I can't remember if it was here or elsewhere, but one of the quackbleaters decided that, since Alchemy was considered a science 200 years ago and many scientists studied it carefully way back when, including Hahnemann, it didn't work--therefore Homeopathy is a crock...or some such "logic"...

well, I was just sent this link to an interesting website that re-examines the whole concept of alchemy--and how transformations thought impossible can actually be achieved.

The website is the creation of two physicists, whose names and affiliations and works are published on the site. Here's the link:

http://www.lowenergytransmutations.org/index.html

It occured to me after looking through the articles and topics explored on this site that real scientists are people who don't accept the limitations of "the current hypothesis"...they do just what Hahnemann did, 200 years ago: set about to prove what they hold to be observable, repeatable truth--contrary to what is widely, uncritically, believed without question by those without the faculty to question it.

Real scientists don't go around bleating "the party line" as they are told to do! Real scientists strive to think differently from the way they are "told" to think--exactly as Hahnemann did, exactly like a lot of people who know conventional medicine isn't curative...so they explore and learn about and use something really effective--like homeopathy--to treat patients successfully.

Hahnemann was a skilled, quite revolutionary chemist, apart from being remarkable in medicine: the process of trituration, for example, was a process he discovered to make substances previously thought to be undissolvable in any solution dissolvable. Maybe that discovery would not have been possible if he and other chemists did not study alchemy as closely as people did, back then.

Anyway, hope you enjoy the site. It's quite revealing of just what a lot of BS we've been having to contend with from a whole bunch of people claiming to be educated, "open minded" and "skeptical"--I think, once the comparison is made between the skepticism of real scientists and bogus ones who think the Amazing Randi can actually operate an "education" site (!) is made, the difference will be quite obvious.

[ 22. November 2003, 04:08: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Hi ChaChaa,

The difference is glaringly obvious. It's pretty amazing (or maybe not) to find such small minds inside the big heads of the Quackbuster infantry.

Maybe you two think there is big Quackbuster conspiracy? You should get out in daylight more!

I am independent person (located board on Google). I do not know how/where other sceptics found this forum.

Perhaps is less scary if believing you face ONE conspiracy not MANY separate skeptics all making same criticisms. Similarity of criticisms is not because of one big conspiracy. Is because these very obviously are errors in thinking only needing basic science and philosophy understanding to see.

This is 'persecuted minority' self-visualization. Is badge liking to be worn it seems by many homeopath ex-colleagues. Is not healthy. Maybe I should counsel them now. Maybe they not like what I need to tell them before they confront such issues!

"It occured to me after looking through the articles and topics explored on this site that real scientists are people who don't accept the limitations of "the current hypothesis"...they do just what Hahnemann did, 200 years ago: set about to prove what they hold to be observable, repeatable truth--contrary to what is widely, uncritically, believed without question by those without the faculty to question it."

Maybe as expert scientist you give summary of this work- strengths and weaknesses. Maybe give your analysis how good is their criticism of relativity and nuclear physic. How does the nuclear model reconcile/match with theory of strong and weak nuclear forces? Just starting points.

Anyone can make stupid new hypothesis. If evidence is there then maybe hypothesis not so stupid. Do you think their evidence so strong to reject Einstein's relativity and current quantum physic? Please summarize reasons why you think so or maybe this idea must be "uncritically, believed without question".

I expect: insult, ignore, copy verbatim from that site. Maybe you surprise me with proper response. I am finding more humor in this now and cease to be angry at having no answers.

[ 22. November 2003, 23:45: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

Nicht

No attack has been made on you as indivudals. Only you ideas have been disscussed. Therefor the lable of troll is incorect.

[ 22. November 2003, 23:57: Message edited by: Starburn ]

Bema

http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

Good discipline. Pretend to ignore.

Bad for credibility of what you say. Maybe if you think of useful arguments you come back.

I have said before. this is public forum. Private areas here as well. What is purpose of public forum? To 'parade wares'. Maybe is not unfair to visit market and say "This Rolex is from Taiwan" so visitors to market see fakes revealed. I can debate if arguments used. I can say 'fake' if trader tries to pick up bag of watches and run.

The homeopath can join science forum and try to debate. Why not try?

Maybe you join German forum and we try in other languages if my English too coarse/rude.


Anyway is nearly 1a.m. so must go to bed.

[ 23. November 2003, 00:06: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

Is late. Get forgetful. Need to add.

"http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm"

"It's pretty amazing (or maybe not) to find such small minds inside the big heads of the Quackbuster infantry."

Starburn is correct. You are ones with personal insult as weapon instead of reason and argument.

[ 23. November 2003, 00:11: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

bingo, cha cha,

real scientists are out to increase the scope of knowledge. they are curious to find out about things they don't fully understand, so they explore and discover. part of this process, naturally, is inevitably self-scrutiny - a new "fact" may cast old beliefs into doubt, so beliefs in science are always essentially "stuck" at the stage of hypothesis, always open to scrutiny and re-examination as circumstances warrant. you don't need Scrooge Man hitting you over the head with his umbrella - or was it an elephant leg? - to keep you honest.

__________________
"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.

Are you taking that website seriously? If so download their main paper (the 52Mb one) and read it then think about what they are claiming.

By now I think everyone has seen and understood that whenever you can't "grasp" a simple concept, you denounce it as "unscientific".

Basically, everyone already knows that your condemnation of anything is reason enough to embrace it.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung