4 ms·

>"If we assume the latter, for simplicity's sake, then we next have to determine where the energy for this "memory" is stored, how it's encoded, and what form i

>"If we assume the latter, for simplicity's sake, then we next have to determine where the energy for this "memory" is stored, how it's encoded, and what form it might take. Let's propose the simplest possible explanation -- which violates everything we know about cellular biology -- and say that this "memory" is basically some theoretical "frequency" that the "medicine" resonates with. All we have to do then is propose that atoms of hydrogen and/or oxygen can somehow store a frequency ..." Good post overall, but this kind of stance always gives me pause. The reason we know that Homeopathy doesn't work is because it can't be made to work beyond a normal placebo in testing. As far as "does water have any kind of memory", it doesn't seem to in any way that affects us but in general? To me, excluding the possibility because we can't come up with a way to detect such a thing is going to far [1]. It wasn't so long ago that we couldn't see what was in cells. Any theories we built on that ignored cells based on the fact that they were opaque to us could only coincidentally end up correct. [1] Note this doesn't mean I think we should be spending time or money trying to find such a thing. Just that saying anything more than "at present, we've seen no evidence to suggest such a thing" is going to far.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
That's a fair criticism. > The reason we know that Homeopathy doesn't work is because it can't be made to work beyond a normal placebo in testing. That's true, but it's a separate point from what was being discussed. As someone else pointed out in this thread, there's the "we tested it and it doesn't work" argument, and there's also the "it violates the current body of science" argument. These are two different, but related, things, and they reinforce each-other. I was focusing on the "it violates the current body of science" approach. You do have a fair point about unknowns in general; a good example is the germ model of disease, which is a relatively recent development. However, one of my big beefs with homeopathy is that it doesn't say, "we don't know what the mechanism is" -- which would be OK with me, because "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science! -- and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body. Rather, instead it presents a "scientific-sounding" mechanism that actually flies in the face of what we do know. Even if I were to concede that water could have a "memory" of some kind -- and that would be a terrible and involved battle -- I would be unwilling to concede that that particular explanation could possibly work within our current understanding of biochemistry, because this particular aspect of biochemistry is fairly well understood. And, as DaveChild keeps pointing out, a homeopathic proponent would also have to explain how the "memory" from the water ends up in a sugar pill which contains no water. :-) (I would require some kind of explanation there simply because otherwise it would make no sense as a delivery method.)
- loewenskind 16y ago
  > "it violates the current body of science" argument. Oh I agree, I just put a lot more weight in the "testing" side than the "it violates our current understanding" side because our current understanding is constantly changing. It is more additions and amendments than rewrites, as you mentioned earlier but if there are components out there that we currently can't detect then some of our foundations could be wrong. I was just addressing one part of your post. I had no intention of defending Homeopathy nor anything they say. I was specifically thinking of some extra "dimension" or realm that is effected by what we can currently observe. I can't point to any evidence that such a thing might exist but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility since I have no way of saying it doesn't (nor would I spend much time thinking about or trying prove/disprove it). >However, one of my big beefs with homeopathy is that it doesn't say, "we don't know what the mechanism is" -- which would be OK with me, because "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science! -- and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body. Rather, instead it presents a "scientific-sounding" mechanism that actually flies in the face of what we do know. Agreed. I would only add the amendment: "and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body, nor demonstrate where the current body of science is in error". That is, I don't think they must stay within the current scientific body but they must either show conclusively that the current scientific body is flawed in some way, or simply show something conclusive that seems to contradict that body and leave it to others to work out why. I expect it to happen in my lifetime that some discovery will be made that demonstrates a large body of science is built on foundations that were misunderstood. But I expect this to happen scientifically based on observation/tests, not by a group fantasizing about what they would need to prop up their beliefs and then claiming it to be true. I don't address any more of your post because I think we're in agreement.

thaumaturgy 16y ago

That's a fair criticism. > The reason we know that Homeopathy doesn't work is because it can't be made to work beyond a normal placebo in testing. That's true, but it's a separate point from what was being discussed. As someone else pointed out in this thread, there's the "we tested it and it doesn't work" argument, and there's also the "it violates the current body of science" argument. These are two different, but related, things, and they reinforce each-other. I was focusing on the "it violates the current body of science" approach. You do have a fair point about unknowns in general; a good example is the germ model of disease, which is a relatively recent development. However, one of my big beefs with homeopathy is that it doesn't say, "we don't know what the mechanism is" -- which would be OK with me, because "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science! -- and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body. Rather, instead it presents a "scientific-sounding" mechanism that actually flies in the face of what we do know. Even if I were to concede that water could have a "memory" of some kind -- and that would be a terrible and involved battle -- I would be unwilling to concede that that particular explanation could possibly work within our current understanding of biochemistry, because this particular aspect of biochemistry is fairly well understood. And, as DaveChild keeps pointing out, a homeopathic proponent would also have to explain how the "memory" from the water ends up in a sugar pill which contains no water. :-) (I would require some kind of explanation there simply because otherwise it would make no sense as a delivery method.)

loewenskind 16y ago
> "it violates the current body of science" argument. Oh I agree, I just put a lot more weight in the "testing" side than the "it violates our current understanding" side because our current understanding is constantly changing. It is more additions and amendments than rewrites, as you mentioned earlier but if there are components out there that we currently can't detect then some of our foundations could be wrong. I was just addressing one part of your post. I had no intention of defending Homeopathy nor anything they say. I was specifically thinking of some extra "dimension" or realm that is effected by what we can currently observe. I can't point to any evidence that such a thing might exist but I wouldn't dismiss the possibility since I have no way of saying it doesn't (nor would I spend much time thinking about or trying prove/disprove it). >However, one of my big beefs with homeopathy is that it doesn't say, "we don't know what the mechanism is" -- which would be OK with me, because "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer in science! -- and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body. Rather, instead it presents a "scientific-sounding" mechanism that actually flies in the face of what we do know. Agreed. I would only add the amendment: "and it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism that fits within the current scientific body, nor demonstrate where the current body of science is in error". That is, I don't think they must stay within the current scientific body but they must either show conclusively that the current scientific body is flawed in some way, or simply show something conclusive that seems to contradict that body and leave it to others to work out why. I expect it to happen in my lifetime that some discovery will be made that demonstrates a large body of science is built on foundations that were misunderstood. But I expect this to happen scientifically based on observation/tests, not by a group fantasizing about what they would need to prop up their beliefs and then claiming it to be true. I don't address any more of your post because I think we're in agreement.