4 ms·

Homeopathy is dismissed because the fundamental idea it claims, that like cures like after it is diluted to an undetectable amount to the point where there migh

by neaden 4y ago

Homeopathy is dismissed because the fundamental idea it claims, that like cures like after it is diluted to an undetectable amount to the point where there might not be a single molecule of it in the dose, is reliant on claims about physics, chemistry, and biology that quite simply have no credibility in our modern understanding of how the world works.

lolinder 4y ago
I'm very skeptical of homeopathy, and what you list here is a big part of why, but I will point out that it is not a scientific approach to rejecting homeopathy. If homeopathy truly has no effect, medical trials should show that. If medical trials show an effect, then it is possible that our model is wrong.
- neaden 4y ago
  I disagree. If there is no physical plausibility for a claim it does not need experimental evidence to be dismissed. Homeopathy is essentially a claim of magic, if I claim I can cast spells on people on another continent to give them diseases you don't need to conduct a clinical trial, you can just say that I'm a fraud.
  - manytree 4y ago
    The issue with this argument is that it’s trying to assert that “science says” something isn’t true (generally one of the most valuable things laypeople derive from science, but not the spirit of reasoning that is responsible for its original determinations) rather than observing the actual phenomena and creating falsifiable hypotheses which may be tested. As a thought experiment, this line of reasoning appears akin to past epochs of scientific understanding that were not enriched with more nuanced understandings developed by looking carefully into the threshholds of prior understanding. I.e. “it’s absurd to say that a particle can be both a wave and a particle, since science says nothing about this” or for that matter suggestig that light may be be quantized at all. I actually think the “placebo effect” is actually quite fascinating and worthy of deeper understanding, yet in conversations like this the phrase appears as a dismissal like “just the placebo effect”. Which is rather a lot like saying “just this small corner of our medical understanding which, due to its apparently small scope, can have no significant impact on our broader theory but rather will be reduced to 0 at some point”. Which of course was the same response to black body radiation at the onset of early development in the theory of quantum mechanics. The placebo effect is of course a grouping of unknown mechanisms of healing, and at the very least is the very standard against which new pharmaceuticals are tested (and which is often only barely exceeded by trials of medecine that go to market).
    - manytree 4y ago
      Pethaps a more relevant example is the assertion that it’s absurd to believe non-ionizing radiation at the levels produced by cellphones could be harmful. Dismissed by the same line of reasoning, but now an assertion increasingly being taken as a serious matter worthy of research in Europe.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    It's certainly not on us skeptics to run trials if we don't believe in homeopathy. But if what OP says were true--if experimental evidence shows an effect--rejecting that evidence on the grounds that it doesn't fit our existing model is unscientific. I'm not saying there is such evidence, just that "it doesn't fit the model" wouldn't be grounds for rejecting it if it exists.
- richbell 4y ago
  The burden of proof is on people claiming homeopathic medicine is beneficial. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. See also: https://youtu.be/L1ZbJRAyexM https://youtu.be/L1ZbJRAyexM
canadiantim 4y ago
Not understanding the mechanism of action for a specific observed effect is no reason to dismiss it. I would actually argue that's a very unscientific mindset that would hold the progression of science back. If there is indeed an observable effect beyond placebo, as suggested by the peer-reviewed literature (according to various meta-analyses), then it is quite possible that there is indeed a gap in our understanding. To assume this is not possible is hubris of the worst kind, bordering on ignorance.
- civilized 4y ago
  > Not understanding the mechanism of action for a specific observed effect is no reason to dismiss it It's not just that we "don't understand" the mechanism of action, it's that there's no remotely plausible way for it to work in our existing model of the physical world. > If there is indeed an observable effect beyond placebo, as suggested by the peer-reviewed literature (according to various meta-analyses) "As suggested by the peer-reviewed literature" is a deep and frankly disingenuous mischaracterization. Studies and meta-analyses are divided on the topic, as you must surely know. And, as another commenter noted, there are 6 Cochrane reviews which all find homeopathy to have no effect beyond placebo. Cochrane reviews are generally regarded as the gold standard of medical evidence. Disregarding anything that doesn't confirm your favored hypothesis isn't science. It's confirmation bias, one of the oldest and most common failure modes in human cognition.
  - canadiantim 4y ago
    > It's not just that we "don't understand" the mechanism of action, it's that there's no remotely plausible way for it to work in our existing model of the physical world. That's the same thing. FYI the posited mechanism of action is that water is able to form substructures just with H2O molecules themselves and it's these water structures that theoretically produce the effect. Obviously this isn't verified and just is speculation but atleast it's a "remotely plausible" way for it to work in our existing model of the physical world, even if we don't understand all the mechanisms underpinning it. > "As suggested by the peer-reviewed literature" is a deep and frankly disingenuous mischaracterization. Fair, but that's why I qualified with "the peer-reviewed literature (according to various meta-analyses)" so you know that I'm not referring to peer-reviewed literature as a monolothic beast that achieves consensus but instead am referring to the various meta-analyses. So I agree that studies and meta-analyses are divided on the topic, for sure. There are studies that show positive effects and studies that show no positive effect. The fact that there are any studies showing a positive effect though should be of interest. If the results are not due to error or bias, then the positive effect of homeopathy needs to be followed up on and deserves more funding to get to the bottom of. Unfortunately a lot of science is political and homeopathy doesn't have a lot of political clout. > Disregarding anything that doesn't confirm your favored hypothesis isn't science. Couldn't agree more, but you should consider that you're guilty of doing exactly this when you disregard any studies that show a positive effect for homeopathy beyond placebo. It is, as you say, one of the oldest and most common failure modes in human cognition, but moreso is often easy to see in others much harder to see in yourself.

by neaden 4y ago

lolinder 4y ago

I'm very skeptical of homeopathy, and what you list here is a big part of why, but I will point out that it is not a scientific approach to rejecting homeopathy. If homeopathy truly has no effect, medical trials should show that. If medical trials show an effect, then it is possible that our model is wrong.

neaden 4y ago
I disagree. If there is no physical plausibility for a claim it does not need experimental evidence to be dismissed. Homeopathy is essentially a claim of magic, if I claim I can cast spells on people on another continent to give them diseases you don't need to conduct a clinical trial, you can just say that I'm a fraud.
- manytree 4y ago
  The issue with this argument is that it’s trying to assert that “science says” something isn’t true (generally one of the most valuable things laypeople derive from science, but not the spirit of reasoning that is responsible for its original determinations) rather than observing the actual phenomena and creating falsifiable hypotheses which may be tested. As a thought experiment, this line of reasoning appears akin to past epochs of scientific understanding that were not enriched with more nuanced understandings developed by looking carefully into the threshholds of prior understanding. I.e. “it’s absurd to say that a particle can be both a wave and a particle, since science says nothing about this” or for that matter suggestig that light may be be quantized at all. I actually think the “placebo effect” is actually quite fascinating and worthy of deeper understanding, yet in conversations like this the phrase appears as a dismissal like “just the placebo effect”. Which is rather a lot like saying “just this small corner of our medical understanding which, due to its apparently small scope, can have no significant impact on our broader theory but rather will be reduced to 0 at some point”. Which of course was the same response to black body radiation at the onset of early development in the theory of quantum mechanics. The placebo effect is of course a grouping of unknown mechanisms of healing, and at the very least is the very standard against which new pharmaceuticals are tested (and which is often only barely exceeded by trials of medecine that go to market).
  - manytree 4y ago
    Pethaps a more relevant example is the assertion that it’s absurd to believe non-ionizing radiation at the levels produced by cellphones could be harmful. Dismissed by the same line of reasoning, but now an assertion increasingly being taken as a serious matter worthy of research in Europe.
- lolinder 4y ago
  It's certainly not on us skeptics to run trials if we don't believe in homeopathy. But if what OP says were true--if experimental evidence shows an effect--rejecting that evidence on the grounds that it doesn't fit our existing model is unscientific. I'm not saying there is such evidence, just that "it doesn't fit the model" wouldn't be grounds for rejecting it if it exists.
richbell 4y ago
The burden of proof is on people claiming homeopathic medicine is beneficial. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. See also: https://youtu.be/L1ZbJRAyexM https://youtu.be/L1ZbJRAyexM

canadiantim 4y ago

Not understanding the mechanism of action for a specific observed effect is no reason to dismiss it. I would actually argue that's a very unscientific mindset that would hold the progression of science back. If there is indeed an observable effect beyond placebo, as suggested by the peer-reviewed literature (according to various meta-analyses), then it is quite possible that there is indeed a gap in our understanding. To assume this is not possible is hubris of the worst kind, bordering on ignorance.

civilized 4y ago
> Not understanding the mechanism of action for a specific observed effect is no reason to dismiss it It's not just that we "don't understand" the mechanism of action, it's that there's no remotely plausible way for it to work in our existing model of the physical world. > If there is indeed an observable effect beyond placebo, as suggested by the peer-reviewed literature (according to various meta-analyses) "As suggested by the peer-reviewed literature" is a deep and frankly disingenuous mischaracterization. Studies and meta-analyses are divided on the topic, as you must surely know. And, as another commenter noted, there are 6 Cochrane reviews which all find homeopathy to have no effect beyond placebo. Cochrane reviews are generally regarded as the gold standard of medical evidence. Disregarding anything that doesn't confirm your favored hypothesis isn't science. It's confirmation bias, one of the oldest and most common failure modes in human cognition.
- canadiantim 4y ago
  > It's not just that we "don't understand" the mechanism of action, it's that there's no remotely plausible way for it to work in our existing model of the physical world. That's the same thing. FYI the posited mechanism of action is that water is able to form substructures just with H2O molecules themselves and it's these water structures that theoretically produce the effect. Obviously this isn't verified and just is speculation but atleast it's a "remotely plausible" way for it to work in our existing model of the physical world, even if we don't understand all the mechanisms underpinning it. > "As suggested by the peer-reviewed literature" is a deep and frankly disingenuous mischaracterization. Fair, but that's why I qualified with "the peer-reviewed literature (according to various meta-analyses)" so you know that I'm not referring to peer-reviewed literature as a monolothic beast that achieves consensus but instead am referring to the various meta-analyses. So I agree that studies and meta-analyses are divided on the topic, for sure. There are studies that show positive effects and studies that show no positive effect. The fact that there are any studies showing a positive effect though should be of interest. If the results are not due to error or bias, then the positive effect of homeopathy needs to be followed up on and deserves more funding to get to the bottom of. Unfortunately a lot of science is political and homeopathy doesn't have a lot of political clout. > Disregarding anything that doesn't confirm your favored hypothesis isn't science. Couldn't agree more, but you should consider that you're guilty of doing exactly this when you disregard any studies that show a positive effect for homeopathy beyond placebo. It is, as you say, one of the oldest and most common failure modes in human cognition, but moreso is often easy to see in others much harder to see in yourself.