mystical-sounding reasons given by some practitioners about how it is supposed to work, all sound absurd today. But there is still a possibility that it could work, under some circumstances, even if those who 'believe' in it don't know what they're talking about. That is why the NIH is testing it, with mixed results so far.
Perhaps some formulations work and not others. Perhaps it works for some of the conditions it's intended for and not others. I found that one particular formulation worked for me to ease leg cramps and stiff legs. I refuse to believe that is just some placebo effect, because I try some things that help various problems and other that don't. The placebo effect should work for all or none, I should think. Or am I supposed to be gullible on alternate Tuesdays?
If homeopathic principles are utterly absurd, how do immunizations work? Isn't it a related principle to homeopathy? Also I understand that some substances such as dioxin are toxic at very low concentrations, parts per million.
Everybody misunderstood what I was trying to say about the dilution example you and/or film gave about the homeopathic remedy being so dilute that there wouldn't be a molecule in an ocean or even all the oceans. This seemed to me hyperbole and illogical. The homeopathic lab or factory could not possibly dilute anything with enough water to equal the mass of the ocean. OF COURSE I understood the argument that the remedy was so dilute that it might not contain even a molecule of the original substance. (Although presumably some of the batches might contain a molecule or two, because the original drop would not have disappeared entirely.)
The fact that nobody else there was recognizing this ocean thing as an absurd argument frankly drove me so crazy that I couldn't get to sleep that night.
Darrel: Ninety nine percent of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are
outlandish, laughably false and easily debunked.
Let's save this one for another day. I really need to get writing on my book today.