Jillswift: Thanks for your experience. I won't believe in water homeopathics anymore, specially when I've never seen any in use, ever. Nobody here prescripts it, probably for a reason. Only pills made by Boiron, I guess the water is too tempting to fake. These pills are the only homeopathy I can talk about.
Also, it's interesting when the pet shop applied homeopathics as an attempt to cure a lethal virus. Are they insane? Homeopathy is a supporting medicine, it stimulates endocrine system, thus works indirectly, that's no match for a very direct and agressive virus.

I have a confidence in Boiron pills, because they work on me and all the family, for years, in cases of diseases like a flu or sore throat. Boiron is a big company with a long tradition (since 1932) and as such can't escape an attention and inspections, this is why it's safe from people, who produce "homeopathics" by a special and precise technique of turning a water tap on. Inspectors can't make the production of homeopathics scientific (only inventors of the new can) but at least they can check if everything is done properly.
There's a doctor (MUDr.) in clinic of near town, he does all kinds of alternative medicine, like several types of acupuncture, cupping-glasses, magnetic therapy, vitamine injections, and so on, including homeopathy. I have never seen him during years prescript or use any liquid homeopathics, only these sugar pills from Boiron, mostly in form of small balls, about 3 mm in diameter, with precise dosing, if 5 or 10 of them and how often.
Also, some my experiences points to the basis of homeopathic theory, why it actually can work. I'm able to perceive to some degree (yet very intensely) a soft-material part of reality, on which the homeopathic information is supposed to transmit, thus I see there's a way and the result, the rest is an assumption, putting these two experiences together. Yes, I know, that I can't convince anyone, who doesn't have these experiences, and that's right. When I won't convince you, I hope, that next time, when someone will try to convince you that God told him about weapons of mass destruction hidden in my country, you'll be just as sceptical
I'm quite surprised, how much deceivers with labeled water is out there, that's bad. Yes, they're thieves, after all, who can recognize a water from water?
I think the claim that homeopathy can cure disease is unprecise. It non-chemically stimulates the endocrine system, which afterwards should be more succesful in fighting the disease. Also, the claim, that small amounts of chemical agens will start the curing is unprecise, when it's practically not present in the dilution. Dunno what smartass claimed them. Yes, there is still a lot of disinformation and thieves in this area, but it's not all false, so by time it may clear it up. I believe it's one of discoveries awaiting us with a change of a worldview, currently in progress. While rules of scientific experiment remains the same, there is still a lot of other factors  not depending on them, which can affect the final results and how the public will understand it, and a worldview is one of them. With different world view will come new discoveries, because we can research only that part of world, we can see or cognitively grasp.

 

Read this.

Don't bother coming up with excuses for them. The fact is pseudoscience does real harm, it kills people. Stop pretending and face facts before such harm befalls someone you care about.

Jillswift: as I see, all these cases of death are examples of human stupidity, when they chose homeopathy (a supportive medicine only) when being in a critical state, instead of directly working treatment. It's sad, but it's a fault of these people, not homeopathy. You're blaming the tool.
Note, that a text isn't a proof. There can be written anything, with practically any numbers, names, story lines, scientific titles, and still, it can be less or more fake, unprecise or incomplete. It's not in human powers to keep all text on the internet verified, not for every reader. Believing in something somewhere written, is unsure, at best. All texts of world are nothing, compared to an empiric experience. If something is written, and empiric experience is different, I'd believe the experience. I believe in what I had personally observed, and according to it I judge a text. Please, note that I won't argue about water homeopathics - I simply haven't ever tried them and I don't know their producing standards. I know only Boiron sugar pills, nothing else, I can't have any opinion on every message about some random "homeopathics".

I didn't misunderstand the science. I know scientific laws, I'm just afraid, that some scientists bends them, because they want, because they must, or because they were taught so in all their life. We don't live in a fairy tale, you can call it a conspiracy, I call it a real life.  A laboratory provides an isolated environment for a research. I believe, that even the laboratory itself should be in another, outer laboratory, to separate it from disturbing elements, like personal interests, financial issues, expectations of sponsors, or professional prejudices. The "outer laboratory" should work on removing these affections from a protected environment, in which the "inner laboratory" would stand. If it would work, all the science would be different, because it would reflect the world more like it really is.
 

No because homeopathy says minute traces (actually substances reduced in water to nothing) actually do the opposite of what the original substance does - so minute traces of poison would cure the poison or be good for you. Maybe minute traces of nutrients or poison antidote would kill you?

Luminon, you credulous git:

There is an "outer laboratory" in science, which you would know about if you knew the first thing about science. It's called "Peer Review". Peer review exists because we know people can skew their results, and because there is no such thing as "empirical experience", only empirical measurement.

Second: Are you pretending that Boiron sugar pills are not water homeopathy dissolved into a solid sugar solution? Or do you ingest things when you have no idea what they are?

Finally: All you are doing is ignoring the evidence placed before you under the guise of being skeptical. You are lying to yourself and helping perpetuate an industry that takes lives.

So how exactly does mixing the ineffective water homeopathy with a neutral substance make it effective? Magic? Are there any real standards in homeopathy production? Links to woo woo websites won't convince us. We demand real evidence - not made up shit or testimonials. Anyway in another thread it was demonstrated these pills are actually less effective than water homeopathy - water homeopathy will effectively treat dehydration (though rather more expensive than the traditional cure) Boiron pills will not by themselves.

This principle is not yet defined in a science, but we can expect this discovery in our lifetime. I can't appeal on any scientific authorities for this, because there aren't any at the moment. This is why you must play safe and stay sceptic, because no scientific machinery pre-chewed it for you. You passively expect to get informed, but all science has to start at some moment and develop by time and effort to a common part of our lives. What do you really expect? You want the woo-woo proven in the greatest world laboratories, by the most able researchers, with the most academic titles and popularized in TV science shows for children (the sort of it which leaves a kitchen messy after the experiment), and then you'll believe it? No problem, just wait a few of decades, with world full of people with attitude like yours, it will take a while.

All right, I can answer you how it exactly can work. I don't know, how they do it in factories, this is a theory.
There are seven possible states of matter. Three of them we call solid, liquid, and gaseous. Four remaining are called etheric.  It's only a work therm, I don't insist on it. The etheric state isn't a matter as we know it, it's something else, or just behaving differently. We can't have etheric oxygen and hydrogen and ignite them to make an etheric explosion. We can observe processes on etheric level rarely, but we definitely can. For example, as a psi-sphere technique, (very good thing for any scepticist to try, it gives you literally a tangible proof) or as a medium for searching for water by a stick or metal spring.
Very dangerous is a radiation on the etheric level. Common radiation in reactor can be stopped by a heavy water, but not the etheric part of it. This yet undiscovered radiation leaks from reactors and contributes on spreading of Alzheimer's disease. If you want to find a cause of most of the A. disease cases, search here.

Living beings lives at least on all etheric states, a change made on higher etheric levels affects (with a delay) lower levels, including material. Information, inserted into water fills all the volume on etherical level, when it's shaked, this information later in homeopathic medicine affects etheric parts of recipient's body, and the affection is with a delay transferred on physical body. It works with reactors, and it works with elements like mercury, in some homeopathic water bottles.

There are some useful schemes,  but they won't make much sense to a scientist at first.  A professional bias makes it look far-fetched, but there's a huge field of possibilities for scientific researchers, and a sure Nobel prize, or several of them. Also, there are some first clues to start with. Don't say, that if the etheric state of matter would exist, scientists would already discover it. They wouldn't, it's radically different to what they pursued for centuries, and also labeled as woo-woo, which allows people to reject it in ignorance, and feel good. Arrogance is not limited only on religional dogmatics and politics, it's deeply rooted even in a temple of the (only true) science. But we can expect, demand and support a change, this is, what I do.
I see you're tired by all this woo-woo shit, you don't keep it secretly. But keep in mind, rational scepticism is one thing, a selective nihilism is the other.

 

Luminon: You've used the exact same arguments (ie: making shit up) and ad-hom attacks (ie: arrogance) as theists use when defending the idea of god.

Etheric? Are you kidding? The states of matter (5: solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasma) describe the matter's thermal energy. Is "ethiric" lower or higher in energy than the real material states? What are the exact properties of the state? Or is it just made up?

You have the gall to wag your finger at us about "attitude"? It's not an attitude to say "if something exists it leaves evidence". It's not attitude to recognize that "the invisible and the non-existent look a lot alike". It is however attitude to claim that something that has been about for over a hundred years (homeopathy) and has been examined untold times by untold scientists and found lacking is somehow real anyway. It's the attitude of "What I want to be real, is real."

Also known as "being deluded".

The hell you do. If you did you'd present it. All you do is make assertions and point to web sites that make similar assertions. Fallacy of popularity.

Yes, I do. I expect independent measurements of a phenomena. If this supposed "extended consciousness" existed, then it could be measured or its effects could be measured. The same with an "ethereal" state of matter. But all attempts to measure these things or thier effects result in no data.

Why?

Because, like all things that do not exist, they don't leave anything behind to measure.

Your "personal experience" is due to confirmation bias and delusion. I say that with great certainty, certainty that could be changed if you would provide solid, empirical evidence.

Yes I would accept the results, as a fact, that the test went this and this way.  Assuming, that everything else is all right. There must be a mutual confidence between scientists and test participants. A double-blind test is a good method, it's a standard, but it must be used with a proper testing principle and without any unpleasant surprises. I believe, that a test meeting all criteria would generally support my side, but it would raise many questions for a further work, because the reality is described to be much more complicated. However, these are the nearest things for us to get known with, if we manage to create a mutual trust between science and esoterics-practising people.
 

I really don't know, I can only speculate. I suppose the effect would be temporarily increased. It probably depends on whether you actually need that kind of remedy or not. Certain healing means have significantly lesser effect, if the body is relatively healthy, or it doesn't have a kind of ailment the healing means are designed for.


Would be these measurements in a form of text? ....just kidding. The problem of measuring is in measuring devices - our instruments are just too crude, they're solidly material, unable to react on etheric planes of existence. However, there could be one promising machine for this kind of experiment. I have heard of a plants, connected to a lie detector, reacting on a nearby person's thoughts, and very significantly, even remembering the person. Someone even considered the plants to be used as an alarm trigger. A plant, as a living being, and unable to lie, could be a good basis for experiments. A trained human would be better, but in tests people tends to not trust human witnesses.

That is the nature of a double-blind test; neither the investigators nor the participants can skew the results by their own biases.

Unpleasant surprises such as what?  That homeopathy is a complete failure?  I would find that neither unpleasant, nor a surprise.

Great.  Let us know when you're ready to proceed with such a test.

Speculate?  What happened to that "confidence" you were talking about?

"...the effect would be temporarily increased."  Actually, Randi has consumed an entire bottle of homeopathic pills on multiple occasions for demonstration purposes, with no effect, much less a "temporarily increased" effect.  Surprised?  Unpleasantly?

I don't say I really believe it - wasn't there enough of "maybe"s and "could"s? It was just an idea, last time I remember I saw something about this...plantperception was maybe 15 years ago in a book about nature, in a plant section. It was a normal book, no woo-hoo as far as I know, this small part just stayed in my memory. Since then, I heard no credible news of it. If the plantperception was actually caused by a wrong setting of polygraph, well, so that was a big mistake. It's actually quite weird, that it was rather seriously mentioned in a nature book, together with scientific facts about flora and fauna. I'd have read something first, but I didn't really know how this idea is called in english, well, plantperception, I'll keep it in mind.

To give you an example, if the test would involve Tesla's "radiant energy" tablets, their effect can be restricted or outshadowed by certain polymers or organic materials, like teflon. If any mischievous people would want to test Tesla's tablet and ensure a kind of result they want, they could "forget" some teflon surfaces in a testing area, on vital places. If it even would be discovered, they could claim it as a coincidence, and then apologize for that unfortunate mistake, but the media would already spread the previous results. I mean, there should be no such unpleasant surprises, no dirty tricks.

Unlike James Randi, I don't waste homeopathics or any other medicine, when I don't need it. If Randi would get for example, a non-bacterial sore throat, and take the correctly prescribed Boiron pills (which I support) then there should be an effect. But if he was healthy, or took homeopathics for something else than he had a problem with, then it could hardly do any effect, there was no opportunity. 
For example, if you don't have a headache, and take pills against headache, would you expect your headache to disappear?
As I see, Randi took "homeopathic sleep pills". What's that? Never heard of it. I've used only things like oscillococcinum, nux vomica, mercurius solubilis,  Angin Heel, and so on. Homeopathic sleep pills, well, what will be next, a bacon with caffeine, or a chewing gum with a ham flavor? Yeah, and this both will be labeled as "homeopathic".



I don't believe in a god, this concept is a mistake for defining of anything morally or spiritually superior.
My worldview has no belief, except of believing in my own senses. Other things are provisory theories, I use them as tools, when they work for me, fine, when not, they can be updated or replaced. They're just tools, not a thing to identify with, just like words or concepts, nothing obligatory. When you ask me if I believe in a god, you ask me if I'm inferior to a tool.
If you'd like to want what I identify myself with, let's say, I like paradoxes, like unity, and diversity at the same time.

Luminon's "unpleasant surprises" thing is not a criterion for acceptance of results. It's an escape clause so he won't have to accept.

With it he can call into question any result that differs from what he wants. Observe: his questions about Randi's testing.

S.O.P. for any pseudoscience apologist.

After the text, everything is revealed, right? And scientists usually aren't deeply educated in woo-woo, right? So, there's a possibility, they could unintentionally change something seemingly harmless, but vital for a test results. A woo-woo related person may recognize it, but only after the test, when all the process is revealed. Such a reason for "escape clause" can't be anything made up on place, but a fact already generally known and written in woo-woo books, magazines and theories. This is, how I meant it, and the example too. There must be a confidence, that nobody will do such a thing, unintentionally or not.


No, english is not my normal language, but that's not the problem here. You surely listened RRS shows, they showed God immoral and they were damn right. A spirituality, as I understand it, is a part of higher morality. It's defined as a way you deal with world around, within, and things greater than you. (no matter if you're aware of them)        

Yeah, you made a good point. My senses are the only tools I can't replace, I have no other choice than to believe them. Things like words, thoughts, therms and also theories, are tools for communication and thinking. Theories and philosophies are nothing else, than just more words. They're again a cognitive instruments. All such instruments can be replaced for some better, when it's needed, except for  the senses. But the senses can be willingly updated and improved, or discovered some "new", which is my case, among others. A little citation from one book, for this topic: your body restrains you no more, than legs restrains an eagle for flight.

No offense, but all this forum is based on a considering believers in god(s) as inferior, though mostly benevolently. I'd be labeled as theist, but as I mentioned, I don't identify myself with labels, philosophies or concepts. They're limited, they will never cover the whole reality.

Paradox is an assertion, connecting notions considered as opposite, into a new, meaningful and surprising unit. The senselessnes of paradox is only illlusory. Wikipedia definition.
 

 

 

You mean intelligent design, right? Well, I won't pretend I know, how a chaotic environment can produce a non-homogenous, highly structured thing, like a fully working and living cell, nothing simplier is acceptable for a start of life. No viruses, no crystals, no micro globes or bubbles full of organic molecules, but a cell.
I also don't understand how a main propagator of intelligent design can be a book, which just says in the beginning, that God did it, and then by one row of text skips milliards of years, before God started to play his interactive version of Popolous with Jewish tribes. And people who believes in that book.
I know, I think too much, dammit, that thing behind my eyes needs a serious beer flush.

I don't get the impressoin you're doing any thinking on the issue of Homeopathy.  Reciting, perhaps, but not critical thinking.

Homeopathy has been around a long time.  If there was any truth to it, it would have been found...or at least the possibility that it might be true would have been found.  But there is nothing.  Nothing at all that shows that it even has the potential to be truth.  It has less foundational evidence than a belief in god.  The entire basis for belief in homeopathy is "faith" that it works.

Homeopathy is, at best, a placebo.  That's all.  There is no test, no evidence, no study, nothing that has shown it any more effective than a placebo.

See below, I'll mention that topic, I hope.


The morality can be divided in four stages.
1) to fill own stomach (biologic level)
2) to be socially active and succesful in society (majority of today's people)
3) to become a better person (an increasing minority)
4) already being holy
Well, in fact, a spirituality is a property of all people, it's just sometimes guised as a lust for power, money or women. Whoever gets for example money, soon realizes, that it is not what he wanted and still wants something else. This searching eventually leads to higher morality levels, which shows the spirituality as more what it really is.

To be precise, I am aware of some things greater than me, and I see, that others are in interaction with them, even if they're not consciously aware of it. This is what I wanted to write.

Yes, these five senses. But even better is keeping them at a full extent and exploring the possibilities further. People are not necessarily limited on a physiological definition of a body senses. Five of them is physiological and has a clear limitations (for example, we can't see or hear radar waves),  but the etherically material or non-material rest is a versatile receiving apparatus, not easy to descibe by distinguished senses.

I think it's not so simple. The world is not just black or white. I know of quite a few of things, which were, are or can be called God. Some of them existed and doesn't anymore, some of them exists even today and some of them never existed. Some of them were called God and are till today, but shouldn't be, and some of them weren't called so, but are the best candidates for this therm. The current christianic idea of God is a combination of several these phenomenons, beings, or notions, thus it's just a legend, a thing which never existed. However, there is several of various other phenomenons, which uses this and related religious "places in mythology" as a space for their activity. This is why I find the question "do you believe in god?" as very complicated. Let's say, I think, that some aspects of the God legend had in their times a rational basis, but were incorrectly interpreted.
According to all I know, some things exists and some doesn't, if something needs a belief, without any fact supporting it, I don't take it fully seriously. Yes, belief in anything you don't have a rational reason for, is irrational. As you know, evidence must be followed, wherever it leads. I have the evidence, so I follow it, you don't have it, so it doesn't lead you anywhere, both cases behaves correctly. It would be very suspicious, if you'd have no rational evidence and yet you'd make any assumptions. The less I'm pleased if you think it about me. From my point of view, I just take into account a very scarce, but substantial evidence. Seriously, it must be scary, does people think, that when someone "believes" in one supposed "nonsense", that he can equally easily believe in another nonsense, like to go and commit a murder?

By the way, is there a word for a phenomenon, which can't be disproven, only positively proven? I'm just asking, I'm almost sure there must be somewhere a special therm for it, together with a heap of interesting reading about it's controversy.


Well, it's quite precise translation of what is written in local version of Wikipedia as a definition of paradox. The sense is, that paradox means, that some contradictions can be in fact unified, creating a new fact. What you see as opposites, aren't in fact exact opposites and unifying them is possible.
For example, I have heard some very rational people to say, that if non-material things exists, we can never know of them, because we're material, and matter is the opposite of spirit.  But it is, like they would claim, that a temperature of 10 Celsius degrees is the opposite of 100 Celsius degrees. All is just a various quality on the same scale. This is, how I understand things, the world is not just black and white. If I'd extend this metaphor for a bit, there are at least also a dimensions of lightness, color, and saturation (aka h,s,v), and all colors are just various qualities of a white color, which contains all colors

Homeopathy = bullshit.

Although I think most alternative medicine is total BS, I agree with peppermint that you can't totally dis all of it. Modern medicine is derived from traditional medicine. However modern medicine has had lots of research done on it and is proven (yes, drugs have side effects, so do traditional cures if there is anything in them). The problem is that even in traditional medicines it is a very mixed bag and we need proper scientific testing to see what works and what does not.

There are also more charletans out there than real practitioners, which makes it even harder to find the truth.

Also a lack of quality control, I know of cases of lead poisoning caused by people taking herbs mixed in a sweat shop in India with lead mortar and pestles.

In Oz the government subsidizes most real medicine and medical tests, yet people will spend thousands of dollars on unproven rubbish.

I thought I'd add a couple of things about supposed Scientific research done in the name of "water memory"  and leaped upon by the homeopathic community. (btw, I know it's crap)

 

The most popularised research was that done by JAcques Benveniste in 1988 which was actually published as a paper in science journal, Nature.   As can be expec ted, the scientific community were intensely skeptical and called for the experiment to be repeated under the watchful eye of an outside panel including James Randi.   His results were never repeated satisfactorily and he was, quite rightly, pariahed from the scientific commmunity for continuing to cling to his beliefs and even suggesting that the information stored by water could be transmitted electronically - Imagine that!   Hold your glass of water by the phone, call your homeopathist and, hey presto!, instant cure.

 

20th anniversary article by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7505286.stm

Link to Benveniste's company Digibio where you can buy your very own digital homeopathy kit for the bargain price of $1000: http://www.digibio.com/

Link to the Annal of Imrobable research, who awarded Benveniste 2 IgNobel prizes for his work :http://improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig1997

Is that perception or simply responses to stimuli?

 

 

Then they're not perception.

 

Surely to respond to any stimulus it must be perceived in some way?

  Hi, everybody! I've been lurking around for a couple of days and figure I'd add my two cents:

I used herbs and homeopathy for years and I always thought it worked because I felt better. Lately (2 years or so ) I only really use aspirin or ibuprofen(symptom blockers, fever reducer) and guess what? I always get better anyway! My immune system seems to be doing it's duty, for some strange reason, all by itself! ( I probably wouldn't recommend this for staph infections or testicular tortion, though).

Oh, and caffeine. Lots and lots of caffeine. (I wonder if I dilute a tiny amount of valium into a bunch of water would I be up for days?).