otherhealth.com  

Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 23rd November 2003, 08:08 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: near Vienna
Posts: 78
The Fat Man is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

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 ]
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 23rd November 2003, 08:08 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Brisbane, Qld,Australia
Posts: 608
DavidJK
Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 23rd November 2003, 08:20 PM
Starburn's Avatar
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: U.K
Posts: 74
Starburn
Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 23rd November 2003, 10:24 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: near Vienna
Posts: 78
The Fat Man is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

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 ]
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 24th November 2003, 05:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Brisbane, Qld,Australia
Posts: 608
DavidJK
Post

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 24th November 2003, 06:50 AM
kayveeh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: -
Posts: 1,646
kayveeh is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

Quote:
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.
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..Shiv Khera
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 25th November 2003, 06:35 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: near Vienna
Posts: 78
The Fat Man is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

DavidJK

Maybe we try new approach.

Please explain meaning and purpose of concept 'falsifiability'. How it relates to this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 25th November 2003, 12:42 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: near Vienna
Posts: 78
The Fat Man is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

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 ]
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 26th November 2003, 12:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 1,020
bwv11
Post

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.


Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 26th November 2003, 06:47 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: near Vienna
Posts: 78
The Fat Man is an unknown quantity at this point
Post

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 ]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cross-post: Ullman and upcoming 20/20 gpm Coffee Shop 8 12th February 2004 01:05 AM
new paradigm passkey Coffee Shop 12 9th February 2004 02:29 PM
The Cocept of VITALITY passkey Coffee Shop 0 9th February 2004 02:27 PM
OK, shoot. MRC_Hans Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy 199 4th December 2003 07:47 AM
Does Homeopathy want to enter Medical Science? Timokay Homeopathy Discussion 25 16th October 2003 05:09 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:54 AM.



The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2