11 Jul '12 15:18>1 edit
OK, I readily admit I started this thread just to p*** you off but it's still a serious question.
For those that haven't studied homeopathy it's a case of serially diluting a substance until it only has a probability of being within the solvent.
I know what you're thinking. Bunch of donkey ****s. However. Upon the first experimentation it was proved to have an active result. A further experiment was conducted which actually required the experiment results to be sellotaped to the ceiling of the labatory before the results were concluded. The results showed that homeopathy does indeed suck donkey ****s.
My question is this.
Why should we treat an absence of a substance that still has a probability of being any less seriously than other objects in a probable world?
I put it to you that homeopathy has more of a basis in science than psychiatry.
For those that haven't studied homeopathy it's a case of serially diluting a substance until it only has a probability of being within the solvent.
I know what you're thinking. Bunch of donkey ****s. However. Upon the first experimentation it was proved to have an active result. A further experiment was conducted which actually required the experiment results to be sellotaped to the ceiling of the labatory before the results were concluded. The results showed that homeopathy does indeed suck donkey ****s.
My question is this.
Why should we treat an absence of a substance that still has a probability of being any less seriously than other objects in a probable world?
I put it to you that homeopathy has more of a basis in science than psychiatry.