[OUps : erased my post by mistake — trying to clear up the mess now…]
Wow, this thread is taking quite a turn...
First - I think that jumping from a “debate” about the efficacy of homeopathy as a remedy (ie : better than a placebo) to a discussion about evolution theory and then… Christ resurrection… is quite a leap...!!!
Second - I hope that those who want to discuss and question Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism for that matter) are well read because it's an immensely complex subject -- not one you can pretend understanding in all its important subtleties in a few days of reading... or even a couple years of intense study!! Are you guys prepared to talk about intelligent DNA auto-reorganization under environmental stress ? Genomic transformations in response to the environment ? the difference between genetic mutations and normal gene behavior ? Etc. I’m not… it’s not just about a “bunch of dead bones” anymore.
Third - Darwin (our darwin
) and nontroppo remind me how very very few people seem to understand what a hypothesis, a theory, a law, a thesis, etc. are. And maybe even less know what "the" essence of the scientific method is. I'm confronted to that fact almost every week. I wouldn’t care too much
about that situation if I was only talking about everyday life here (talking to my brothers, father, mother, friends…), but what I consider "alarming" (and almost painful) is that I’m talking about masters and PhD
level students (granted, most of them are in the arts field, but still!).
Fourth - As far as many are concerned... scientific inquiry, scientific method is still the best known way to disclose "valid" or "invalid" knowledge. And, even in everyday life, it just makes more sense to apply a hypothesis that works (worked) 99% of the time, than a hypothesis that works only 80% of the time (assuming you’re using it for the right purpose)… And it makes complete sense to follow a law that works 100% of the time (until proven false), than a hypothesis that works only 90% of the time…
nontroppo : your black swan image is nice, but it doesn’t say much without any contextualization. What proposition are we trying to refute here : “all swans are white” ? “most swans are white” ? etc. In the same manner, if there should be any meaningful debate about homeopathy, evolution, etc., it should always be about precise aspects
, and IMO it should be backed up with serious studies (preferably multiple
Sixth - Back to the validity of homeopathy as a medical treatment… I don’t want to beat a dead horse but… Why would one pay for a tasteless and “nutritionless” placebo
? My (and most probably other’s…) main problem with homeopathy is not only the absence studies showing that it actually “works”, but ALSO the absence of regulation around their selling (the fact that it’s sold under false propositions). It’s a serious issue, it’s unethical (I’m aware that some other medication fall in the same category, but I’m talking about homwpathy here).
I’d rather have vegetables instead… Or fine chocolate… While imagining it’s a miracle cure for my chronic disease.
BTW : some stuff is identified as being homeopathic when it’s not even that. Here, some highly concentrated herbs or vegetable extracts (like Echinacea) are sold under the homeopathic “tag” — No wonder “homeopathy” works!