Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it a science?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is it a science?

    I think about such things at night. I now ask maybe other interesting question of philosophy as well/in addition.

    What thing of evidence or new information is able of making the homeopath not believe the remedy does more than the placebo?

    This is different question from saying what is evidence of it maybe does works (answer to such is 'clinical observation'). Question is if anything ever can make such belief not holdable (?) no more.

    I also do not mean discussion of current evidences that skeptics are saying disprove the homeopathy. Idea is of speculation of what evidence really would make such disproving.

    When I speak to the scientist in classes, often we speak of what would undermine 'whole pack of cards'. Is part of interesting discussion/debate, but also is their job thinking possible flaws in hypotheses so it maybe can be 'tested to destruction'. Such 'testing hypothesis to destruction' is center of the science method.

    That is question. Is maybe good exercise for 'little grey cells'. I hope is interesting and attract thoughts in answers.

    [ 23. November 2003, 09:09: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

  • #2
    Easy. Take a remedy you do not need.Make sure it is a remedy you do not know about - one you have not read about. Provoke a Proving in yourself. That proving will create various forms of physical symptoms. Check the materia medicas after this, and find similar symptoms under the section for that remedy. Then you will have proof that the remedy is capable of doing something.
    David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

    Comment


    • #3
      I have know people who have swollowed whole bottles of pills and have had no effects. So your test does not produce a posertive results.

      Comment


      • #4
        David

        "Then you will have proof that the remedy is capable of doing something."

        Sorry this is meant to be discussion of something different.

        You suggest (weak because not even effect more than placebo) evidence for effect.

        A science must in principle have a disproof. I want to explore ideas of such disproof. If no disproof, even in principle, we move back to religious model.

        I would like to have discussion of this because we do not need to have usual shouting about particular evidence. Tempers stay may stay calmer in this type discussion. Anyway is fascinating area for exploring.

        Also, Starburn will know his/her story is not actual/strict disproof either. I think was just riposte/response to you and is one good reason for not swapping weak evidence examples on this thread.

        [ 23. November 2003, 23:26: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

        Comment


        • #5
          Taking a whole bottle of homoeopathic pills is merely taking a single dose. Homoeopathic medicines do not work like orthodox chemical medicines - it is not about the amount you take at one time. However, taking one pill from that same bottle, once a day for several weeks will almost certainly produce proving symptoms. Each dose, taken far enough apart, acts to increase the effect of the previous dose.

          I have seen patients on chemotherapy for months with no side effects, while others on the exact same drug experience side effects from almost the first dose. This is because each patient has different tolerances for different drugs - as it is with homoeopathic medicines too.
          David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

          Comment


          • #6
            A science must in principle have a disproof. I want to explore ideas of such disproof. If no disproof, even in principle, we move back to religious model.
            This may be the basis of disbelief. The need of the time may be to move back to religious model.

            [ 24. November 2003, 07:53: Message edited by: kayveeh ]
            Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
            Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

            Comment


            • #7
              DavidJK

              Maybe we try new approach.

              Please explain meaning and purpose of concept 'falsifiability'. How it relates to this thread.

              Comment


              • #8
                DavidJK

                I am looking at other boards maybe to join and continue such discussions. I find George Vithoulkas is here-

                Trial Proposed by Academicians

                He is most admirable and honest man.

                You also are respected person. Maybe you join him?

                [ 26. November 2003, 16:26: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

                Comment


                • #9
                  falsifiability: 1) concerned with disputation rather than day-in-day-out struggle to save or improve lives; 2) a priniciple honored in the statistical research community, which itself is incapable of being falsified because one is not permitted to talk about it; 3) a deity, akin to the sun god.
                  "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bach

                    falsifiability.

                    Suggest maybe you re-read your other post about trial or communicate/speak to GV.

                    Accepting trial accepts principle, purpose and practice of falsifiability. You mock such concept here. Why?

                    p.s. You talk in past that trials may be OK if well done. So I assume you understand what is falsifiability for. Question aimed at DavidJK. He produced/presented (weak) positive evidence as answer to question about negative evidence. Also to present such argument for such question makes seem like positive and negative evidence balance equal like on see-saw. Negative evidence much more powerful. If get verified negative evidence original/initial hypothesis is 'shot out of water'. Way then clear for new idea, but must drop old idea. Positive evidence never can 'prove' hypothesis 100%. But now I have given answer and we do not see DavidJK answer 'in his own words'. But maybe was worth to give explanation.

                    [ 26. November 2003, 08:07: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The Fat man,

                      Similar experiments i.e. to assess by a allopathic doctor that which allopathic medicine is adminstered in a patient with out telling him the name of medicine, will also prove or disprove the allopathic medicine.

                      [ 26. November 2003, 08:44: Message edited by: kayveeh ]
                      Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                      Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        fat,

                        i said and say this trial looks like it is well designed. i said and say i am not the best judge of this, and in any case am not lending a pre hoc seal of approval on it. i said and say that "you" have made and will make many errors. i said and say that the right answer to the wrong questino (ed: a traveling latino?) proves nothing. falsibiability is nonsense if the question is nonsence.

                        ta-ta-a-a-a-a.

                        in this instance, i have no need to speak to GV or anyone else. why do you recommend it? another appeal to authority, opportunistically, now using one of my own as an authority? i said to hans, repeat to you, you haven't enough cache to make me take your word for anything, or the word of your "objective" measures. you want to talk to me, have me respect your opinion ... hang around a few years, demonstrate reasonablenss and understanding over a period of time, and i will do so. we will also see who has influenced whom in which directions. all your pre-hoc posturing about infallibility is wearing thin, i would say, except that it was so thin to begin with it had nowhere really to go. you know, the garbage dumps of history are filled with people who were convinced they were right and who were set up as gods and priests and heroes by the mobs, then proven wrong by the march of time. you have interesting things to say, but you have been wrong so many times, and you are so incapable of saying, "yes, that was a mistake," or "the outcome was wrong," or "people suffered because of it," or "even if my findings are correct, one must integrate them with other existing findings," or "some questions cover small parts of the practice of (blank) and are of little consequence, some questions cover large parts and are of great consequence, some questions cover small parts that are so key they can topple the empire ... one must understand the subject to state the right question, and then understand the answer to evaluate its impact...." you are pretty smart, fat man, for a person who behaves like a store bought doll with a tape player inside that sings "jingle bells" on cue, and says 'aren't i pretty' if you push a button.

                        bach

                        [ 26. November 2003, 09:19: Message edited by: bwv11 ]
                        "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Bach

                          Before we are getting lost in love/awe of your rhetoric. There is most simple solution to any problems of such a trial. Get involved. Or speak to others like GV to support/guide/criticize and help happen. Maybe now is big chance to show good faith from the homeopathy. They can contribute to study design and be happy with results. Maybe you, Bach, can make sure 'right question' is asked so answers come you can accept.

                          p.s. what is wrong with appeal to authority for you speaking to GV? You imply respect for GV already so why not 'follow through' and consult him? I think will be most interesting what happens. One of us must 'eat humble pie'. Let us find out who.

                          p.p.s. Sadly I make prediction and record it now. Trial will happen and results negative. Homoepaths taking part will then say trial was no good even though they agree to quality of design and protocol. Other homeopaths not taking part will all say "we knew design was no good" and negative results prove it was not good design.

                          So I think reluctance/refusal of taking part helps prepare/build such defense for use later. This maybe not good faith. Sad, but maybe true. What are you thinking about such ideas and predictions?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            fat man -


                            Before we are getting lost in love/awe of your rhetoric.

                            you could just say that you admire the way i write. that's the way to make a friend. then you could try to argue my points, instead of trying to dismiss them, using my talents to dismiss my ideas instead of trying to find actual problems in my logic. this is laziness fat man, intellectual laziness. but thanks, anyway, for the compliment.

                            There is most simple solution to any problems of such a trial. Get involved. Or speak to others like GV to support/guide/criticize and help happen. Maybe now is big chance to show good faith from the homeopathy. They can contribute to study design and be happy with results. Maybe you, Bach, can make sure 'right question' is asked so answers come you can accept.

                            maybe you could give me an introduction to these people, and they could offer me a specific opportunity, and i would see. but i'm not interested in this stuff, not practised at it except as a by-now very skeptical consumer, and not sure i could do a good job. but i enjoy showing you up for logic and rhetoric both, so maybe i would enjoy a joust with them, too.

                            p.s. what is wrong with appeal to authority for you speaking to GV? You imply respect for GV already so why not 'follow through' and consult him?

                            follow through on what? you jump to conclusions faster than a frog on a fly. i recommended that hans look at the tables at the end of GV's book to get his first ever real clue about what clinical data and clinical judgment are like, and now i have to "follow through" and become GV's consultee on statistical research in homeopathy? where do you come from, fat man? you are a case-and-a-half! you're like the magazine salesguy, when the door is slammed in his face, yells, "Hey! You put your g.. d... house here, not me! Now follow through and buy a d....d magazine!"

                            I think will be most interesting what happens. One of us must 'eat humble pie'. Let us find out who.

                            as i say, stick around a few years, talk like you had some reason and some sense. i assure you, if our side wins in this test, i will be very happy. but i will still be more interested in reasonable discourse about the outcome and its implications than in trumpeting my (elephant) leg.

                            So I think reluctance/refusal of taking part helps prepare/build such defense for use later.

                            i don't know about anyone else, but i certainly want to be clear that i put little faith in your methods. i was clear about that before i knew they were actually going to do such a test, and remain clear. why do you in your shallow vanity think anyone has to agree to put their careers and beliefs and the welfare of their patients on the table in a 'winner take all' single hand of blackjack? you have no credibility, much less reliability, here. the test results will be interesting, and difficult to handle for the loser. you have already demonstrated a lack of regard for your own convictions, abandoning your beliefs after a single, ad hoc, uncontrolled and unblinded "trial," and now appear ready to reverse yourself if the findings go the other way. yo-yo.

                            btw, you still haven't given a clear answer about mistakes, errors of method .... what is it about 'yes' and 'no' you're unable to find voice for?


                            bach

                            [ 26. November 2003, 14:03: Message edited by: bwv11 ]
                            "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Bach,

                              Is it a science?

                              We will see after results are in if homeopathy side abides by them. Then it is science.

                              You comment why I make further post. I had given up, but trial proposal appeared at exact that time and it seemed interesting to come back and see.

                              Fot your other questions. I 'lose track'. I also remember nothing difficult, but maybe you remind me. Do you still go on about thalidomide? No one said it was not sad, but you use it for purpose of making rhetorical point in debate and it did not serve such purpose. Being sad story does not stop me correcting you if using it for wrong kind of debate. You complain my answer, but you brought it in as emotive issue as provocation, but was emotive and irrelevant issue, which is 'bad form' in debate. I said this before. Thalidomide is sad story of fallibility/weakness/blindspot of drug licensing and attempt to cover-up was bad. This has nothing to do with question of how to tell if remedy (conventional or homeopathy) has benefit and that was subject of debate. You went 'off at tangent' with thalidomide, I tried to redirect to relevant issues. Same as this thread. First reply from homeopathy side was 'off at tangent'. This makes undisciplined discussion trying to 'rein in' opponent not 'sticking to the issue at hand'. Trying to rein in is then called arrogance. What should we do? If we do not 'rein in' irrelevant pints the you say unanswered. If it is said they are not relevant/useful the you say arrogance or such. I thought this would be useful simple thread to start and keep to simple question. I was wrong.

                              I do not especially wish/crave respect from other side of such debate is not much important to me if homeopaths now like me or not. I do not much mind if you respect me it is not important. I think you do not. For me, I respect some homeopaths' desire of helping patients, but some I do not. I am not yet meeting homeopath I respect intellectually, but if homeopath chooses to discuss me this is OK. We will not be friends though. If homeopath choose no discussing they may stay silent. In thread on trolls I see 'double act' of Heels and Bema continues so they do not take their own advice. If people wish not to subscribe to skeptical debate then ignore such threads, or rise to challenge but then do not complain about 'trolls'.

                              [ 26. November 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X