Well I'm glad to hear we all agree, and have all misunderstood each other.
No, we have understood you but you have misunderstood us.
No I cannot, especially given that I also said this (which you did did not quote).
* You don't need to do any personal investigation of homeopathy to understand that
the premise has a non-factual basis* Not only is there no evidence that the premise of homeopathy is factual,
there is an overwhelming body of evidence that the premise is non-factual* The point made was that once the premise is known, homeopathy can be dismissed because the premise
contradicts a vast body of existing scientific knowledge* Later again in the article, ' Several of the key concepts of homeopathy
conflict with fundamental concepts of physics and chemistry* I explained this previously; 'once the premise is known, homeopathy can be dismissed
because the premise contradicts a vast body of existing scientific knowledge'.'
* 'when we are aware of a
vast body of evidence contradicting the idea, passing judgment is entirely valid'
Yes, as I have already said. I have no idea how you could read that and think it means 'we don't need any evidence'.
No you are not. As you can see, I have already explained repeatedly what I mean, and that is not what I mean. What I mean is that since the premise of homeopathy contradicts a large body of established scientific knowledge (knowledge which was established by investigating completely different subjects, not homeopathy), the claims of homeopathy can be dismissed.
Let me give another example.
Claimant: If you flap your arms, you can fly. Arm flapping creates special pheromones which attract fairies, who lift you into the sky.
Me: That's categorically untrue.
unkleE: You are being unnecessarily closed minded about arm flapping and fairy pheromones. Just because the idea seems outrageous doesn't mean it's untrue.
Me: I agree. That's not what I said.
unkleE: You can't dismiss it a priori until you've researched arm flapping.
Me: I don't need to research arm flapping in order to know the claim is false; it contradicts well established scientific facts about physics.
unkleE: So you're saying we can dismiss the claim without evidence.
Me: No, I am saying the claim it contradicts well established scientific facts about physics. Once you know the premise, the claim can be dismissed.
unkleE: But the proposed mechanism could be false, whilst the claimed effect is true. Clearly we must first research arm flapping in order to see if it really works.
Me: No, because regardless of the proposed mechanism (fairies), we already know the premise (you can fly by flapping your arms, contradicts a vast body of established scientific evidence. It contradicts various laws of physics.
unkleE: I believe the aeronautical establishment is biased and closeminded on this issue. They are defensive and critical of arm flapping simply because the practice of arm flapping would detract from their profits.
Me: No, they are critical of arm flapping because it because it is based on a false premise, it encourages belief in pseudo-science and skepticism of established empirically based scientific evidence its practitioners and supporters regularly misrepresent science, and it has resulted in unnecessary harm and deaths due to people leaping off buildings while flapping their arms, which could have been avoided.
unkleE: So you're saying we can dismiss it a priori without any evidence, just because we think it's unbelievable.
Me: No, please read what I wrote.
unkleE: I think you're being unnecessarily closedminded about fairies.
Me: I don't think you're reading what I write.