4 ms·

maybe, but I think you are assuming that we can, scientifically or otherwise, distinguish (categorize) everything that is real. I'm inclined to believe that thi

by denom 13y ago

maybe, but I think you are assuming that we can, scientifically or otherwise, distinguish (categorize) everything that is real. I'm inclined to believe that this is not possible. In that case indistinguishability becomes equivalent to saying nothing at all in scientific terms. The arguments in these kinds of articles have no choice but to become very tedious, mainly focusing on how people are getting ripped off, they cannot determine why homeopathic cures operate the same way as placebos--or not, which is the crux of the homeopathic argument.

letstryagain 13y ago
> I'm inclined to believe that this is not possible. That's the most ignorant thing I've read all day.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- denom 13y ago
  Wow, I didn't realize that I would get downvoted here. Let's see if I can explain myself. Consider a few examples of things that science cannot distinguish: * The speed and position of an electron cloud ensemble. * The moment a radioactive particle will decay Anyways, my point was that homeopathy stories like the one we are talking about revolve around this formula: 1) peer reviewed studies show that homeopathy works as a placebo 2) ordinary people don't understand science 3) people are getting ripped off! For me the interesting stuff is in #1. The debate over homeopathy is epistemological, over how we can know things. I have not seen any scientific research on how homeopathic works, or does not work, in the same way as a placebo. Anything less than this and the "rational" argument becomes "just don't take it because it's a placebo". Which is not a reason to cease taking homeopathic products, because doctors _prescribe_ placebos, and I have never seen an article like this that attacks doctors who prescribe placebos. http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20081023/50percent-of-doctors-give-fake-prescriptions http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20081023/50percent...
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    A doctor believing he has no legitimate treatment for a specific condition choosing to lead the patient to believe they are being treated is easy to distinguish from a fraud marketing magic water. The doctor is unlikely to choose the placebo over a legitimate treatment. The fraud doesn't care if there is a legitimate treatment.
  - isleyaardvark 13y ago
    #1 isn't interesting because placebos don't work. By definition. "[A] simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment, per Wikipedia. If a trial of a medicine works as well as a placebo, that means it does not work.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      Placebos do "work", after a fashion, which is part of why they are used as a control rather than nothing being given to the control group (helping to assure blinding of participants, both subjects and experimenters, is also a factor.) In fact, different mechanisms of placebo delivery "work" to different degrees (in many cases, injection-based placebos "work" better than ingestion-based.)
      - isleyaardvark 13y ago
        That's the placebo effect, not the placebo itself. This is as simple as I can explain it. 1) People test a new medicine. 2) That medicine does no better than placebo. 3) That medicine does not work and the makers go back to the drawing board. They don't sit around and wonder why that medicine "works", because it doesn't. Nor do they sell it as medicine, or claim it is effective, because it isn't. Homeopathy is no more interesting than every single failed medicine plus every single non-medical substance a person can put in their mouth.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Right. I perhaps wasn't sufficiently clear that I wasn't disagreeing with you in substance.

by denom 13y ago

letstryagain 13y ago

> I'm inclined to believe that this is not possible. That's the most ignorant thing I've read all day.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
denom 13y ago
Wow, I didn't realize that I would get downvoted here. Let's see if I can explain myself. Consider a few examples of things that science cannot distinguish: * The speed and position of an electron cloud ensemble. * The moment a radioactive particle will decay Anyways, my point was that homeopathy stories like the one we are talking about revolve around this formula: 1) peer reviewed studies show that homeopathy works as a placebo 2) ordinary people don't understand science 3) people are getting ripped off! For me the interesting stuff is in #1. The debate over homeopathy is epistemological, over how we can know things. I have not seen any scientific research on how homeopathic works, or does not work, in the same way as a placebo. Anything less than this and the "rational" argument becomes "just don't take it because it's a placebo". Which is not a reason to cease taking homeopathic products, because doctors _prescribe_ placebos, and I have never seen an article like this that attacks doctors who prescribe placebos. http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20081023/50percent-of-doctors-give-fake-prescriptions http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/news/20081023/50percent...
- maxerickson 13y ago
  A doctor believing he has no legitimate treatment for a specific condition choosing to lead the patient to believe they are being treated is easy to distinguish from a fraud marketing magic water. The doctor is unlikely to choose the placebo over a legitimate treatment. The fraud doesn't care if there is a legitimate treatment.
- isleyaardvark 13y ago
  #1 isn't interesting because placebos don't work. By definition. "[A] simulated or otherwise medically ineffectual treatment, per Wikipedia. If a trial of a medicine works as well as a placebo, that means it does not work.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Placebos do "work", after a fashion, which is part of why they are used as a control rather than nothing being given to the control group (helping to assure blinding of participants, both subjects and experimenters, is also a factor.) In fact, different mechanisms of placebo delivery "work" to different degrees (in many cases, injection-based placebos "work" better than ingestion-based.)
    - isleyaardvark 13y ago
      That's the placebo effect, not the placebo itself. This is as simple as I can explain it. 1) People test a new medicine. 2) That medicine does no better than placebo. 3) That medicine does not work and the makers go back to the drawing board. They don't sit around and wonder why that medicine "works", because it doesn't. Nor do they sell it as medicine, or claim it is effective, because it isn't. Homeopathy is no more interesting than every single failed medicine plus every single non-medical substance a person can put in their mouth.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        Right. I perhaps wasn't sufficiently clear that I wasn't disagreeing with you in substance.