Do atheists really exist?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

these people seem to think not

http://occultireland.createforum.net/occultireland-about131-0-asc-0.html


i honestly never thought I'd say this, but you'd get more sense and reason on the christianity forum.

maybe I should ahve put this in religious humour, I dunno... but it's hilarious, terrifying, sad and of course, very very stupid.

Tomk1

I wonder if I should register with them just to say HOWDY. But occult/mythology/religion they are all the same, some spooky simple unrealistic answer to all quistions, and of course unsubstantiated and not being unprovable/provable.

I wonder if athe-Santa-ists exist.

Dave!

they're idiots, move on

Dades

Tomk1 wrote: »

I wonder if I should register with them just to say HOWDY.

Are you the "aZerogodist" who just registered with them?
It's a really old thread so they might frown on it - but I might just have to watch this!

Galvasean

DaveMcG wrote: »

they're idiots, move on

+1

I dont belive they exist, there is no proof.

jtsuited

who?

Andy-Pandy

I am a figment of my imagination.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

Zillah

Fuck, that was a frustrating read.

"Science is just as much a religion as anything else. I've heard it called Scientism before, and think it is an apt title. I find the idea of "proof" really debateable. Most people who accept Science haven't seen its "proof" first-hand anyway, so they're going on second-hand information, or... belief. "

:mad:

DeVore

I want the last 15 minutes of my life back.

DeV.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I want my nick back.

we all gotta suffer.

Tim Robbins

Harry Butthole Potter wrote: »

I want my nick back.

we all gotta suffer.

Well a few of us went on for a rational debate about crystals and ended up getting banned.

http://occultireland.createforum.net/occultireland-about131-0-asc-60.html

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well a few of us went on for a rational debate about crystals and ended up getting banned.

http://occultireland.createforum.net/occultireland-about131-0-asc-60.html

I notice that we have been accused of hijacking their forum in an attempt to push our views and convert all of them

We are seemingly hypocrites (that seems to be the default insult to use against atheists).

Funny, I was under the impression that none of us went over there until they started posting insulting nonsense about atheism and atheists.

Pot, kettle and all that jazz

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well a few of us went on for a rational debate about crystals and ended up getting banned.[/url]

Ha, I enjoyed that.

The moment someone mentioned crystals that debate was doomed. In your defense it looks like you banned for just being of a different opinion. Then again maybe they spotted the Creationism Thread and panicked.

Well, now your atheist raiding party has been repelled, welcome back to your 'temple'.
Place those magic crystals you stole on the alter.

Wreck

I love the patronising way Frater Yechidah puts the word atheists in quotes when describing you.

(but then maybe these "athiests" didn't really understand my argument in the first place).

I also like the image the phrase an 'athiest crusade' conjures up

Zillah

Haha, he just banned them. How cowardly.

Athiests race in to push their beliefs (or lack thereof - whatever you want to call it) onto other people. I honestly don't care how much any of you argue that religion or belief is a pile of **** - you're simply not going to convert me to your system of belief, and I think it's high time that you wake up to your hypocrisy and realise that if you go around joining non-athiest forums so you can push your beliefs, you're just as bad as the fundamentalist Christians (and other religious groups) you claim to oppose.

Surely he's not equating fundamentalist attempts to convert by force and secular attempts to discuss with reason?

HOW DARE YOU SPEAK TO ME RATIONALLY YOU TYRANT!!!

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote: »

Haha, he just banned them. How cowardly.



Surely he's not equating fundamentalist attempts to convert by force and secular attempts to discuss with reason?

HOW DARE YOU SPEAK TO ME RATIONALLY YOU TYRANT!!!

It's hillarious listening to Adder trying to bend over backwards trying to explain why crystals can't be tested
1. Hey Quantum Physics is confusing so this could be too?
2. Hey Model, Theory, Model, Proof, Idea, Model, Theory, insert buzzword here, Model, Abstract?
3. Is there anybody out there who can use crystals who can't get them to work?
The best one was though
4. It's wasn't an example, it was an analogy.
Superb. Makes Fair City look like Mastermind.

Zillah

The Quantum Mechanics one is always very interesting.


Did you know that reality is really really weird at the sub-atomic level? Well then that means reality is whatever I want it to be and I don't need to produce evidence or perform experiments to justify my crazy assertions.

Oh, oh, and another of my favourites is "It works for me!", implying some sort of useless solipsism-like argument.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Did you know that reality is really really weird at the sub-atomic level? Well then that means reality is whatever I want it to be and I don't need to produce evidence or perform evidence to justify my crazy assertions.

I must say I love that argument, when ever someone uses it you know you are winning the debate.

Its a bit like on the Christian forum where someone is currently arguing that biology understanding is updated all the time so how do we say people can't live for 900 years as described in the Bible. We might find out tomorrow that they can!!

If I made this stuff up I would be accused of presenting a slanderous view of theists

dlofnep

I just read that whole thread over there and I'm astounded that there are people still that unevolved in society.

CerebralCortex

dlofnep wrote: »

I just read that whole thread over there and I'm astounded that there are people still that unevolved in society.

Care to explain who exactly is "unevolved "(devolved?)?

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Care to explain who exactly is "unevolved "(devolved?)?

Yes, name names so we may point and mock ....

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, name names so we may point and mock ....

Point all you like... but less of the mocking.
(It doesn't reflect well on any of us, imho)

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Point all you like... but less of the mocking.
(It doesn't reflect well on any of us, imho)

Well, yes, I was being sarcastic for effect ... oh never mind ...

Zillah

dlofnep wrote: »

I just read that whole thread over there and I'm astounded that there are people still that unevolved in society.

+1 person who doesn't understand evolution.

Wicknight wrote: »

If I made this stuff up I would be accused of presenting a slanderous view of theists

Some day I'm just going to run out of energy and troll the crap out of theists for shits and giggles.

Not there yet but its starting to build.

ps, I accidently said "perform evidence" instead of experiments in my last post. Must pay more attention.

Sapien

The really unfortunate thing is that I'm reasonably certain that I could make a perfectly good case for crystal healing - as could many other people I know who are interested in the occult. You (pl.) can take that as a challenge if you like - probably best not in this thread. But, just as there are atheists who embarrass atheism in their arguments (I'm thinking more of some posters on politics.ie whom I have had many occasions to revile while arguing the same case), there are esotericists who give a very poor impression of the kind of thinking involved in the esoteric. Admittedly, the latter are proportionally more numerous than the former - but that's what makes it so much fun to be an intelligent magickian.

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

The really unfortunate thing is that I'm reasonably certain that I could make a perfectly good case for crystal healing

- Do they have a real world effect involving a measurable improvement in health in a particular regard?
If no, then how can you say they heal?

If yes:
- Can this effect be shown to be more potent than a placebo?
If no, then how can you say they heal?

If yes:
- Why have no studies ever been done that show the wonderful effects of crystal healing?

Sapien

On your head be the moderatorial wrath.

Zillah wrote: »

- Do they have a real world effect involving a measurable improvement in health in a particular regard?

They absolutely could. I don't really know - I've have never used the things, and haven't read much on them either. Doesn't particularly appeal to me - a tad too close to "angel cards" and tie-dye t-shirts for my tastes.

Zillah wrote: »

- Can this effect be shown to be more potent than a placebo?

Probably not - though I'm not sure what the placebo could be in this instance. What do you suggest?

Zillah wrote: »

If no, then how can you say they heal?

They can heal by the placebo effect. Or something similar to the placebo effect, differing in that the patient doesn't need to be deceived about the nature of the treatment.

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

Probably not - though I'm not sure what the placebo could be in this instance. What do you suggest?

Well, the "expert" in crystals chooses the correct type for healing and uses that. The placebo control group are only treated using simple coloured glass used by a normal un-psychic/untrained person.

C'est facile.

They can heal by the placebo effect. Or something similar to the placebo effect, differing in that the patient doesn't need to be deceived about the nature of the treatment.

So you can in fact not make a good argument for the healing effect of crystals, merely that you can demonstrate the placebo effect using crystals. I could do the same using sugar pills, I don't expect people to think thats anything special and nor should you. I'd also very much not expect people to think sugar pills had any sort of medicinal power.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

Well, yes, I was being sarcastic for effect ... oh never mind ...

Ah, I know.
Just concerned the thread was turning into a point & mock!

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

Ah, I know.
Just concerned the thread was turning into a point & mock!

*points* Haha! You're concerned for the feelings of others!!

Sapien

Zillah wrote: »

Well, the "expert" in crystals chooses the correct type for healing and uses that. The placebo control group are only treated using simple coloured glass used by a normal un-psychic/untrained person.

C'est facile.

Ah. Well, you understand that I am not arguing for Crystal Healing as it may be done by certain people, or for any particular theory expounded by soi-disant crystal healers. I am arguing for the idea that crystals, or things that might look like crystals, can be used to effect real physical and therapeutic benefit.

Zillah wrote: »

So you can in fact not make a good argument for the healing effect of crystals, merely that you can demonstrate the placebo effect using crystals. I could do the same using sugar pills, I don't expect people to think thats anything special and nor should you.

Ah, no. There is a crucial difference.

Let me put it this way: I think the skeptical community has hugely missed the point about the placebo effect. Rather than using it as a silver bullet to debunk every New Age treatment out there (though, of course these treatments must be tested, and placebo experiments are invariably elucidating), I think its inherent value merits investigation and development. Just as every successful placebo test demonstrates the non-agency of a treatment, it demonstrates that the human body can be stimulated to heal by sensory input alone. Rather than simply using this as a control, there is no reason why it cannot be exploited in its own right. There is also no reason why this effect should depend on deception or illusion, but could be stimulated by manipulating of mood and emotion. In other words - ritual.

Crystals are pretty, compelling and oddly evocative. They have an air of mystery and mysticism, which, it seems, is not rooted simply in acquired association. There is a reason why they have always been associated with magic and numinous effect - there is some intuitive suggestion of the otherworldly about them that is perceived by many. This makes them an ideal candidate as a prop - to be as unromantic about it as possible - in the engendering of states of mind, which - I hope you won't have a great deal of difficulty in accepting - may very well be conducive to healing. So, unlike sugar pills, which pretend to contain complicated chemicals, crystals simply are what they are - even if they are not what they are, and are simply coloured glass. I could equally well make this argument for religious relics - but crystals excel in being free from the requirement of affiliation to any religious identity.

To clarify - I do not intend to argue that crystals possess any objective healing quality. I am arguing that crystals can be part of any number of genuinely effective healing processes; that they are, for a number of reasons, especially apt for these processes. My real contention is that people possess a neglected ability to heal themselves that is far beyond anything currently utilised by medicine, and that that this ability can be stimulated by ritual. Ritual can come in countless many forms, but crystals, with all their hokey appeal and cheap impact, represent an easy shortcut to the kind of aesthetic input required.

I also believe that ritual is a great uncredited agent in many mainstream medical treatments. I would like to see reverse placebo experiments done, whereby the ritual element of medical and surgical intervention is concealed or minimised. GP consultations done via text interface, or secret surgeries. Ethical concerns aside (and the complete absence of motivation amongst those in a position to carry out the experiments), I am quite confident that disparities would be found.

bogwalrus

Zillah wrote: »

I'd also very much not expect people to think sugar pills had any sort of medicinal power.

Strangely enough i had an experience a year ago where i had this horrible cough and went to one of those homeopothy people who gave me these kind of sugar tablets and the cough was gone in a day. i had previously been on all sorts of medication and cause i was asthmatic the cough was quite bad and entered my lungs etc. i believe there is something more than placebo acting in certain sciences that cannot "yet" be explained through current types of experimenting.
i notice zillah that you have definitely made your mind up that all can be explained through determinism and logical physical anaylsis but it does seem that science is opening doors into all sorts of realms via the results from quantum experiments and the whole observer observed analyses.

You should know that until a theory can be scientifically proven to be false or true it remains where it is. You can argue all you want about these holistic medicines and methods of healing but when it comes down to it the science is just not there to support or falsify.

pH

To clarify - I do not intend to argue that crystals possess any objective healing quality. I am arguing that crystals can be part of any number of genuinely effective healing processes; that they are, for a number of reasons, especially apt for these processes. My real contention is that people possess a neglected ability to heal themselves that is far beyond anything currently utilised by medicine, and that that this ability can be stimulated by ritual. Ritual can come in countless many forms, but crystals, with all their hokey appeal and cheap impact, represent an easy shortcut to the kind of aesthetic input required.

Is this were true, seeing as humans have had access to placebo inducing rituals for thousands of years then modern medicine would have made very little impact in the treatment of disease, being far behind (as you put it) the body's ability to heal itself.

It's easy for you to sit there (presumably) in first world Ireland and prattle on about the healing power of crystals, because when you need medical attention you will receive some of the best medical care available on the planet. Let me tell you there are still today millions of people without access to proper medicine (who do have access to all forms of ineffective sham healing) and the difference in the quality of life and life expectancy are huge.

Now I know that maybe you might have heard auntie Nora's migraine has gotten a lot better since she started sleeping with a healing crystal under her pillow, but for millions of people facing typhoid, dysentery, polio, measles, malaria, river blindness and HIV (to name but a few) who don't have access to proper proven medical treatment all the crystals and placebo rituals in the world won't make a jot of difference. Despite your claims to the contrary, the body just doesn't have any effective hidden healing processes (except known properties of say the immune system).

If the body really did have these amazing self healing powers triggered by rituals, then everyone in the world would pretty much have good health and the ability to fight disease. The medicine we have here in the first world would be just the icing on the cake, a few percentage points better off for all the billions we spend on this. But this is not the case, humans without our medicine face appalling debilitating diseases in their millions, and all the sham rituals do nothing to help.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if there were posts you could report for sheer awesomeness, that'd be one of them

Zillah

bogwalrus wrote: »

Strangely enough i had an experience a year ago where i had this horrible cough and went to one of those homeopothy people who gave me these kind of sugar tablets and the cough was gone in a day. i had previously been on all sorts of medication and cause i was asthmatic the cough was quite bad and entered my lungs etc.

We have no way of knowing that your illness wasn't going to go away in a day regardless of whether you ate some sugar tablets or not.

i believe there is something more than placebo acting in certain sciences that cannot "yet" be explained through current types of experimenting.

There is one kind of science. Homeopathy is not a science. It likes to pretend it is, but its not. What convinces you there is anything more than the placebo effect to homeopathy?

i notice zillah that you have definitely made your mind up that all can be explained through determinism and logical physical anaylsis but it does seem that science is opening doors into all sorts of realms via the results from quantum experiments and the whole observer observed analyses.

While quantum mechanics might seem very strange to people who don't really understand it, it is not an excuse to assume the universe is actually some sort of magical place where all sorts of unexplainable things happen.

Quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Unless we're discussing subatomic particles then referencing Quantum Mechanics is meaningless. Quantum Theory has to be the next most abused and misunderstood field of understanding in Science second only to evolution.

You should know that until a theory can be scientifically proven to be false or true it remains where it is. You can argue all you want about these holistic medicines and methods of healing but when it comes down to it the science is just not there to support or falsify.

Uh actually the evidence does exist. Every competantly run scientific study on homeopathy has proven it doesn't do anything beyond the placebo effect. Its nonesense, and its a bit sad you've fallen for it.

As for the way science works, you're not quite getting it.

Step 1 - Someone comes up with an idea on how things work (hypothesis).
Step 2 - They gather research, conduct experiments and compare evidence (experimentation + peer review).
Step 3 - If the hypothesis passes stage two it becomes a theory, which essentially means its a proposal that we're very sure is probably correct.

Until something reaches step 3 we have to assume its not correct, otherwise we'd never get anything done.

For example, lets look at the discovery of antibiotics:
Step 1 - Someone realises that penicillin has killed a load of bacteria. He has the idea that maybe this stuff could be used to cure diseases.
Step 2 - He tests it and it works, it is shown to be drastically more effective than anything before it, including the placebo effect.
Step 3 - One of the pillars of modern medicine is established.

The thing is, that with homeopathy/reflexology/crystals/whatever, they almost never bother going beyong Step 1. They just come up with a idea, play around and insist its true and that it deserves a place up there on the shelf where all the theories that reached Step 3 are. Any time that something like homeopathy has gone to Step 2 they've been crushed. Shown conclusively to be nothing more than placebos. The evidence is out in plain site for you online, there's no conspiracy, homeopathy is crap, do some reading. For example, James Randi ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills and it did nothing to him. He ate 64 times the reccomended dosage, or some absurd quantity like that.

Zillah

Sapien wrote: »

Rather than simply using this as a control, there is no reason why it cannot be exploited in its own right.

You do realise that conventional treatments that actually involve medicine or surgery invoke a placebo effect as well as their direct impact? So surely our efforts should be in maximising the reassuring qualities of real medicine rather than defending crystal waving silliness that can achieve nothing but the indirect benefits of a placebo?

So, unlike sugar pills, which pretend to contain complicated chemicals, crystals simply are what they are - even if they are not what they are, and are simply coloured glass

Ah, but crystal wavers invariably believe and assert that they are channeling chi or some other invented "energy" that is the source of the effects. I seriously doubt there are wavers of crystals who simply say "Its just coloured glass".

So I'd say yes, people do indeed like their rituals. It provides structure, a very reassuring system during a troubling period. But I would rather maximise the placebo/ritual benefits of actual medical procedures rather than give a moments notice to elaborate crystal ceremonies that do achieve nothing beyond the placebo effect.

Sapien

pH wrote: »

Is this were true, seeing as humans have had access to placebo inducing rituals for thousands of years then modern medicine would have made very little impact in the treatment of disease, being far behind (as you put it) the body's ability to heal itself.

I didn't put it that way, or indeed mean anything of the sort. I have not said that medicine is "behind" the body's ability to heal itself.

pH wrote: »

It's easy for you to sit there (presumably) in first world Ireland and prattle on about the healing power of crystals.

It should be clear from what I have written that I have not attributed any healing power to crystals.

pH wrote: »

Let me tell you there are still today millions of people without access to proper medicine (who do have access to all forms of ineffective sham healing) and the difference in the quality of life and life expectancy are huge.

I'm not sure why you presume that people who are without access to modern medicine must necessarily have access to forms of treatment that depend of the kind of effect that I am talking about. I suppose you're imagining witch doctors in deepest Africa wearing big hairy masks and waving sticks around. Not quite what I have in mind.

pH wrote: »

Now I know that maybe you might have heard auntie Nora's migraine has gotten a lot better since she started sleeping with a healing crystal under her pillow, but for millions of people facing typhoid, dysentery, polio, measles, malaria, river blindness and HIV (to name but a few) who don't have access to proper proven medical treatment all the crystals and placebo rituals in the world won't make a jot of difference.

Absolutely. Healing by placebo-like effects could only ever be useful in a limited number of situations - just like any other medical treatment. However, who's to say that such perception-based therapies couldn't be used in any kind of recovery processes - like after serious surgery, whatever it might be for, or to help with reactions to chemotherapy; not to mention psychological or psychiatric conditions. Any doctor will tell you that the body repairs itself faster when its owner is relaxed and stress-free. Perhaps it would be useful for you to see what I am describing as a somewhat more sophisticated form of that.

pH wrote: »

Despite your claims to the contrary, the body just doesn't have any effective hidden healing processes (except known properties of say the immune system).

If the body really did have these amazing self healing powers triggered by rituals, then everyone in the world would pretty much have good health and the ability to fight disease. The medicine we have here in the first world would be just the icing on the cake, a few percentage points better off for all the billions we spend on this.

I disagree. Just because I believe that the human body has self-healing abilities beyond what is formally recognised by medicine, it doesn't mean that I believe that any other people from other places in the world or points in history have been any better at exploiting it than we are. And quite the reverse of your contention that the existence of such abilities would relegate modern medicine to an anciliary role: I do not necessarily believe that these placebo-like effects could be much more than "icing on the cake". Though - who knows.

Zilla wrote:

You do realise that conventional treatments that actually involve medicine or surgery invoke a placebo effect as well as their direct impact?

Yes, absolutely - I said that quite explicitly.

Zilla wrote:

So surely our efforts should be in maximising the reassuring qualities of real medicine rather than defending crystal waving silliness that can achieve nothing but the indirect benefits of a placebo?

I have said that we should try to quantify the placebo element of standard treatments - if only to see how potent it can be. If it is found to be significant, not only should it be maximised in standard treatments, but the possibility of using it in its own right should also be explored. My point is that self-healing stimuli observed in the placebo effect could lead to distinct viable therapies, which could be used in furtherance of medical treatments, or where medical treatments are impossible or less desirable.

Zilla wrote:

Ah, but crystal wavers invariably believe and assert that they are channeling chi or some other invented "energy" that is the source of the effects. I seriously doubt there are wavers of crystals who simply say "Its just coloured glass".

As I said:

me wrote:

you understand that I am not arguing for Crystal Healing as it may be done by certain people, or for any particular theory expounded by soi-disant crystal healers.

Zilla wrote:

I would rather maximise the placebo/ritual benefits of actual medical procedures rather than give a moments notice to elaborate crystal ceremonies that do achieve nothing beyond the placebo effect.

And I'm saying that investigation into the placebo effect, or similar effects that do not depend on illusion or deception, as therapeutic agencies in their own right, is amply warranted. I think your dismissal of "nothing beyond the placebo effect" springs more from your biases as a skeptic - accustomed as you are to debunking such things rather than searching for a grain of truth behind them - than any reasoned objection to the possibilities I describe.

Obni

In response to Sapien's several posts:

Can crystal therapy be as effective a placebo as sugar-pills and water-injections? For some patients, and in the hands of the right practitioner, then I would have to admit that yes it probably could.

However, promoting such therapies for use as placebos would, by relation, lend support to alternative snake-oil hokum in general. Todays minor complaint resolved by time, attention, and placebo, may be followed by something less co-operative and the possibility of delay or misdirection by some crystal-pedaller, no matter how well intentioned, could have serious reprecussions for a patient's health.

It is a less risky, and far more elegant, solution to promote equally "empty" placebos from a conventional medicine source, so that patients seeking further treatment, for perhaps more serious conditions, will return to properly trained medical personnel.

Could crystal treatment deliver an effective placebo effect? Yes
Should it? Emphatically not!!!

Zillah

Obni does make an interesting point. I doubt most people receiving such maximised-placebo-crystal-ritual treatments would be able to differentiate between what we're doing and any other useless or downright dangerous alternative "medicine". I'd be very wary of using anything like this for fear of legitimising all manner of hokum.

Is hokum a word?

Sapien

Obni wrote: »

promoting such therapies for use as placebos would, by relation, lend support to alternative snake-oil hokum in general.

Your concern is valid, and, to be honest, it hadn't really occurred to me - but I don't believe it is enough to abandon what I expect could be a fruitful field of inquiry. At the moment the vast preponderance of alternative therapies are peddled by charlatans or idiots. What I describe is an intelligent and transparent premise for development upon a repeatedly and empirically observed effect in human healing. Surely the very point must be that if scientists working for creditable organisations appropriate these methods in a rational way, dangerous quackery can be excluded.

At present, I can see no reason why medical scientists shouldn't take this seriously, except that they are encamped opposite its traditional proponents across a bitter ideological divide.

Zillah wrote:

I'd be very wary of using anything like this for fear of legitimising all manner of hokum.

Have I convinced you to the point where that is your only remaining objection? Because that would make me very happy.

bogwalrus

Zillah wrote: »

We have no way of knowing that your illness wasn't going to go away in a day regardless of whether you ate some sugar tablets or not..

Well i used to get the same cough around the same time of year that always goes into my chest and lasts for ages. All of the perscribed meds werent as near as effective as the pills. I went to the homeopathist a complete skeptic (which should have ruled out the placebo effect=) and when it undoubtedly worked i researched a bit as to what this psuedosciences ethics and basises were and found all sorts of cool unconventional ideas that most scientists (and head strong ego's like yourself) would cringe at.

Zillah wrote: »

There is one kind of science. Homeopathy is not a science. It likes to pretend it is, but its not. What convinces you there is anything more than the placebo effect to homeopathy?.

Homeopathy is a pseudoscience. Besides i dont believe i am arguing whether it can be called a science or not. It is what it is and that is a kind of method of healing that cannot yet be understood through conventional scientific experimentation and has cured many many people of many different problems. I do believe placebo works in all medicinal practices to some extent not just in homeopathy but i am personally convinced that it was not placebo in my case. First hand experience with this one.

Zillah wrote: »

While quantum mechanics might seem very strange to people who don't really understand it, it is not an excuse to assume the universe is actually some sort of magical place where all sorts of unexplainable things happen.

Quantum mechanics deals with subatomic particles. Unless we're discussing subatomic particles then referencing Quantum Mechanics is meaningless. Quantum Theory has to be the next most abused and misunderstood field of understanding in Science second only to evolution..

well the universe is quite magical and plenty of unexplainable things happen in it:)-ESPECIALLY in the quantum world which you seem to think is just straight forward conventional science. the concept of superposition, Entanglement, superluminal signalling, and the strange features of the Copenhagen experiment show that science is entering a very strange realm where rules will have to be bent and old methods of experimenting will have to be abandoned. Homeopathy, i believe, works within these strange realms and thus cannot be tested with the current knowledge of science,medicine and experimenting (or maybe it can but there is just too much skepticism).

There are many great hypothesis on the net (ones including quantum mechanics) if you had bothered to do some researching before concluding straight up that it is a wacko science. heres a link you will definitely like if you do read it all. Its basically a one sided paper but some great points.Lots of slagging of homeopathy (if anything it will open your mind up to some plausible types of experimenting that seem unconventional but can most definitely be relative to the way homeopathy works):

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/the-pseudoscience-behind-homeopathy.ars/1

Zillah wrote: »

Uh actually the evidence does exist. Every competantly run scientific study on homeopathy has proven it doesn't do anything beyond the placebo effect. Its nonesense, and its a bit sad you've fallen for it.

As for the way science works, you're not quite getting it.

Step 1 - Someone comes up with an idea on how things work (hypothesis).
Step 2 - They gather research, conduct experiments and compare evidence (experimentation + peer review).
Step 3 - If the hypothesis passes stage two it becomes a theory, which essentially means its a proposal that we're very sure is probably correct.

Until something reaches step 3 we have to assume its not correct, otherwise we'd never get anything done.

For example, lets look at the discovery of antibiotics:
Step 1 - Someone realises that penicillin has killed a load of bacteria. He has the idea that maybe this stuff could be used to cure diseases.
Step 2 - He tests it and it works, it is shown to be drastically more effective than anything before it, including the placebo effect.
Step 3 - One of the pillars of modern medicine is established.

The thing is, that with homeopathy/reflexology/crystals/whatever, they almost never bother going beyong Step 1. They just come up with a idea, play around and insist its true and that it deserves a place up there on the shelf where all the theories that reached Step 3 are. Any time that something like homeopathy has gone to Step 2 they've been crushed. Shown conclusively to be nothing more than placebos. The evidence is out in plain site for you online, there's no conspiracy, homeopathy is crap, do some reading. For example, James Randi ate an entire bottle of homeopathic sleeping pills and it did nothing to him. He ate 64 times the reccomended dosage, or some absurd quantity like that.

Meh, i think you are too passionate about what you believe in to be in anyway capable of understanding someone elses view point other then the one drilled into your head:D. This is probably why you are so dismissive of claims from the pseudoscience side of life.

I like to keep an open mind about things and generally derive my conclusions from scientific experiments. But in this case i would have to say the current means of scientific experimentation cannot deduce why "sh~t loads" of people are being cured by pseudoscience means when other standard methods had failed. Plenty of info of peoples stories on the net if you fancy reading them. As i have said above i believe placebo has its small part in some cases but i think it is really an excuse used on behalf of the scientific community to try and debunk this holistic science. Not very fair imo. a bit cheeky.

On another level zillah i think that fact that you are so angry with the way homeopathy tries to get recognised as a science is what is shrouding your judgement on whether the current methods of experimenting are sufficient.maybe not though and i fully await a tearing into if i am wrong:D

Zombrex

bogwalrus wrote: »

But in this case i would have to say the current means of scientific experimentation cannot deduce why "sh~t loads" of people are being cured by pseudoscience means when other standard methods had failed.

But that is the whole point. There is no actual evidence that "sh*t loads" of people are actually being cured by pseudo-scientific means.

Any proper studies to see if people are actually being cured has shown they aren't.

What you have left is simply hear-say and wishful thinking.

bogwalrus

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is the whole point. There is no actual evidence that "sh*t loads" of people are actually being cured by pseudo-scientific means.

Any proper studies to see if people are actually being cured has shown they aren't.

What you have left is simply hear-say and wishful thinking.

so is it that people just think they are cured then?

i believe that most common problems homeopaths cure is for pain related issues (possibly all neurological issues). This is where someone has serious pain that the doc down the road cant help with so the person with bad pain goes to wacko doc who does manage to get rid of pain. Now i can see how neurological pain cant really be tested but just infered and this of course would mean that it cant be proved to have worked quantitatively but qualitavely.

To be honest i dont think these pseudosciences would be so popular if there was not some credibility to their name. do you not think?it must be working on some people. And again i think saying it is just placebo is quite silly as some of the cures that homeopathy claim to cure can be serious enough.

Personally i have experienced it working on me and trying to convince you guys that it was genuine would be a feat that i dont think im capable of:D

pH

bogwalrus wrote: »

On another level zillah i think that fact that you are so angry with the way homeopathy tries to get recognised as a science is what is shrouding your judgement on whether the current methods of experimenting are sufficient.maybe not though and i fully await a tearing into if i am wrong:D

I don't know why Zillah is so angry (I'll let him speak for himself) but I'll copy a post from the skeptics forum I made recently which explains why I am angry.

---

cut & paste

They'll sell you one of these - for First Aid - ie emergency medical care.


This is what happens when you try to treat a child who has a serious medical problem with homoeopathy.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html

They'll sell you water to vaccinate you against malaria and yellow fever
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/71/

Not many takers for homoeopathic HIV/AIDS treatment here? Why not sell water to the poorest people in Africa to 'treat' AIDS?
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/for-homeopaths/documents/Aidsflyer.pdf

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

Homoeopathy is about selling water to people as a cure. Yes most take it for non serious conditions where it acts as a cheap and side-effect free placebo, but because it's dressed up in science, because people like Peanut defend it homoeopaths do represent a serious health risk mainly to the most vulnerable people.

---

None of this works, and bogwalrus if you really want to understand why one person's cough getting better doesn't invalidate all of modern medicine, chemistry and physics then by all means let's continue, either here or here

And if you have any interest in learning, I strongly suggest reading this - it's available for free and is a pretty easy read.

http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/testing-treatments.html

Scofflaw

I'd certainly agree that some people are capable of a limited amount of self-healing - and I think that is quite adequately demonstrated by the existence of the placebo effect. I would be interested in seeing research into making it clinically effective, but I feel it's probably of very minor value - something that has a place, but is not going to get you through cholera.

Fair Deal Homeopathy site, if it hasn't been referenced before.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ciaran500

bogwalrus wrote: »

Homeopathy, i believe, works within these strange realms and thus cannot be tested with the current knowledge of science,medicine and experimenting (or maybe it can but there is just too much skepticism).

But we don't have to understand how it works. We just need to see repeatable results, surely that shouldn't be that hard for something that actually works. But no study has produced these results.

robindch

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would be interested in seeing research into making it clinically effective, but I feel it's probably of very minor value

I believe that quite a lot of research has been done into the placebo effect -- I'm sure Myksyk knows more about this than I do -- but it's known that it's only effective for a small number of issues, such as headaches, pains, mild irritations of one kind or another. I don't believe that it's been shown to be effective for mechanical problems (broken bones, nerves etc), nor for most virally or bacterially-based diseases.

Basically, it's partially effective in controlling things that the brain controls anyway, but little else.

Scofflaw wrote: »

http://www.fdhom.co.uk/ Fair Deal Homeopathy

Ha! I needed a laugh this morning

bogwalrus

pH wrote: »

They'll sell you one of these - for First Aid - ie emergency medical care.


This is what happens when you try to treat a child who has a serious medical problem with homoeopathy.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html

They'll sell you water to vaccinate you against malaria and yellow fever
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/71/

Not many takers for homoeopathic HIV/AIDS treatment here? Why not sell water to the poorest people in Africa to 'treat' AIDS?
http://www.homeopathy-soh.org/for-homeopaths/documents/Aidsflyer.pdf

I could go on, but I think you get the point.[/url]

Thats very true ph. there are many organisations that are taking advantage of people via homeopathy so to make a good quick profit. But that can be said about any industry, especially the pharmaceuticle industry. Just because some corrupt individuals saw a market they called themselves homeopaths when they dont believe in it all and try to sell homeopathy as a product rather a treatment. And it is true that homeopathy should not replace the current treatments for all the serious sicknesses you mentioned above but imo should work with it.

In the last around 8 years i can think of 3-4 people i know (some close, some just friends, relatives etc) how have had cancer. Two of these people i know are complete hippies and most definitely entered into the world of alternative medicine. they are both still around to this day and i can imagine the doctors said something like "i dont think you have longer than 2 years...etc" That phrase as we all hear from patients gets said by doctors who appear to be sure of the prognosis but then appears to be wrong. I beleive in medicine that because this is shown to do that does not mean a certain outcome will come about. As in if the highly qualified doctor does some tests and shows that the person will not live for another year then to everyones surprise the person lives to 8 years or even longer. So i conclude from these kind of stories that there are more variables to be taken into account and that these are just not known. (i know i didnt explain that great but i think you get what i mean)

Sapien

Scofflaw wrote:

I'd certainly agree that some people are capable of a limited amount of self-healing - and I think that is quite adequately demonstrated by the existence of the placebo effect. I would be interested in seeing research into making it clinically effective, but I feel it's probably of very minor value - something that has a place, but is not going to get you through cholera.

robindch wrote: »

I believe that quite a lot of research has been done into the placebo effect -- I'm sure Myksyk knows more about this than I do -- but it's known that it's only effective for a small number of issues, such as headaches, pains, mild irritations of one kind or another. I don't believe that it's been shown to be effective for mechanical problems (broken bones, nerves etc), nor for most virally or bacterially-based diseases.

I'll take that. Of course, as a magickian, I'm allowed to believe that the brain can do all kinds of things that aren't presently obvious. But there's a very deep cleft in modes of thought there, so I think I'll settle for not-quite-total dismissal.