sure ... i'm ok with that. however, your question reflects a problem in formulating my comments, which i was aware of and pretty much anticipated having to clarify at some point, so i do appreciate that you have brought this up.

first: i think the first point is to clarify that i am suggesting that disagreements must be analyzed on an individual, case by case basis. further, that in any particular case (any particular disagreement), opinons that appear to be contradictory and mutually exclusive, may resolve to questions of nomenclature or perspective and the like. this happens all the time, but in the nature of things is very difficult to identify clearly: after all, if two people are using different terms to describe the same things, but don't realize it, then clarifying the terminological confusion is a process that rests on using existing terminology to clarify confusions in existing terminology ... if you can imagine how that might cause confusion itself.

in therapy sessions i see this all the time, with couples and families. people argue vehemently without realizing they are saying the same things. it takes a great deal of work to get them to disengage from the emotional entanglements (pretty much comparable to 'bias') that interfere with clarity of communications.

second: in a practical sense, sometimes homeopathy works, and sometimes it doesn't. this might be due to incompetence of the prescriber; or intractibility of the 'disease;' or interference from unrecognized 'confounders...' etc.

third: but the key element, highlighted by your question, is whether homeopathy "works" ... in principle. in other words, assuming for argument that it is a fact that homeopathic remedies are efficacious against disease, which also implies just by extension, that subavogadrean physics (as i would frame it) still has some surprises in store for us, then we would have to conclude that, no, only the opinion that 'homeopathy works' is correct. although, in that instance, it would probably be better to say that 'homeopathy is an efficacious treatment,' recognizing that no treatment is 100% successful 100% of the time, for a variety of reasons.

or, more basically, your question could be re-framed to this: are homeopathic remedies really medicines, or just sugar pills? in response to that question, and given the assumption (for the sake of argument) that homeopathy is a real medical intervention, then only the people who say "yes" are correct.

in other words, at that point, we have 'controlled for' problems of communication and conceptual confusion, so that we can discuss, more directly, what is really "true" in an absolute sense, that is, apart from the distortions of 'reality' introduced by our relativistic points of view.

does that help?

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.