You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

6
-5

[–] uab 6 points -5 points (+1|-6) ago 

Yes, a good indication would be comparing it with placebo. What are some of the studies you refer to?

It doesn't work, sometimes. Same is of course true for Western medicine. As to why it would work, that is not relevant, because we can dogmatically claim that something 'should' or 'should not' work, but this does not dictate objective reality.

0
0

[–] prairie 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Just remember that someone attacking homeopathy doesn't necessarily think that western mainstream pills are much better either.

As to why it would work, that is not relevant, because we can dogmatically claim that something 'should' or 'should not' work, but this does not dictate objective reality.

I totally agree. People and their narratives for things are funny. Ignore the story, just look at the data and try to set up situations that would disprove your ideas. You either find that you had a wrong idea and let it go, or give more confidence in that idea.

0
1

[–] uab 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

True, dismissing homeopathy does not mean being a big fan of Western medicine drugs. My answering has been in relation to the argument that homripathic medicine does not contain anything, that one can measure.

The argument is correct, but it argues in terms of pharmacology, which is mistaken. The principle in homeopathy is not at all about adding something to the body, that causes a change directly.

0
0

[–] Saufsoldat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Analysis of 1800 studies done on homeopathy vs placebo

It doesn't work, sometimes. Same is of course true for Western medicine. As to why it would work, that is not relevant, because we can dogmatically claim that something 'should' or 'should not' work, but this does not dictate objective reality.

And doing literally nothing when you have cancer will sometimes work. Sure, it will fail as well, but we're not allowed to ask why that is, because we can dogmatically claim that something 'should' or 'should not' work, but this does not dictate objective reality.

That's how stupid that sounds.

0
1

[–] uab 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, it does sound fairly stupid if one doesn't get my meaning. Having cancer and doing nothing does not 'work', since what in that case works is one's body... The work isn't the 'removal' of radiation and chemo treatments.

That something 'should' not work, according to one paradigm, is actually not relevant to the question of whether or not it does work. Sometimes one just acknowledges an unexpected 'phenomenon', and then the attempt to comprehend and explain comes afterwards. Reality must dictate the paradigm, not the other way around. That separates science from scientism.