Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Interesting article on homeopathy - from a medical perspective

<< < (9/13) > >>

Deozaan:
So if there's a chance it could be proved wrong (it's falsifiable), it's a theory. But if there's no chance it could be proved wrong (creationism/intelligent design), it's not able to be a theory?
--- End quote ---

Yup, it becomes a belief, or a dogma.-nontroppo (November 27, 2007, 05:36 PM)
--- End quote ---

But what if there's a chance it could be proven right? Hypothetically, if Christians are right about their beliefs, eventually Christ will return and everyone would know there is a God, He created the world/universe (disproving the Big Bang theory), He created mankind (disproving the theory of Evolution), etc. I'm not trying to get into a religious debate. I'm honestly just curious about this from a scientific standpoint.

It's an odd situation because it can't ever be disproved, but it could potentially be proved.

Darwin:
But what if there's a chance it could be proven right? Hypothetically, if Christians are right about their beliefs, eventually Christ will return and everyone would know there is a God, He created the world/universe (disproving the Big Bang theory), He created mankind (disproving the theory of Evolution), etc. I'm not trying to get into a religious debate. I'm honestly just curious about this from a scientific standpoint.

It's an odd situation because it can't ever be disproved, but it could potentially be proved.
-Deozaan (November 27, 2007, 06:04 PM)
--- End quote ---

Absolutely, but it still doesn't qualify as a scientifically explorable proposition (did that sound good? I just made it up  :P Aw, c'mon...) because the key criterion is that the explanation must be falsifiable, not proveable. This doesn't invalidate your point of view or make you "wrong" it simply means that at a practical level Christian beliefs cannot be investigated scientifically. Why? Because we have no way of either proving or disproving the existence of something that is absent (ie that is not directly observable). Which is a hamfisted way of saying that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Armando:
[OUps : erased my post by mistake — trying to clear up the mess now…]

You guys...  ;D 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!).   :Thmbsup:

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…

Fifth - Tomos 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! :)

tomos:
Tomos : 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) ..-Armando (November 27, 2007, 06:55 PM)
--- End quote ---

eh,
I think you got me and the black swan out of context there Amando -
I didnt say anything about a white swan :) or a black one either... :D

Armando:
You're right! it was nontroppo. Bad nontroppo.  And bad BAD me, of course  ;)

edit : (in light of what Darwin just wrote) that white/black swan mix-up is actually quite funny ;D...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page