Comments on: Homeopathy Still Sucks

By: The Cognitive Dissonance of Homeopathy « Science-Based Pharmacy

The Cognitive Dissonance of Homeopathy « Science-Based Pharmacy — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:29:32 +0000

[...] Dr. Steven Novella summarizes homeopathy well: “Given the lack of plausibility and lack of compelling evidence for efficacy, homeopathy is a scientific dead end. It survives only because of cultural inertia, dedicated practitioners and believers who are not science-based, financial motivations, and ineffective quality-control regulations.” [...]

By: Soren

Soren — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:46:53 +0000

You have filed my comments under a new thread when they were intended to apply to the threat ‘Homeopathy still sucks’

By: Soren

Soren — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:49:03 +0000

“Life must be lived forward, but can only be understood backwards”

Thus spake Kierkegaard. Only Sonic has the slightest clue about what Kaplan was saying. It was based on Dawkins’s activities in the UK.

1. He publishes the God Delusion with massive PR.
2. Soon after this he makes a controversial TV programme in which he angrily denounces CAM and in particular, homeopathy.
Thus the comment is a joke about Dawkins. Lighten up ladies and gentlemen. ‘Life is too important a thing ever to talk seriously about it.’ (Wilde) Anyone bothering to google Kaplan will see that he also practices Provocative Therapy, the use of reverse psychology and humour in psychotherapy.

On the serious side, he does strongly object to attempts to exclude homeopathy from the National Health Service of the UK on the basis that it is not evidence based, leaving the entirely false impression that orthodox medicine is evidence based. Look at this graph that shows just how evidence based conventional medicine is.(http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp)

Thus his argument is essentially political. And as far as politics and God is concerned: Let’s see what chance an atheist has of running for President of the USA. The great tragedy of Dawkins and co is that whatever they say, they know that billions of people will continue to ‘irrationally’ believe in a god.

By: Is this a harmful use of homeopathy? « Informal Skepticism

Is this a harmful use of homeopathy? « Informal Skepticism — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:47:50 +0000

[...] this a bad thing? We all know, through common sense, a lack of actual data and Steven Novella, that homeopathy is not effective at treating medical conditions such as AIDS, or anything else [...]

By: humber

humber — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:06:06 +0000

@perky skeptic

“We, homeopaths lie vanquished in the gutter next to God licking our wounds. What can we possible say except that at least we are in good company?”

Wow.

Wow, indeed. They are usually quite assertive that they are simply right.
Good company does not outstay its welcome.

By: alyric

alyric — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:36:05 +0000

“That’s right – if you’re against homeopathy, then you are against God. ”

Doubtful. This bloke seems to like non sequiturs – you can’t disprove the existence of God using science so therefore your efforts to disprove the efficacy of homeopathy will be equally flawed. Pure logical fallacy but there it is.

By: Sastra

Sastra — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:49:29 +0000

The God reference is probably intended to take advantage of the fact that the general public already compartmentalizes different truths and different ways of knowing — and sees them as equally valid. They’re convinced that the most important facts need to be accepted on faith and personal experience.

Apologists are quick to insist that you can’t “prove” God through science — you can only do it through personal experience with God. That’s the most trustworthy — and humble — method of discovering truth. In the same way, the quacks argue, you can’t “prove” homeopathy through science — you can only do it through personal experience. Try it, and see if it works for you. Ask God to reveal Himself to you, and then see if He does.

Both situations are sucker bets, relying on subjective validation and a person’s willingness to find and frame results in order to demonstrate the depth of their spiritual nature. The more sensitive you are, the less scientific evidence you need. Skepticism is the sign of someone who has “closed their heart.”

The structure is already there.

By: sonic

sonic — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:09:32 +0000

Steven,
I see what you mean. He does draw a line.
I can certainly agree that his argument is disjointed and does not add up to the conclusion.

By: Fizzizist

Fizzizist — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 02:01:31 +0000

I think in the end science will always win due to the fact that we are always going to have one thing that they do not have which is actual evidence to support our claims.

By: Fifi

Fifi — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 21:24:15 +0000

Homeopaths don’t believe they’re prescribing inert substances, they believe that homeopathic remedies are more than a placebo. In light of that, I’m not sure what MDs practices regarding placebos have to do with homeopathy or how placebos can be used to defend homeopathy or homeopaths in any way. Unless, of course, the person making the comparison is admitting that homeopathic remedies are inert substances with no medicinal value so should be considered equivalent to giving a placebo.