[This message has been edited by Joelle Ernster (edited 01-14-2011 @ 02:38 PM).]
[This message has been edited by L33TSkillz (edited 01-24-2011 @ 07:15 PM).]
I am certain that God exists and that Christianity and Judaism are correct.BRB Jesus is the son of God, savior of mankind.
The inaccuracies are because people like all the details, and fill it in with something that sounds like it's right.I do like this though^, this is definitely true about many, many, many things in life; we don't have to stop at just religion to see this
[This message has been edited by Mr Martel (edited 01-24-2011 @ 08:13 PM).]
As I already mentioned, there are medially-gifted people out there. This is a phenomenon I have studied a lot during the past 20 years. It is interesting to me, but I am not medially-gifted in the faintest, so I talked to other people that were. In fact I found that most people are somewhat medially gifted. E.g. they think of a person that have not had any contact with for half a year, and the next day a letter from said person arrives.Quoted from Braza:
even IF there was some kind of consistency between our lives and the position of the stars. How would humans have been able to discover this ?
You apparently have not read the whole discussion if you claim such a thing. Again, nobody forces you to participate if you are too lazy to read it all, but do not just drop some statements without knowing what is going on. Your ignorant statements will just mess up the clarity of the discussion.Quoted from Mr Martel:
The argument for belief in astrology seems to fall along the same 'faith' based line that religions do
You would get that proof if you tried it out yourself, but of course this means investing some work, and it is perfectly legitimate for you not to be willing to invest that. Esoteric truth only reveals itself to the one who is searching, and if you are content with your world view as it is and not actively searching for the truth, then you will not get that truth and not be sad about it, and everything is fineQuoted from L33TSkillz:
personally I wouldn't believe that unless it had really definitive proof
I'm convinced you're doing this as a joke but where are these double-blind tests then? A quick look on Wikipedia reveals many references of double-blind tests showing homeopathy is no more effective than placebo but none showing it's more effective.Quoted from DaP:
Confronted with the obvious successes of homeopathy when it comes to healing people they always resort to blaming those on the placebo effect. Something they conveniently neglect to take into consideration is that
# Homeopathy also works on animals, which have no idea what the remedy is supposed to do, hence hardly any placebo effect
# afaik there are studies in which homeopathic remedies pass the double blind study, which is the official method of regular medicine to rule out any placebo effects.
But I digress.
Well no, hence "A quick look on Wikipedia".Quoted from DeathAndPain:
You can hardly have seriously searched if you pose that question, DragonQ.
Your link seems to be from a rather amateurish (in terms of appearance, can't comment on the overall content after reading one page) site promoting "alternative" medicine, which hardly makes it unbiased. It also doesn't seem to have any references.Quoted from DeathAndPain:
To answer your question, just check outthis. It took me a few seconds to locate that one on Google, and I am confident that I could find more pages of that kind if I checked more than the top 3 search results.
Likewise, an encyclopedia site such as Wikipedia is obviously closely related to science and therefore likely to be frequented by people of the opposite bias. This also explains the "amateurish" appearance of the other site: Who would you expect to be more adept in the arts of programming a professional web appearance: A group of scientists or a group of homeopathic healers?Quoted from DragonQ:
Your link seems to be from a rather amateurish (in terms of appearance, can't comment on the overall content after reading one page) site promoting "alternative" medicine, which hardly makes it unbiased.
It names several studies, even though not precisely enough to verify the claim. Of course this means that you can resort to simply calling them liars.Quoted from DragonQ:
It also doesn't seem to have any references.
Ah but Wikipedia can of course be edited by anyone. If there were any legitimate scientific papers supporting the homeopathy method, they would probably be on that page. In fact, in the discussion section one of the more famous papers is discussed, which is explained in more detail onQuoted from DeathAndPain:
Likewise, an encyclopedia site such as Wikipedia is obviously closely related to science and therefore likely to be frequented by people of the opposite bias. This also explains the "amateurish" appearance of the other site: Who would you expect to be more adept in the arts of programming a professional web appearance: A group of scientists or a group of homeopathic healers?
I didn't call them liars but the lack of references, particularly to actual published papers, makes the content have essentially no real worth. Anyone could make a webpage like that and, without sources, no-one could check if what you're talking about is actually true.Quoted from DeathAndPain:
It names several studies, even though not precisely enough to verify the claim. Of course this means that you can resort to simply calling them liars.
Yeah but when one "side" has 100x more evidence than the other...?Quoted from DeathAndPain:
In the end this IMHO means that both sides have their arguments, and both sides have their studies.
Of course this is true but it is not realistic for someone to only use results from experiments they've done themselves to form their conclusions (reinventing the wheel, as they say). That's why science exists - to spread and build upon the wealth of collective knowledge. Every statement on this forum is not peer reviewed by experts in the field, which is why falsehoods can spread so easily. It's not really comparable to something in the realm of science.Quoted from DeathAndPain:
This just means that you can deduct nothing from this. This is no way to find out the truth. Often enough have I seen a statement supported as true by several people in AoMH forum, but when I tried it out in the editor I found that it is still false. Tbh I have myself spread wrong information before that I had read from so many sources that I considered it unnecessary to verify it - and eventually ended up being proven false by someone who really knew.
Which means that in the end, it is up to the individual to go and see for himself. That is what I have done, and that is what leads to clear results. If you ("you" meaning every single person reading this) have earnestly tried to do astrology by reading a serious book or two about it, you will quickly find whether there is an obvious relation between people and their chart in line with astrological theory or not. (Unless you consider yourself so easy to manipulate that you see stuff that is not there despite your critical mindset.)
[This message has been edited by DragonQ (edited 01-25-2011 @ 08:52 PM).]
"Can" as in "having sufficient access rights to", but not as in "being capable of". I consider myself much more skilled in internet and computer stuff than the average homeopath, but when I tried to edit a Wikipedia page for the first time todayQuoted from DragonQ:
Ah but Wikipedia can of course be edited by anyone.
Quoted from DragonQ:
Yeah but when one "side" has 100x more evidence than the other...?
Really!? Where else would you look for a denser pack of experts in terms of factual knowledge about AoM than in AoMH GD or on RTSanc? Where would a false factual statementQuoted from DragonQ:
Every statement on this forum is not peer reviewed by experts in the field
But the scientist is also taught to think along certain lines. A major basis of this is the causal system. The alternate (co-existing) analogical system that I explained before is inaccessible to his mind as long as he is not willing to leave the paths of thinking that he has been taught to be the only ones. This is very similar to the situation of medieval rulers when they were told that allegedly the earth is not a disc!Quoted from DragonQ:
Scientists are taught to approach things with a critical mind.
You could hardly prove my point in a clearer manner...Quoted from DragonQ:
In this case, a critical mind immediately (and rightly) thinks "there's no explanation of a process that couldcause this to happen"
...such as thousands of people healed by homeopathy, and countless people acknowledging towards me that even with their minimal astrological knowledge of the average person, they already noticed that there seems to be some truth in this. If that is not enough starting evidence to dig deeper and find out, then what is?Quoted from DragonQ:
As the saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
[This message has been edited by VB_WhiplashJC (edited 01-26-2011 @ 09:29 PM).]
I’m sorry but I don’t see how any of this is relevant. The important thing is that judging by the actual (double blind) tests that exist on homeopathy, there seem to be far more that conclude it has no effect than conclude it may/does have an effect. Obviously I haven’t exhaustedly searched for any and all papers but this is the strong indication. I’m not talking about random people that own herb shops; there are scientists, labs and even universities devoted to things like homeopathy so you would think they’d have been able to prove something by now, even if we didn’t know the mechanism behind it. I don’t think 100x is much of an exaggeration, especially considering...Quoted from DeathAndPain:
...
This is no way to find the truth, DragonQ. If anything, you could speculate that based on such stuff there is a 65% chance for homeopathy being invalid / driver B being the culprit. But how useful is such an unprecise information?
...this is not scientific evidence, it’s just anecdotal. How many people are “healed” by placebo and then get on with their lives, none the wiser? Now imagine if you told them it was a homeopathic remedy that is "beyond science". They’d all be singing its praises. That's why you need controlled tests, not “yeah my cousin used homeopathy and it worked great”.Quoted from DeathAndPain:
...such as thousands of people healed by homeopathy, and countless people acknowledging towards me that even with their minimal astrological knowledge of the average person, they already noticed that there seems to be some truth in this. If that is not enough starting evidence to dig deeper and find out, then what is?
This fractal nature is extremely simplistic though and the deeper you go, the more differences you find between the different models you’re talking about. There are different types and shapes of galaxy, as well as galaxy cores. Gravity is the reason that matter in space usually forms a rotating sphere given enough time, and that any “satellite” particles (or planets, depending on your scale) rotate around that centre in (almost) the same plane and will also themselves (usually) be rotating. As for electrons rotating around an atom, this isn’t described same mechanism. It’s also to do with the other three known forces of nature rather than gravity (gravity’s effect compared to the other three forces is negligible on this scale). Quantum effects come into play, meaning electrons don’t really act as “particles” and can only be accurately modelled as such in certain situations and it all gets very messy. I don’t want to revisit my books and notes for a discussion on it here, lol.Quoted from DeathAndPain:
But once someone grows discontent with the answers that science delivers - or fails to deliver (meaning of life: just biological reproduction? 11), he will ask questions that science cannot answer and look deeper. Then he will notice things like the fact that the same principles govern the huge and the small ( ->representation systems), that the electrons rotate around the atoms like the planets around the stars, which in turn circle around the center of their galaxy, which in turn circle around the center of the milky way... often enough science has believed to have found the "smallest" particle, but then proved itself wrong by finding that the same principles of the other levels again apply to additional levels (rotational strings in atomic cores...). Due to being restricted to the causal system science has to re-discover the same stuff again and again individually on all levels.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. If you think that a typical homeopathic solution only has one molecule of the medicinal chemical in it and has no effect, that also means you think you can have as many diluted mercury drinks as you like without ill effect? No, that also means you think you can have a certain amount of diluted mercury drinks without ill effect, equal to the amount of homeopathic medicine you’d normally receive....surely? Lol, anyway, moving on...to be honest I think that’s probably true since the average person must have a miniscule amount of mercury intake anyway, from various foods and water.Quoted from DeathAndPain:
An evil idea just springs to my mind. Homeopathy states that the higher the potency of a homeopathic remedy, the more powerful (and longer-lasting) it is. Meanwhile, a scientist will look at the way how homeopathic remedies are created and find that the higher the potency, the less of the actual chemical substance there is in it, up to the point that in the really high potencies you are lucky if there is a single molecule left. The rest is sugar (in the case of the usual homeopathic globuli). Now I think you will agree that even the normally most dangerous substances like arsenic and mercury are perfectly harmless when you eat only one molecule of them. This means that from the position of someone who does not believe in homeopathy you can eat any amount of these without any effect, positive or negative.
I could do this (although I have no idea how so would probably end up killing myself lol), yes. Then, a year later I might develop a chest infection. “Ooh, see, that’s that homeopathy thing.” Yeah. To quote Alan Davies, “people will start believing in bloody God again”.Quoted from DeathAndPain:
So a simple way (albeit kind of Russian roulette) to verify the validity of homeopathy would be to walk into a pharmacy and get yourself something really powerful, e.g. Sepia or bird spider in a very high potency. I feel the need to warn you that you will majorly ruin your health by doing this, and while the effects of low potencies wear off after a few days, high potencies last for months, years, or even for the rest of your life and are extremely hard to antidote even for an experienced homeopath. From the standpoint of school medicine, however, these are just miniature balls of sugar, completely harmless and ineffective, so what is wrong with trying that out?Go ahead and let us know how you feel a couple weeks after taking them. Consider this challenge from me a raise on the river that will force you to either all-in or fold your hand.
Well that's useful, no reason to risk poisoning myself then.Quoted from VB_Whiplash:
Looks like these people went all in:http://www.1023.org.uk/the-1023-overdose-event.php
I doubt that, seeing that this link with which I came up after seconds of Google search already named quite a number of researches that ended in favor of homeopathy, but even if your "far more" holds true, then that is covered by my car accident parallel.Quoted from DragonQ:
The important thing is that judging by the actual (double blind) tests that exist on homeopathy, there seem to be far more that conclude it has no effect than conclude it may/does have an effect.
By trying it outQuoted from DragonQ:
You also say this is enough to “dig deeper” – dig deeper with what? It already seems that you’re not content or convinced with the general scientific consensus or what published papers show so how else are we supposed to test this?
Basically yes, seeing that one molecule is that ridiculous an amount that any doctor you ask will confirm that with one mercury molecule per drink you will not be able to anyhow mercury-intoxicate yourself no matter how many of those drinks you drinkQuoted from DragonQ:
I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. If you think that a typical homeopathic solution only has one molecule of the medicinal chemical in it and has no effect, that also means you think you can have as many diluted mercury drinks as you like without ill effect?
Quoted from DragonQ:
“Professor blah claims that a homeopathic medicine that has been diluted down to 10^-60 still retains the same healing effects as the original solution. Explain why this cannot be the case.”
Again, we are talking about a one-time-taking of 5 globuli, a ridiculous amount even if it contained way more than one molecule per globulus, and as Whiplash aptly mentioned, Sepia is squid ink and pretty harmless from the chemical/medical point of viewQuoted from DragonQ:
I could do this (although I have no idea how so would probably end up killing myself lol), yes.
I am not talking about getting killed by some random effect. I even doubt you would get killed at all. You would just experience unfavorable changes on both physical and psychical level that could easily trouble you a lot for the rest of your lifeQuoted from DragonQ:
Then, a year later I might develop a chest infection. “Ooh, see, that’s that homeopathy thing.”
It does not. This is one of the common attempts to mathematically disprove astrology, but the magical principles behind astrology are not related to mathematical computations.Quoted from Mr Martel:
But as for all the astrology Zodiac stuff, how does the recent changing in Zodiac signs affect this DaP (if it does at all)?
[This message has been edited by DeathAndPain (edited 01-27-2011 @ 04:48 PM).]
...this is not scientific evidence, it’s just anecdotal. How many people are “healed” by placebo and then get on with their lives, none the wiser? Now imagine if you told them it was a homeopathic remedy that is "beyond science". They’d all be singing its praises. That's why you need controlled tests, not “yeah my cousin used homeopathy and it worked great”.Exactly!
You also say this is enough to “dig deeper” – dig deeper with what? It already seems that you’re not content or convinced with the general scientific consensus or what published papers show so how else are we supposed to test this?
This remark of you alone proves your narrow-mindedness. How can you claim that itQuoted from Braza:
DaP Im not being narrow-minded as you keep stating. But everything I find out about astrology, homeopathy and religion appears or is inacurate and false.
Now that is a statement that looks much more reasonable to me. Basically it matches my stance back in my teenage years when my quest for the truth began. Like you do now I used to say that I know nothing besides what science has taught me, so for the time being I will not believe in anything else. I consider that a healthy stance, because believing in something without having substantial reason means going sheepmode.Quoted from Braza:
Maybe there will be things that science cant explain(because its magic or god or whatever). But till there is such a thing. I have no reason to believe these things exist.
In other words, a forceQuoted from Mr Martel:
Something can only be set into motion by a force acting upon it.
But that would be another attempt to squeeze the analogy concept on which astrology is based into the cause-effect-concept with which astrology has nothing to do.Quoted from Whiplash:
Maybe certain regions of the sky (probably exposing my ignorance of astrology here if not astronomy) produce different kinds of cosmic rays, and the ones you're exposed to when you're born change the way your brain grows.
Yes, that is the road roller-argument with which you can flatten anything that does not fit to your view of the world.Quoted from Whiplash:
I think a lot of what you're saying can be put down to cognitive bias Dap.
Yes. It has not been potentized.Quoted from Whiplash:
Is Squid ink in pasta any different homoeopathically to a pill or whatever that costs x10 more?
In the case of the painter, as well as your pasta, we are talking about the material stuff, not a homeopathically-potentized remedy in which the real stuff is practically zero. And when it comes to the real substance, then the old Latin saying holds true:Quoted from Whiplash:
Wait, so sepia in food doesn't count, but sepia in paint does?
In the medieval age in which that painter lived? Without being an expert for medieval paint I doubt that, seeing that these would have been much more obvious toxines even back then, both for Hahnemann and for the painter himself. But I suppose paint in the medieval age was much more based on natural ingredients - like squid ink - than they are today.Quoted from Whiplash:
I also like the way the story ignores all the other things in paint. Lead, arsenic...
That sentence is easily sufficient to shred modern (scientific) medicine to pieces. I mean, there are countless remedies that help only a certain percentage of patients - or have undesired side-effects for a certain percentage of patients.Quoted from Mr Martel:
If something does not hold true for everyone, and is not repeatable, then it is not useful to everyone.
[This message has been edited by DeathAndPain (edited 02-04-2011 @ 05:21 AM).]
Copyright © 1997–2024 HeavenGames LLC. All rights reserved.
v2.5.0