3 ms·

I am staying scientific. Science doesn't mean, "everything is possible until you rule it out"; science means, "observe something, come up with a hypothesis, tes

I am staying scientific. Science doesn't mean, "everything is possible until you rule it out"; science means, "observe something, come up with a hypothesis, test your hypothesis, consider it true if it passes rigorous enough experiment, until disproven later by other experiment." Demanding proof that water doesn't have "memory" is not at all unlike demanding proof that gravity doesn't work because of trillions of very tiny fairies that fly around pushing on things. This is one of the central differences between faith and science; faith demands proof of impossibility (e.g., "prove to me that homeopathy doesn't work"), and science demands proof of possibility (e.g., "prove to me that homeopathy works"). Ignorance is not a shield that protects you. Being open-minded to the point of incuriousity doesn't make you wise, it just means that you've stopped seeking the answers to questions. Now, all that said: "spooky effects" like quantum entanglements are indeed very cool, and I'm looking forward to seeing some testable hypotheses on the mechanisms for that. However, experiments so far have only been able to make quantum effects at a distance work under very controlled conditions, and I'm pretty sure none of those conditions involved "shaking it back and forth 10 times". So, no, I'm not willing to buy that as a possible explanation for a mechanism for homeopathy -- even if homeopathy worked, which it doesn't.

Tichy 16y ago
I can't follow your logic. You say science is making testable hypothesises, and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? Either you can test that hypothesis ("water can't have memory"), or you are being unscientific? Also, is there debate about gravity working? I think it has been tested, so it is not at all the same thing. It would be more like saying "anti-gravity is impossible" (maybe it is, no idea). I am not interested in Homoeopathy, just in proper arguing.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  > ...and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? OK, you're right. I need to be more careful in what I'm saying, then. My claim, specifically, is that science does not have a large enough lack of knowledge about water -- or any other simple chemical -- in the specific areas of chemistry or particle physics, to suggest that there is even an unknown mechanism by which extra-molecular information might be stored in such a chemical, "extra-molecular" here meaning any information which wouldn't otherwise be included naturally as a part of that chemical. Furthermore, I'm saying that, in the absence of such unknowns, and given current knowledge of basic chemistry and physics, such hypothetical information storage would violate the already-accepted principles of those fields. In other words, I'm placing the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the people making the fantastical claim, and I'm justifying that by claiming that we have a large enough body of evidence to support labeling their claim as "fantastical". Now, if this was the 17th century, and I appeared out of nowhere and proclaimed, "water cannot have memory!" -- then maybe you'd have a point. Instead, there's this wonderfully large body of understanding of chemistry and physics which, while incomplete, is not so incomplete as to leave any room for a method of information storage in basic chemicals without contradicting current knowledge. Thus, "water can not have memory." If you want to press further on this and challenge my assertion anyway, then I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move. :-) If you can successfully disprove enough current chemistry or physics to leave the door open for any kind of "memory" in water, then there is probably a large amount of fame and acclaim waiting for you. (And yes, there is some debate about how gravity works. While general relativity does a neat job of modeling gravity, it is somewhat unsatisfying as an explanation for its mechanism. And also, yes, I would be inclined to say that "anti-gravity is impossible", although with somewhat more reservation, because so far the best explanation for gravity is that it is in fact some kind of side-effect of mass on a space-time environment, so "anti-gravity" would require negative mass, which last time I checked doesn't even make sense -- although I haven't been watching the journals as closely as I used to.)
  - Tichy 16y ago
    "I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move." It doesn't work that way, and you know it :-) It seems the guy from Nature was not as well informed as you, because rather than arguing that it is impossible because of established laws of nature, he actually did the experiments. Weird. As for gravity, I know there is debate about HOW it works. I meant there is probably no debate that it "works" (by whatever mechanism). It seems scientists felt the need to invent "dark matter" and other esoteric stuff at times to explain their theories, so I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are (some weeks ago I think there was an article on HN presenting a theory that would explain away dark matter). It also seems difficult or impossible to prevent particles from affecting each other. So I suppose "no memory" means "all effects are washed out in chaos" or something like that?
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      Well, I'm going back to bed for a few hours. I think I've presented my point as well as I'm inclined to, and our "debate" is starting to ring all of my diminishing-returns bells. > It seems the guy from Nature was not as well informed as you, because rather than arguing that it is impossible because of established laws of nature, he actually did the experiments. Weird. Cute. Do I really need to point out why, or are you just being deliberately snarky? Because the article pretty well covered all of this. > It seems scientists felt the need to invent "dark matter" and other esoteric stuff at times to explain their theories, so I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are... And this is where it suddenly dawned on me that debating this further, instead of going to bed, would be foolish. Physicists: "Hmm, this is odd. Given our current understanding of gravity, observations supporting an expanding universe, and current mathematical constants, we appear to be missing a huge amount of mass in the universe." Astronomers: "Hey, don't look at us. We're woefully underfunded, but I'm pretty sure we would've seen a hint of that much stuff by now." Physicists: "Maybe there's some other kind of exotic form of mass that we haven't seen before?" Other physicists: "Well, that doesn't really violate any other principles of physics. It's worth a check. Let's see if we can find it." The under-educated public: "LOL they invented dark matter!" How about, instead of playing debate-hit-and-run by making weak accusations against science ("they felt the need to invent dark matter") and then immediately hiding behind ignorance ("I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are"), you actually do some reading and find out? The internet is amazing, you can find an answer to pretty much any question you have on any topic. So I'll just leave this here then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter G'night.

Tichy 16y ago

I can't follow your logic. You say science is making testable hypothesises, and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? Either you can test that hypothesis ("water can't have memory"), or you are being unscientific? Also, is there debate about gravity working? I think it has been tested, so it is not at all the same thing. It would be more like saying "anti-gravity is impossible" (maybe it is, no idea). I am not interested in Homoeopathy, just in proper arguing.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
> ...and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? OK, you're right. I need to be more careful in what I'm saying, then. My claim, specifically, is that science does not have a large enough lack of knowledge about water -- or any other simple chemical -- in the specific areas of chemistry or particle physics, to suggest that there is even an unknown mechanism by which extra-molecular information might be stored in such a chemical, "extra-molecular" here meaning any information which wouldn't otherwise be included naturally as a part of that chemical. Furthermore, I'm saying that, in the absence of such unknowns, and given current knowledge of basic chemistry and physics, such hypothetical information storage would violate the already-accepted principles of those fields. In other words, I'm placing the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the people making the fantastical claim, and I'm justifying that by claiming that we have a large enough body of evidence to support labeling their claim as "fantastical". Now, if this was the 17th century, and I appeared out of nowhere and proclaimed, "water cannot have memory!" -- then maybe you'd have a point. Instead, there's this wonderfully large body of understanding of chemistry and physics which, while incomplete, is not so incomplete as to leave any room for a method of information storage in basic chemicals without contradicting current knowledge. Thus, "water can not have memory." If you want to press further on this and challenge my assertion anyway, then I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move. :-) If you can successfully disprove enough current chemistry or physics to leave the door open for any kind of "memory" in water, then there is probably a large amount of fame and acclaim waiting for you. (And yes, there is some debate about how gravity works. While general relativity does a neat job of modeling gravity, it is somewhat unsatisfying as an explanation for its mechanism. And also, yes, I would be inclined to say that "anti-gravity is impossible", although with somewhat more reservation, because so far the best explanation for gravity is that it is in fact some kind of side-effect of mass on a space-time environment, so "anti-gravity" would require negative mass, which last time I checked doesn't even make sense -- although I haven't been watching the journals as closely as I used to.)
- Tichy 16y ago
  "I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move." It doesn't work that way, and you know it :-) It seems the guy from Nature was not as well informed as you, because rather than arguing that it is impossible because of established laws of nature, he actually did the experiments. Weird. As for gravity, I know there is debate about HOW it works. I meant there is probably no debate that it "works" (by whatever mechanism). It seems scientists felt the need to invent "dark matter" and other esoteric stuff at times to explain their theories, so I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are (some weeks ago I think there was an article on HN presenting a theory that would explain away dark matter). It also seems difficult or impossible to prevent particles from affecting each other. So I suppose "no memory" means "all effects are washed out in chaos" or something like that?
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    Well, I'm going back to bed for a few hours. I think I've presented my point as well as I'm inclined to, and our "debate" is starting to ring all of my diminishing-returns bells. > It seems the guy from Nature was not as well informed as you, because rather than arguing that it is impossible because of established laws of nature, he actually did the experiments. Weird. Cute. Do I really need to point out why, or are you just being deliberately snarky? Because the article pretty well covered all of this. > It seems scientists felt the need to invent "dark matter" and other esoteric stuff at times to explain their theories, so I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are... And this is where it suddenly dawned on me that debating this further, instead of going to bed, would be foolish. Physicists: "Hmm, this is odd. Given our current understanding of gravity, observations supporting an expanding universe, and current mathematical constants, we appear to be missing a huge amount of mass in the universe." Astronomers: "Hey, don't look at us. We're woefully underfunded, but I'm pretty sure we would've seen a hint of that much stuff by now." Physicists: "Maybe there's some other kind of exotic form of mass that we haven't seen before?" Other physicists: "Well, that doesn't really violate any other principles of physics. It's worth a check. Let's see if we can find it." The under-educated public: "LOL they invented dark matter!" How about, instead of playing debate-hit-and-run by making weak accusations against science ("they felt the need to invent dark matter") and then immediately hiding behind ignorance ("I am not sure how established some of our modern theories really are"), you actually do some reading and find out? The internet is amazing, you can find an answer to pretty much any question you have on any topic. So I'll just leave this here then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter G'night.