Or two… hehe.
I have a problem with homeopathy: I just can’t figure out whether it would be more accurate to describe homeopathy as the “astrology of medicine” or maybe the “palm (or tea leaf) reading of medicine”? Hmmm. Nope, can’t decide.
In any event, I just read an excellent article by Harriet Hall, MD, writing in the eSkeptic newsletter for Wednesday, January 14th, 2009, Homeopath — Still Crazy After All These Years:
HOMEOPATHY IS ONE OF THE LONGEST RUNNING FORMS OF PSEUDOSCIENCE IN THE MODERN WORLD. Oliver Wendell Holmes recognized that it was nonsense back in 1842 when he wrote “Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions.” We long ago gave up the nonsense of trying to balance the four humors by bloodletting and purging, but the homeopathy Energizer Bunny is still marching on. What makes it so indestructible?
One reason is a lack of understanding about what homeopathy really is, even among health care providers. I recently heard about a nurse who thought “homeopathic” just referred to any mild natural herbal remedy. In case any readers are similarly confused, here’s a brief overview. Homeopathy was invented by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 1700s. It is based on the now-outdated principle that “like cures like,” and the lower the dose the better in homeopathy. If coffee keeps you awake, highly diluted coffee will put you to sleep. The more dilute the coffee, the better you will sleep.
Any one else see a problem here? Yeah, it’s not exactly subtle, is it? But it gets worse and worse. Read the article.
7 Comments
homoeopathy couldn't have survived this long if it is a humbug or a pseudoscience. homoeopathy is far more superior science which does justice to the people and yet faces so much criticism.
I'm afraid that "_____ couldn't have survived this long if it wasn't real" isn't a very compelling argument, is it? Couldn't the same argument be made about a lot of things? Astrology, Tarot cards, "psychic" surgery, and prayer, have all "survived this long"…
Don't get me wrong, homeopathy may work wonderfully for you, and if so, then great–really. But don't call it science. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see that diluting a single drop of "sweat of frog scrotum" in a swimming pool and then drinking a cup of the resulting "solution" isn't really what's curing your cough… it's your belief that the "solution" will cure your cough. (And yes, I'm exaggerating to make a point, but you must admit, homeopathy is much more like a children's movie depiction of a witch making a "potion" than modern medicine, no?)
Me? I'll stick to what can be verified with double-blind testing.
Get your self educated about Homoeopathy and then you might be able to have a discussion on the topic.
Ok. Go ahead then, Torrunn, school me up, and give me the real inside information, too. Because everything I've read about homoeopathy–from proponent and skeptic alike–makes it sound fucking insane.
How does it work again? The shaking transfers some sort of energy to the molecules that get so diluted (to varying degrees) that there's nary a chance of the original substance actually being present?
Placebos "cure" people too…
May be a real scientist, when he does not know how something work, should try and find out? "It can't work and therefore it does not work" sounds somewhat medieval. Burned anybody recently?
Well, Olga, if you'll open your eyes, you'll see that countless "real" scientists have studied homeopathy. Hell, even if you take the position that the MD who wrote the article I linked above isn't a "real scientist", you can easily find a plethora of information from "real" scientists the vast majority of which closely parallels the article above. Unless, of course, you prefer to practice willful ignorance, or expect your listener to take it on faith–neither of which has anything to do with "real" science.
And just who are you quoting? I never said anything remotely approaching your quoted text. No, my position is one of provisional skepticism. As we all well know, the burden of proof rests with the person asserting the claim. My position is simply that you and the other proponents of homeopathy have not been able–in the last 200+ years–to overcome that burden. If ever you manage to overcome that burden, I for one will change my position as dictated by the evidence.
And why would you think that the foregoing was "somewhat medieval"? If anything, my position, which is rooted in the scientific method, skepticism, and the fundamentals of philosophical logic, would have to be regarded as the enlightened position. Perhaps it's easier for you to call me names than to cite compelling sources? That's fine, but who is truly being "medieval" in their thinking?
Lastly, no. I have not burned anybody recently, have you? I mean, burning people has always been a practice of those who have "belief without evidence" and not those who have "evidence without belief".
Olga, you strike me as a "true believer". As I stated above, all it will take is compelling evidence to change my mind. What would it take to change yours?
Read the following book, I suggest the modern version of ORGANON of the Medical art by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, edited and annotated by W. B. Oreilly phd. I think you will find it very interesting.
Forget about dilution and shaking of bottles. What does Homoeopathy mean? You can test it yourself next time you burn yourself superficially, but enough for it to hurt for a while. Instead of putting the finger in cold water, put it under hot water enough for it to get the SIMILAR sting as from the burn. How quickly are you recovered with either of these methods. Opposite or Similar? Cold water or hot water?