Difference between revisions of "Talk:Homeopathy"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(It pains me to see this kind of thing on a wiki supposedly dedicated to rationalism)
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 
[[CP:Homeopathy | Homeopathy]] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:43, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
 
[[CP:Homeopathy | Homeopathy]] [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 17:43, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
 +
 +
== It pains me to see this kind of thing on a wiki supposedly dedicated to rationalism ==
 +
 +
Think of the last time you saw a creationist talking about evolution.
 +
See how they misunderstand the theory on purpose?
 +
How they make claims based on that "misunderstanding" and base their entire argument on it?
 +
And how they're very selective in their information, making sure not to let anything too pro-evolution slip.
 +
 +
See, I would assume that this crowd, the more intelligent crowd, wouldn't drop to ''their'' level by omitting more or less anything that doesn't support your claim, and hiding it behind a few supporting words that serve no purpose but to veil your bias.
 +
 +
I'm no advocate of homeopathy, I prefer medicine that ''does'' follow modern scientific methodology, but I still prefer that those seeking unbiased information about a topic be able to get it.
 +
 +
Homeopathy has been proven to work on both infants and animals, both of whom are not able to be affected by placebo, seeing as they're completely unaware of what they're taking, which proves that it's ''not'' placebo.
 +
On the other hand it doesn't prove that it is as universal as modern medicine, but it does prove that some part of the theory is true.
 +
 +
See [http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html number four] for an interesting experiment regarding water memory and homeopathy.
 +
 +
I'm not going to make an edit, since I'm sure someone will just revert it, and also because I lost faith in people's abilities to change their minds in light of new evidence a while ago.

Revision as of 17:21, 25 July 2007

Good article. Exactly what I had hoped to see here.--Bob_M (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Did you hear the one about the homeopath who forgot to take his medication--and died of an overdose? --Gulik 01:23, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
I can't figure out whether 'extra-strength HeadOn' is supposed to be more or less effective than the regular strength stuff. --jtltalk 01:28, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
Thinking about about it, the ultimate medicine would have to be sea water. It got a dilute bit of everything.--Bob_M (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
No, regular water--it's even more diluted! --Gulik 16:52, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
If no one minds, im gonna wikify and cite.--PalMD-yada yada 10:52, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
Ok, i'll have to finish my little project later...falling asleep now...--PalMD-yada yada 11:35, 9 June 2007 (CDT)
I love homeopathy...it's just so...dumb.--PalMD-yada yada 19:25, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
The article, while quite fine, doesn't mention Avogadro's number at all (last I noticed), which is of course the key to the killing blow of there not being any active ingredients in their higher (and stronger!) dilutions. People who don't see this math might think "well, there's still something there". Can there also be something that connects the stupid "like cures like" idea with the reality of vaccines? humanbe in 19:36, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Philippus Theophrastus Aureolus Bombastus von Hohenheim (Paracelsus) proposed the theory of "Like cures like" but said it did not apply in all cases, and also founded the Science of Toxicology. He also spent most of his career saying you should do the experiment yourself and not trust authority, and would have been horrified by Homeopathy and their lack of rigour and basis in his authority?

Funny

Homeopathy Tmtoulouse 17:43, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

It pains me to see this kind of thing on a wiki supposedly dedicated to rationalism

Think of the last time you saw a creationist talking about evolution. See how they misunderstand the theory on purpose? How they make claims based on that "misunderstanding" and base their entire argument on it? And how they're very selective in their information, making sure not to let anything too pro-evolution slip.

See, I would assume that this crowd, the more intelligent crowd, wouldn't drop to their level by omitting more or less anything that doesn't support your claim, and hiding it behind a few supporting words that serve no purpose but to veil your bias.

I'm no advocate of homeopathy, I prefer medicine that does follow modern scientific methodology, but I still prefer that those seeking unbiased information about a topic be able to get it.

Homeopathy has been proven to work on both infants and animals, both of whom are not able to be affected by placebo, seeing as they're completely unaware of what they're taking, which proves that it's not placebo. On the other hand it doesn't prove that it is as universal as modern medicine, but it does prove that some part of the theory is true.

See number four for an interesting experiment regarding water memory and homeopathy.

I'm not going to make an edit, since I'm sure someone will just revert it, and also because I lost faith in people's abilities to change their minds in light of new evidence a while ago.