h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So to a homeopath cure doesn't mean the same as it does to a medical doctor and energetically doesn't mean the same as it does to a scientist.

Can you please enlighten this engineer as to what a homeopath would mean by those two words.

>>Both of you seem to assume that the world is solely physical.



Of course we do!

All the evidence points towards it. If a non-physical explanation explained anything, science would use it too. But all it does is wrap things up in mystery.

You seem to be saying, Kea, that there is some sort of "energy" that cures people. But you don't mean energy in the physical sense of the word. You're just borrowing a scientific word and making it mean something else. Why not call it "magic" instead. It has all the attributes of magic - it can't be measured, it doesn't consist of atoms or physical forces, and here's the big one, it doesn't actually do anything or cure anyone, if the studies of homeopathy are correct.

To be honest, the problem is not one of belief systems, it's one of not understanding the mumbo-jumbo. It works "energetically", it changes its "physical nature". What in heaven's name is that supposed to mean?

Science is *not* a belief system! Why science has been so successful is because it has, in the course of many many dead-ends, found very simple, physical explanations for every day phenomena. Before the organic nature of biological organisms was understood, similar pseudo-scientific answers about "life-forces" were given to explain it.

Well, to be fair, the meta-studies of the homeopathy studies have found one thing which does seem to have an almost parallel in known science.

The meta studies seem to show that more the rigourous the study of homeopathy, the less efficacous it appears to be.

Which seems strangely reminscent of "The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant", so perhaps what we have here is some sort of Heisenburg Healing principle.

Sorry, I should not have laughed.



I'll withdraw from this discussion.

and lest my last post be misread, it was just an attempt to inject a little light humour.

But in answer to the original question, that of whether homeopathy has any basis *in science* (my emphasis) then the answer appears to be 'no, not yet anyway', and it the studies that there are would indicate that, given the current understanding in science of how the world works, it isn't going to.

OK, looks like this is turing in to a Forum debate rather than a SEx one

I have to go to bed. There are alot of good points to reply to here. I'm not sure if I will be able to, not least because the point I made earlier about speaking two languages has largely been missed. Given that I'm possibly the only one here so far who speaks both languages I feel I'm open to being ridiculed and I'm not really up for that (please take note Gnomon).


>>So to a homeopath cure doesn't mean the same as it does to a medical doctor and energetically doesn't mean the same as it does to a scientist.
Can you please enlighten this engineer as to what a homeopath would mean by those two words.<<

Phil, I'd be very interested to have a go at discussing this to see if there is any way to bridge the gap in understanding. That's what I would hope for in a discussion in this forum. I guess I need to know how open you are, or if like Gnomon you have already made your mind up.

It'd be useful to know if there are others interested in an open and respectful discussion about this as well.

Also, if we are to have that discussion I'd rather do it intially about herbal medicine because I am more familiar with that (and there are more people on h2g2 I could call on to help explain things). I'd probably start a separate thread.



>>Science is *not* a belief system! <<

There is a hell of a lot of misinterpretation of what I am saying on this thread

I didn't say science is a belief system. I said that some people's belief systems stopped them from seeing beyond what they think they know is true. Personally I think science is an exceptionally useful tool for undertanding the world. I just don't think it's the only one. That's a belief in the same way that someone who thinks science is the only way to understand the world is a belief.

Post 13
"Also the term 'cure' means different things in medical science than alternative medicine."

Post 19
"If we are going to have a discussion here about what 'energetically' means in a homeopathic context please don't make assumptions that it means the same thing as in science or popular culture."

What do they mean is all I'm asking. I'm not asking you to ask me what I think they mean.

kea!, I can understand where you are coming from, but bear in mind this *is* the science explain forum, and the question was if homeopathy has any basis in science, which it would appear not to.

I would suggest that explanations of homeopathy by other systems would, perhaps, reside outside of SEx, since they aren't science.

Also, you seem to be taking the comments in here as pertaining to all CAM, and I don;t think that is the case (although I wouldn't want to speak for everyone).

<>

I think you are right Kea. It's a very interesting discussion but maybe best residing in the Forum. Anyone volunteering to move it? What would be the best way...?

And I bet there are people in the Forum who would love to add to the convo.



SEx has been very busy recently it seems. It's taken me ages to catch up over the weekend.
Alex.

Thanks Ictoan.

I take your point about non science explanations. I was thinking more about discussing the meeting points between science and other ways of understanding, but that may not be appropriate here either.

However my points about science using the wrong tools are still valid and only science can address that.

>>l
Post 13
"Also the term 'cure' means different things in medical science than alternative medicine."
Post 19
"If we are going to have a discussion here about what 'energetically' means in a homeopathic context please don't make assumptions that it means the same thing as in science or popular culture."
What do they mean is all I'm asking. I'm not asking you to ask me what I think they mean.<<

Phil if you want to understand what those things mean you have to learn the language and the cultural concepts explanable with the language. This doesn't mean you have to accept or agree with the terms, but understanding the language is a prerequisite to understanding the phenomena.

'cure' I could explain fairly easily. 'energy' would be much more involved and not something I'd attempt with the kind of attitude that people like Gnomon have shown (making value judgement about concepts before they are properly understood).

Alex, might be better to let the thread die. Or wait until an expert (ie. a scientist who actually understands what homeopathy is) can answer the original question.

Personally if I was going to adress some of the issues raised here I'd want more openness and that's unlikely to happen on the Forum either.

Actually, I think the thread is done.
The question, as stated, has been answered.

A debate as to whether science should even attempt to interface with concepts and beliefs which are distinctly non-scientific might be an interesting (albeit quite probably short!) one.
A discussion of the validity of kea!'s stated viewpoint on the subject might be encompassed therein.

I think, kea!, that you have perhaps an unrealistic expectation of what could be acheived here.

If you popped up on in a spiritual conversation and stated as fact that spirits and psychic energy don't exist, you could expect some opposition to your views. If you then complained that the people were overly gullible and simplistic, you'd likely get a lot more.

Equally, you have come into a science forum and said that the explanation is that it works by some sort of strange energy that science can't explain or study. This was bound to get the sort of responses it did. In fact, it is a credit to the posters here, that this didn't descend into a round of out and out ridicule and flaming.

You can't convince a religious person of something they don't want to belive by empirical evidence.

Equally, you can;t convince a scientist of something you want them to believe without it.

Kea, how can you on one hand praise science as method, and on the other say "But don't apply it here!" (e.g. to homeopathy, herbal medicine, etc.)

There are 2 halves to science - theory & experiment. Theory is the explanation of how. Just because that fails or gets corrected doesn't change the fact that the experiment works and has been confirmed. So, just because we don't understand how psychotic medicine, anasthesia work, doesn't mean that they don't stand up to repeated scientific trials.

Just because we debate the how of evolution doesn't mean we're debating whether evolution happens. Same thing.

The thread continues in the Forum guys.


Alex.

you mean here http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F135418?thread=674936 ?

yup

A humourous coda:

Homeopathy (or homoeopathy, as the containers in my pharmacy are labelled (double , one at the spelling error and one at the fact that these witches' potions are on sale in a pharmacists)) works on the basis that the less you take of a medicine, the more effective it is supposed to be. Hence, the following joke:

Did you hear the one about the homeopath who forgot to take his pills and died of an overdose?

SoRB