Essay talk:Homeopathy

Scientific knowledge has advanced far past the point of limiting the understanding of reality to such crude measures as Avagodro's number.

Goedel's Theorem proves that in systems at or more complex that the whole integers there are truths that can't be proven.

Vithoulkas and company made very systematic efforts to collect from Randi; Randi changed the rules of the game on them.

It's very easy to assert that subtle things can't be true. No one believed radio was possible in the 1700's.

What is the motivation of the author to employ such obviously simplistic and incomplete reasoning to refute something that is still clearly undetermined? "X" is not inferred from "A", "B" and "C". Therefore "X" does not exist. What about "D", "E", and the rest of the alphabet, and the letters we haven't discovered yet? Or does the author assert that current scientific theory explains all currently perceived phenomena? Like an accelerated expanding universe, the big bang, and the hard problem of consciousness?

What's the point of calling this RationalWiki when the "rational" stops as soon as the reasoning becomes difficult?

Waxing aside, someone should keep some sort of record of all the times the word rational has been put in quotations when we're being insulted. Blue (pester) 07:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)