I think about such things at night. I now ask maybe other interesting question of philosophy as well/in addition.

What thing of evidence or new information is able of making the homeopath not believe the remedy does more than the placebo?

This is different question from saying what is evidence of it maybe does works (answer to such is 'clinical observation'). Question is if anything ever can make such belief not holdable (?) no more.

I also do not mean discussion of current evidences that skeptics are saying disprove the homeopathy. Idea is of speculation of what evidence really would make such disproving.

When I speak to the scientist in classes, often we speak of what would undermine 'whole pack of cards'. Is part of interesting discussion/debate, but also is their job thinking possible flaws in hypotheses so it maybe can be 'tested to destruction'. Such 'testing hypothesis to destruction' is center of the science method.

That is question. Is maybe good exercise for 'little grey cells'. I hope is interesting and attract thoughts in answers.

[ 23. November 2003, 09:09: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

Easy. Take a remedy you do not need.Make sure it is a remedy you do not know about - one you have not read about. Provoke a Proving in yourself. That proving will create various forms of physical symptoms. Check the materia medicas after this, and find similar symptoms under the section for that remedy. Then you will have proof that the remedy is capable of doing something.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

I have know people who have swollowed whole bottles of pills and have had no effects. So your test does not produce a posertive results.

David

"Then you will have proof that the remedy is capable of doing something."

Sorry this is meant to be discussion of something different.

You suggest (weak because not even effect more than placebo) evidence for effect.

A science must in principle have a disproof. I want to explore ideas of such disproof. If no disproof, even in principle, we move back to religious model.

I would like to have discussion of this because we do not need to have usual shouting about particular evidence. Tempers stay may stay calmer in this type discussion. Anyway is fascinating area for exploring.

Also, Starburn will know his/her story is not actual/strict disproof either. I think was just riposte/response to you and is one good reason for not swapping weak evidence examples on this thread.

[ 23. November 2003, 23:26: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

Taking a whole bottle of homoeopathic pills is merely taking a single dose. Homoeopathic medicines do not work like orthodox chemical medicines - it is not about the amount you take at one time. However, taking one pill from that same bottle, once a day for several weeks will almost certainly produce proving symptoms. Each dose, taken far enough apart, acts to increase the effect of the previous dose.

I have seen patients on chemotherapy for months with no side effects, while others on the exact same drug experience side effects from almost the first dose. This is because each patient has different tolerances for different drugs - as it is with homoeopathic medicines too.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

This may be the basis of disbelief. The need of the time may be to move back to religious model.

[ 24. November 2003, 07:53: Message edited by: kayveeh ]

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

DavidJK

Maybe we try new approach.

Please explain meaning and purpose of concept 'falsifiability'. How it relates to this thread.

DavidJK

I am looking at other boards maybe to join and continue such discussions. I find George Vithoulkas is here-

Trial Proposed by Academicians

He is most admirable and honest man.

You also are respected person. Maybe you join him?

[ 26. November 2003, 16:26: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]

falsifiability: 1) concerned with disputation rather than day-in-day-out struggle to save or improve lives; 2) a priniciple honored in the statistical research community, which itself is incapable of being falsified because one is not permitted to talk about it; 3) a deity, akin to the sun god.

__________________
"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.

Bach

falsifiability.

Suggest maybe you re-read your other post about trial or communicate/speak to GV.

Accepting trial accepts principle, purpose and practice of falsifiability. You mock such concept here. Why?

p.s. You talk in past that trials may be OK if well done. So I assume you understand what is falsifiability for. Question aimed at DavidJK. He produced/presented (weak) positive evidence as answer to question about negative evidence. Also to present such argument for such question makes seem like positive and negative evidence balance equal like on see-saw. Negative evidence much more powerful. If get verified negative evidence original/initial hypothesis is 'shot out of water'. Way then clear for new idea, but must drop old idea. Positive evidence never can 'prove' hypothesis 100%. But now I have given answer and we do not see DavidJK answer 'in his own words'. But maybe was worth to give explanation.

[ 26. November 2003, 08:07: Message edited by: The Fat Man ]