Homeopissic Medicine!

A meeting area where members can relax, chill out and talk about anything non magical.


Moderators: nickj, Lady of Mystery, Mandrake, bananafish, support

Postby Farlsborough » Sep 23rd, '09, 15:20



Blapsing_Beard wrote:I am rational. I consider myself very very very rational. I look for evidence. If there is no evidence, then I do not see it as fact.


Far as I am from agreeing with Craig about homeopathy, this growing population of self-proclaimed rationalists who've read a few pop-sci books and truly believe that they live their lives based solely and entirely on "empirical evidence" is getting a little stale.

Of course you think you're rational Chris. Everybody does. Continuing these lines of debate just ends up like a Harry Enfield sketch... "I think you'll find sir that I am considerably... con-sider-ably... more rational, than yao!"

Farlsborough
 

Postby Beardy » Sep 23rd, '09, 15:28

Farlsborough wrote:
Blapsing_Beard wrote:I am rational. I consider myself very very very rational. I look for evidence. If there is no evidence, then I do not see it as fact.


Far as I am from agreeing with Craig about homeopathy, this growing population of self-proclaimed rationalists who've read a few pop-sci books and truly believe that they live their lives based solely and entirely on "empirical evidence" is getting a little stale.

Of course you think you're rational Chris. Everybody does. Continuing these lines of debate just ends up like a Harry Enfield sketch... "I think you'll find sir that I am considerably... con-sider-ably... more rational, than yao!"


Hmmm...true enough. I guess everybody does consider themselves rational. I still believe I look for evidence first though.

Take religeon for example. I'm not religeous, because I have no proof of a God, but I am not atheist, as there is no proof to the contrary either.

I just flow through life :)

Love

Chris
xxx

"An amazing mind manipulator" - Uri Geller
"I hope to shake your hand before I die" - Derren Brown
"That was mightily impressive - I have absolutely no clue how you did that" - Tim Minchin
Beardy
Elite Member
 
Posts: 4221
Joined: Oct 27th, '05, 18:12
Location: London, England (25:SP)

Postby Replicant » Sep 23rd, '09, 15:37

Blapsing_Beard wrote:Take religeon for example. I'm not religeous, because I have no proof of a God, but I am not atheist, as there is no proof to the contrary either.


You can't prove a negative. Haven't you read Tricks of the Mind, man?! ;)

(It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. You can only prove that it does).

User avatar
Replicant
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3951
Joined: Jun 7th, '05, 13:46
Location: Hertfordshire, UK (36:AH)

Postby mark lewis » Sep 23rd, '09, 18:09

I have noted the young bogtrotter's remarks on this thread about my comments on his fellow bogtrotter. I agree that they are not witty remarks but they are not intended to be. I truly hope the b***** contracts a serious illness which is quite likely given his propensity to indulge in unnatural behavior. And I hope he gets treatment from some incompetent conventional or alternative doctor who kills him off altogether.

I dare say if young Guiness had been scammed out of several thousand pounds by this person in the same way I have been he would be singing the same tune.

Now toodle off and make sure your Irish car tax. is up to date. There's a good boy.

Anyway we are supposed to be talking about homeopathy.

mark lewis
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3875
Joined: Feb 26th, '05, 02:41

Postby Tomo » Sep 23rd, '09, 18:51

Please chaps, don't feed the troll.

Image
User avatar
Tomo
Veteran Member
 
Posts: 9866
Joined: May 4th, '05, 23:46
Location: Darkest Cheshire (forty-bloody-six going on six)

Postby Craig Browning » Sep 23rd, '09, 20:11

Mr_Grue wrote:In my albeit limited experience I have mainly encountered alternative therapist doctors who have either been struck off as MDs or simply adopt the title of "doctor", it not being a protected term. Anyone can call themselves a doctor and get away with it (including the entirety of the chiropractic profession, who had the balls and nounce to refer to their qualification as a "doctor of chiropractic". And Jonathan Royle). Luckily over here if they try and advertise anything remotely connected to treatment of illnesses or ailments and refer to themselves as a doctor they will feel the full force of the ASA on them. For all the good that does.

The remaining genuine MDs who practice alternative medicine, I suspect, are those that wish to prescribe placebos but are hampered in doing so for medical ethics reasons - that whole "risk / benefit" thing that they're supposed to discuss with their regular patients.


Actually, over here the AMA will hang you if you call yourself a Medical Doctor and get caught "practicing" said trade... it is a federal offense that has some serious consequences.

All in all, what you say here is but another excuse or way of explaining things away, one of the more typical maneuvers of the cynic's society.

As to the charge that I do not provide "proof"... I'm not a librarian that is going to run out and find all the cross referencing material, Nor and am I as anal as some tend to be when it comes to having list upon list of "I challenge you to doubt" type"fact lists" as we seen thrown about continuously in threads of this nature.

When I was working with Marketing groups as well as Market Research companies I learned quickly what statistics were all about and how fast and easy it is to deliver the "right" data to any and all clients participating in a given product test. I can assure you that the whole Scientific research arena is the same load of stuff in that you can pile up all the B.S. researchers (as in B.S. degrees or greater... take it as you will, along side the term P.HD)you wish just as someone taking an opposing view can do. It is a get nowhere debate, not only have I pointed this out at least three times now, in hope of closing this thread in some facsimile of agreement and respect to one another, but it has been said EVERY STINK'N TIME THIS SORT OF DIATRIBE COMES AROUND.

No one is ever going to change my point of view on the things I know based on experience, not just the reading of a book or two or going to this or that gathering where "like minded" folks can be found. No one is going to change the views of those that want to lean on such articles and resources rather than step into the real world and weigh just how such things are viewed and experienced by the majority of the world population. But that's the big rub, as a skeptic I do walk into those circles where I seek a better sense of understanding on things. I don't count on one sided opinion or even my own assumptions until I have taken a fair and reasonable look from the middle of things.

Loathe me all you wish but I don't think there's one amongst you that doubts that I know more than just a little bit about magic and the psychology used in its presentation both, in performance and as a con artist. So maybe you might want to stop laughing as hard as you have been until you can match my actions and knowledge around such things...
... and yes, that's quite an arrogant comment and deliberately so for what should be obvious reasons to anyone that's actually read my posts on this and similar issues...

ENOUGH!

User avatar
Craig Browning
Elite Member
 
Posts: 4426
Joined: Nov 5th, '05, 14:53
Location: Northampton, MA * USA

Postby IAIN » Sep 23rd, '09, 20:12

cobblers...

IAIN
 

Postby Beardy » Sep 23rd, '09, 20:52

So.....you can't back up your claims then?

Love

Chris
xxx

"An amazing mind manipulator" - Uri Geller
"I hope to shake your hand before I die" - Derren Brown
"That was mightily impressive - I have absolutely no clue how you did that" - Tim Minchin
Beardy
Elite Member
 
Posts: 4221
Joined: Oct 27th, '05, 18:12
Location: London, England (25:SP)

Postby Mr_Grue » Sep 23rd, '09, 21:02

I suspect I may have viewed, studied and appraised more research into CAM than you. I have done such horrifically close-minded things as to type search terms into pub med or the Cochrane review. I'm sorry that you feel by seeking out such evidence I am somehow being cynical. I routinely have to appraise claims made of products, medical and otherwise, so forgive me from knowing one end of a flawed paper from another.

However, I can understand you doubting scientific validity if all you've had to go on is the Pepsi challenge. I suggest you broaden your horizons a little.

Simon Scott

If the spectator doesn't engage in the effect,
then the only thing left is the method.


tiny.cc/Grue
User avatar
Mr_Grue
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Jan 5th, '07, 15:53
Location: London, UK (38:AH)

Postby nickj » Sep 23rd, '09, 21:42

Craig Browning wrote:There are of course a long list of other points that could be made on the pro side of this issue but the problem in "discussing" such seems to fail and fall into an abyss of sorts when dealing with "rationalists" that aren't rational in the least but predisposed cynics that look at cold data rather than the human experience. I find that side of the equation quite sad.


Craig, having an experience is not the same as understanding it; everyone experiences gravity but I would propose that the majority of people wouldn't be able to explain it in Newtonian terms, let alone using relativity. Human experience simply is not objective enough on its own to determine cause and effect in complex systems such as this, and the level of understanding of the human body and its reaction to medicines of any kind in the average person is insufficient to be able to make any solid claims based on the success stories (or the anecdotes of failure, many though they may be). This is why we must rely on research.

Furthermore, your implication that all researchers are predisposed cynics leading to the idea that their results must not be trusted is ludicrous and, to be honest, quite insulting to anyone who has spent time in research.

Cogito, ergo sum.
Cogito sumere potum alterum.
User avatar
nickj
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2870
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: Orpington (29:AH)

Postby damianjennings » Sep 23rd, '09, 21:46

Craig Browning wrote:Loathe me all you wish but I don't think there's one amongst you that doubts that I know more than just a little bit about magic and the psychology used in its presentation both, in performance and as a con artist. So maybe you might want to stop laughing as hard as you have been until you can match my actions and knowledge around such things...


So, because you claim to know some stuff about the presentation of magic that means we can't laugh at you for believing in homeopathy?

Come on.

You can do better than that.

Just one link to one piece of credible research.

No one is asking for a library. Just any link to any research that backs up your claims.

Go on. Give it a go.

damianjennings
 

Postby mark lewis » Sep 23rd, '09, 21:48

The trouble with research is that half the time they get it wrong. I always show great cynicism when people say "Studies show" What studies? Where and when were they conducted? Were the researchers drunk or sober? Let us hope that Blapsing Beard wasn't one of the researchers.

As I previously stated researchers stated that Uri Geller was the real thing. I have reason to believe he wasn't and I didn't have to set up a university study to do it.

And I still remember the research done on psychic ability when Randi sent a couple of young fools in to screw it up. No. I need evidence that researchers know what they are doing.

mark lewis
Elite Member
 
Posts: 3875
Joined: Feb 26th, '05, 02:41

Postby nickj » Sep 23rd, '09, 22:47

mark lewis wrote:The trouble with research is that half the time they get it wrong. I always show great cynicism when people say "Studies show" What studies? Where and when were they conducted? Were the researchers drunk or sober? Let us hope that Blapsing Beard wasn't one of the researchers.

As I previously stated researchers stated that Uri Geller was the real thing. I have reason to believe he wasn't and I didn't have to set up a university study to do it.

And I still remember the research done on psychic ability when Randi sent a couple of young fools in to screw it up. No. I need evidence that researchers know what they are doing.


Of course you are right; anyone can say "studies show". For example, a recent study conducted in Orpington shows that dining tables have on them 2 ties, 4 books, a tube of toothpaste and an empty sweet wrapper. Obviously this study was rather limited in its scope and conducted in a hurry, so you shouldn't believe it. The problem is that anyone can do research which is why, as you say, you should read the studies themselves to judge their worth. In this case the report would state that the sample included one dining table on which the researcher's laptop happened to be resting during the 10 seconds over which observations were made, so you can safely assume that it is not necessarily representative of all dining tables, or even this particular table all the time.

However, why should you bother to read something that contradicts your point of view since it is likely that the researchers were drunk or someone fixed the whole thing? Much better to dismiss it as cynical researchers writing reports to agree with their original view, after-all, no-one will ever read it, so their professional integrity and the respect of their peers certainly wouldn't suffer from just making it all up on the spot or not ensuring everything was done correctly.

Cogito, ergo sum.
Cogito sumere potum alterum.
User avatar
nickj
Elite Member
 
Posts: 2870
Joined: Apr 20th, '03, 21:00
Location: Orpington (29:AH)

Postby kolm » Sep 23rd, '09, 23:09

mark lewis wrote:The trouble with research is that half the time they get it wrong. I always show great cynicism when people say "Studies show" What studies? Where and when were they conducted? Were the researchers drunk or sober? Let us hope that Blapsing Beard wasn't one of the researchers

But you are saying the same thing. "My experience shows".

And the reason science is so trusted is because scientific studies are read, recreated, and generally prodded around by others. It's because of this peer review system we're able to reliably say "that bloke knows what he's talking about"

No homeopathy study has stood up to this scrutiny, no matter how much you believe it. I can believe there's a flying teapot orbiting the Earth and say that my previous experience says there must be a flying teapot orbiting the Earth, but unless I can prove it…

"People who hail from Manchester cannot possibly be upper class and therefore should not use silly pretentious words"
User avatar
kolm
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 1974
Joined: Apr 18th, '07, 22:58

Postby IAIN » Sep 23rd, '09, 23:15

this man, the genius that he was - has a tale to be told, and to be learnt from too - there's even mentalism overtones to some of what he did, as he came across as real, whilst telling massive lies...

and eventually, sadly, fell for the biggest lie of all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Kaufman#Death

IAIN
 

PreviousNext

Return to The Dove's Head

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests