|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 15, 2013 5:22:28 GMT
(i) Where, as is the case with homeopathy, an alleged treatment has both conceptual ideas and practical treatments, it is possible that the ideas may be wrong and yet the treatments still work. This is irrelevant in the case of homeopathy. The alleged treatment is based on conceptual ideas that, when understood correctly, assure us that ordinary tap water effects the range of cures claimed for homeopathy. You do not need to do any research to know that drinking ordinary tap water does not effect the cures claimed by homeopathy. If, however, you are prepared to believe that drinking tap water effects the cures claimed by homeopathy, though not due to the mechanism claimed by homeopaths, there are many people who will be delighted to relieve you of your money in exchange for tap water. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 15, 2013 5:57:58 GMT
It might be an important part of the teaching, but it isn't part of the definition as far as I can see. I am not talking about the definition, I am talking about the premise on which homeopathy is based. Please demonstrate this in the case of homeopathy. I understand you were asking what the main premise was. What reason do you have for suggesting a priori that a strong critic's description of that premise is wrong? If you read the posts, you will find out. What you are missing is the fact that we know the premise is wrong because of the evidence we already have on subjects other than homeopathy. I explained this previously; 'once the premise is known, homeopathy can be dismissed because the premise contradicts a vast body of existing scientific knowledge'. No. Not rejecting something a priori simply means not rejecting something a priori. This does not mean you have done any research into it at all. Sorry, when you said 'one of the conclusions I have come to is that the medical world is very hidebound and protective of its position', I understood you to mean 'one of the conclusions I have come to is that the medical world is very hidebound and protective of its position'. Likewise, when you said 'I don't fully trust the medical testing until it shows itself to be more open-minded', I understood you to mean 'I don't fully trust the medical testing until it shows itself to be more open-minded'. I am interested to know what you really mean by these statemetns. It's a pity that you are not reading more carefully what I write, because if you had been you would understand why the point you made is irrelevant. For the third or fourth time, no one has said this. For the third or fourth time, when we are aware of a vast body of evidence contradicting the idea, passing judgment is entirely valid. I do not believe you understand the principle of evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 15, 2013 6:00:44 GMT
On these subjects, it's as biased as Conservapedia. That is not a reason to assume, a priori, that the site's description of homeopathy is inaccurate. It is not even a reason to assume, a priori, that the site's description of those other subjects is inaccurate. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Feb 15, 2013 10:54:01 GMT
You misunderstand. Beta blockers after a heart attack (the indication described in your linked article) makes perfect sense, and is still largely supported by the best quality evidence, and recommended across the western world. I'm talking about heart failure, which is a different problem altogether (though it may be caused in part by a previous heart attack). But the premise behind prescribing a negatively-inotropic agent to those with reduced pump function certainly IS counter-intuitive, even allowing for the fact that we now have some inkling of the mechanisms behind the clinical effect. And yes, RationalWiki is a depressingly biased, unreliable and at times just plain polemical site which I would not recommend as an information source. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 15, 2013 13:23:35 GMT
And yes, RationalWiki is a depressingly biased, unreliable and at times just plain polemical site which I would not recommend as an information source. I find it biased and frequently polemical, but I don't typically find it ignorant of the subjects it describes. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Feb 15, 2013 16:53:04 GMT
But the premise behind prescribing a negatively-inotropic agent to those with reduced pump function certainly IS counter-intuitive Is it? Please describe the premise as you understand it, and explain why it's counter-intuitive. Biased and polemical? Undoubtedly. Unreliable? Examples please. On the subject of homeopathy it says nothing you will not find elsewhere from purely objective sources, so there's no point complaining that I've used RationalWiki to criticise homeopathy. Rather than shooting the messenger, you should be addressing the message. |
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Feb 15, 2013 17:02:14 GMT
On these subjects, it's as biased as Conservapedia. That is not a reason to assume, a priori, that the site's description of homeopathy is inaccurate. It is not even a reason to assume, a priori, that the site's description of those other subjects is inaccurate. I agree, it was not my intention to imply anything of the sort. Though I would say RationalWiki is ignorant on the historicity of Jesus (or more accurately, either hapless or intellectually dishonest through weasel words), that is no reason to reject the source a priori or to generalise that verdict to other subjects. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 15, 2013 17:51:56 GMT
I agree, it was not my intention to imply anything of the sort. Though I would say RationalWiki is ignorant on the historicity of Jesus (or more accurately, either hapless or intellectually dishonest through weasel words), that is no reason to reject the source a priori or to generalise that verdict to other subjects. Yes that's worth saying, I certainly agree with you that the RW demonstrates a lack of scholarship on the subject of the historicity of Jesus. However, I find that typical of Wikis; Wikipedia is a hopeless mess of amateur dabbling triumphing over scholarly material. |
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Feb 15, 2013 21:17:02 GMT
Is it? Please describe the premise as you understand it, and explain why it's counter-intuitive. Er... I thought it would be rather obvious, if you know a wee bit of physiology. The premise is that: > in heart failure, the heart is unable to contract effectively enough to get out the blood which is being fed in by the venous system, leading to breathlessness and reduced exercise tolerance; > adrenaline activates beta receptors in the heart muscle to improve heart rate and contractility, thus increasing cardiac output; > beta blockers inhibit this effect, leading to reduced heart rate and reduced contractility > therefore, giving beta blockers to heart failure patients will worsen symptoms The evidence, however, shows that beta blockers can improve symptoms in some patients. Fair enough? rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christianity is a good place to start. A quick skim suggests: > GJohn is a gnostic gospel, > "The First Council of Nicaea, convened by order of the Roman emperor Constantine I in 325 CE, started the path to Paul's non-gnostic Christianity becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE" > "... the personal animosity between James, Peter, and the other original disciples and Paul of Tarsus" (plus a linked comment that "there are no surviving records of what Jesus taught" - both statements that Christians and a lot of secular scholars would think very wrong) > Apologetics is useless, as "faith based on logical arguments is subject to attack with logical responses". Because, obviously, reason will always lead you away from faith. Obviously. ... and whatever you do, don't show this to Tim O'Neill! Lots of highly subjective assertions put forward of fact with no nuance and often precious little evidence. If a Christian site wrote this way, I'd be highly suspicious of taking its claims at face value. Perhaps. Perhaps PZ Myers once wrote something accurate about the 5 ways of Aquinas - heck, even a broken clock is right twice a day - but his tone and approach to the subject means I'm highly suspicious of his impartiality and therefore his accuracy, especially when it comes to a controversial or potentially nuanced subject area. For the record, I worked in a homeopathic inpatient unit for 4 months, and I do NOT buy classical homoeopathy. I'd just want to get my information on it from as level-headed a source as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 15, 2013 21:20:07 GMT
 WHO started this thread, unklee? Oops!! I correctly identified Sandwiches as making the next comment, and somehow credited him with the initial post as well. Please call off your rottweiler, I apologise most obsequiously!! |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 15, 2013 21:21:54 GMT
Please demonstrate this in the case of homeopathy. Fortigurn, this is the point. To demonstrate this requires evidence. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Feb 16, 2013 0:08:14 GMT
... and whatever you do, don't show this to Tim O'Neill! Actually, that article is surprisingly free of total nonsense and actually pretty reasonable. Bits like this show genuine regard for accuracy: |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Feb 16, 2013 3:04:32 GMT
Please demonstrate this in the case of homeopathy. Fortigurn, this is the point. To demonstrate this requires evidence. I agree. What's your point? To demonstrate that homeopathy works, requires evidence. To demonstrate that homeopathy does not work and cannot work, does not require that we research homeopathy; it only requires that we point to the vast body of evidence that the claims of homeopathy contradict. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Feb 16, 2013 11:10:42 GMT
Fortigurn, this is the point. To demonstrate this requires evidence. I agree. What's your point? To demonstrate that homeopathy works, requires evidence. To demonstrate that homeopathy does not work and cannot work, does not require that we research homeopathy; it only requires that we point to the vast body of evidence that the claims of homeopathy contradict. I think we must have been in a different universe. Sankari made the claim that it was OK to "know" homeopathy was false without evidence (he said: "Once you know and understand the premise of homeopathy, you know why it's false.") I have been saying we need not just that knowledge of the premise, but we need evidence. You have been arguing against me, and apparently supporting him. Now you are agreeing with me. That's my point. Since you and I are now agreed, we can stop arguing.  |
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Feb 16, 2013 15:41:56 GMT
 All is forgiven. ;D |
|
