Posted: Jun 12, 2010 8:15 pm
by Dudely
Shrunk wrote:
Dudely wrote: Homeopathy is said to have an effect. If it indeed has an effect then that means it has a cause. If it has a cause this can be found through study. No "external/objective and internal/subjective categories" bullshit. Just hard-up causes and effects. THAT is science, and that is why people have such a problem with stuff like homeopathy- it's a medicine with NO study of its causes (because none can be found) and very little testing.

I don't know if I 100% agree with this. I don't think it's necessary to know the mechanism by which a treatment works in order to know that it works. The therapeutic mechanism by which many of the treatments I use work are not completely known, and many of them were discovered serendipitously, rather than based on clear basic scientific principles. But that they work is clearly demonstrated by empirical trials, and that's all that really counts.

Very true, good point.

Shrunk wrote:
I also disagree with the statement that homeopathy has been subjected to "very little testing." It has been tested quite sufficiently to determine that it doesn't work, and any more investigation will only be a waste of time and resources.

I meant that the rules for testing a homeopathic medication before it is released to the public is very lax compared to normal medications, not that it has been poorly studied in general.