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.
Originally posted by kaminskyThat's a very good question. One would assume it's one of those nasty office tiled ceilings. Sellotape would not be a good adhesive to use and would provide next to no security. A pointless exercise that just created more probabilities.
1st, why the sellotape ?
Yet the experiment has not been repeated...
The media discredit was enough to satisfy social pseudo-scientists. Ergo. The experiment was a success.
The social pressures FOR the results become a part OF the results. Thereby making science suck donkey ****s!
My stance is this. Homeopathy has been disproved in an invalid experiment that was subject to more social pressure than scientific discourse.
Psychiatry however has been under the scientific hammer repeatedly and yet to be proved a science.
I put it to you that homeopathy is more proved as a science than psychiatry.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckNo.
Is homeopathy science?
Upon the first experimentation it was proved to have an active result.
References to a credible source please.
I put it to you that homeopathy has more of a basis in science than psychiatry.
And I put it to you that you have some personal grudge against some psychiatrist that called you something you didn't like. Take it up with him.
Originally posted by twhiteheadRandi and the team watched Benveniste's team repeat the experiment. They went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that none of the scientists involved knew which samples were the homeopathic solutions, and which ones were the controls - even taping the sample codes to the ceiling for the duration of the experiment. This time, Benveniste's results were inconclusive, and the scientific community remained
No.
[b]Upon the first experimentation it was proved to have an active result.
References to a credible source please.
I put it to you that homeopathy has more of a basis in science than psychiatry.
And I put it to you that you have some personal grudge against some psychiatrist that called you something you didn't like. Take it up with him.[/b]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
My stance remains. Defeat me and I will explore some in exactitude with you have you the stomach for it and I promise to be open and earnest. If I win however, I want everyone that thinks they have an opinion of me based on poorly conceived logic to kiss my shiny metal behind.
I put it to you that homeopathy is more proven as a science than psychiatry.
Does homeopathy make specific precidictions that can be proved false , if we do not have the knowledge and processes to prove a theory false then it is not a scientific theory. There are other criteria, but falsification is a good start because we can throw out pseudo tosh without to much argument. I'm no expert but psychiatry is a broad subject ,some of which is obviously tosh , while some theories stand up to refutatuion. On what basis did they proclaim you a looney, one of the criteria for paranoid schizophrenia is a preoccupation with one or more delusion , I'm ok I only have one big delusion.
Originally posted by kaminskyThat's a lot of questions and I'll see if I can deal with the one at a time.
Does homeopathy make specific precidictions that can be proved false , if we do not have the knowledge and processes to prove a theory false then it is not a scientific theory. There are other criteria, but falsification is a good start because we can throw out pseudo tosh without to much argument. I'm no expert but psychiatry is a broad subject ,some of wh ...[text shortened]... izophrenia is a preoccupation with one or more delusion , I'm ok I only have one big delusion.
Firstly, I'm not a 'looney'. My heart aches and I care for people, that does't make me mad it just drives me to despair sometimes.
if we do not have the knowledge and processes to prove a theory false then it is not a scientific theory
This is a statement, don't understand what you're driving at.
There are other criteria, but falsification is a good start because we can throw out pseudo tosh without to much argument. I'm no expert but psychiatry is a broad subject ,some of which is obviously tosh , while some theories stand up to refutatuion.
Yes, it was a good start. But it needs a middle game.
I'm ok I only have one big delusion.
That sounds unlikely. I suspect you're very very complicated.
Is anyone going to pick up the glove or are you not sure which box it is in??
Originally posted by Thequ1cksorry for calling you a looney I honestly thought you were taking the mickey.
That's a lot of questions and I'll see if I can deal with the one at a time.
Firstly, I'm not a 'looney'. My heart aches and I care for people, that does't make me mad it just drives me to despair sometimes.
[b] if we do not have the knowledge and processes to prove a theory false then it is not a scientific theory
This is a statement, don't un ...[text shortened]... ted.
Is anyone going to pick up the glove or are you not sure which box it is in??[/b]
Originally posted by kaminskyThat's OK dude. I'm thick skinned and pig-eared.
sorry for calling you a looney I honestly thought you were taking the mickey.
I'm not taking the mickey. These are serious existentialist questions that need answering.
My supposition is that a small paradigm shift in language structure would allow science to impose a futurality into its context. lolz the spell correct went for 'futility'. Says it all to me.
It's an evolution of science...if you will.
n.b. I probably am a loony within context...
Its funny I asked on the science forum about my problem with accepting the first principles of probablility, I didn't get any joy from the forum and it was only untill I read one of Ian Stewarts books where he explains that you have to treat axiomatic proability the same way we treat axiomatic geometry. I'm not sure what your asking , some academic somewhere might have an answer.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckDid you have a bad experience with a psychiatrist? Just wondered why you picked THAT exact science to grouse about. There are genuine pseudosciences like alien visitations, vis a vis pyramid builders and such that you could rail against.
That's a very good question. One would assume it's one of those nasty office tiled ceilings. Sellotape would not be a good adhesive to use and would provide next to no security. A pointless exercise that just created more probabilities.
Yet the experiment has not been repeated...
The media discredit was enough to satisfy social pseudo-scientists. Ergo ...[text shortened]... ved a science.
I put it to you that homeopathy is more proved as a science than psychiatry.
Originally posted by kaminskyQuack.
Its funny I asked on the science forum about my problem with accepting the first principles of probablility, I didn't get any joy from the forum and it was only untill I read one of Ian Stewarts books where he explains that you have to treat axiomatic proability the same way we treat axiomatic geometry. I'm not sure what your asking , some academic somewhere might have an answer.
Zeno's paradox it is zen.