dear Golden Applesauce,
i think the true homeopathick answer to that observation would be to say that it is an incorrect 'observation' not even worthy of the name: it is, rather, an expression of superficial prejudice based in a profoundly shallow misunderstanding of the principles and practices of homeopathy - in short, a manifestation of intellectual sloth
*
dear Cain,
the point firstly, is in the quality of the refusal to be swayed
people refusing to be swayed on 'Rapture Ready Forums' (not a locale i frequent) are boring, repetitive and ultimately quite depressing
i promise to refuse to be swayed in an entertaining fashion
secondly, the unexpected does happen - i could be swayed by something i am at present unable to imagine
thirdly, if you enter the discussion with the sole purpose of swaying me and winning - what is the point then?
i am offering to present and explain my perspective, preferably aided by intelligent and well-meaning criticism
*
dear Prince Glittersnatch III,
if i had wanted to argue with entire websites or articles on various science websites, i'd probably go there and do so in their face
so, in general, i will not argue with websites or long articles thrust in my face without provocation
also, my take on science could be summarised as follows:
"i'm all for the gadgetry, the religious aspect - less so"
and my take on Science(tm) - that is to say the majority view of what science is and what it does and how it does it amongst the largely hopelessly undereducated and intellectually lazy ideologues of science who crowd sorry places around the internet such as for instance the secular café(tm) - is that it is deeply harmful set of ideas that perpetrates well purely for superorganic/social evolutionary reasons, and whose pervasive, terrible effect in warping our society to the rather inhumane and unfortunate monstrosity it has become is yet to be mapped out in its full implications
having said that, i make an exception at this point and say something about the site you offered
the language is extremely vague ("the scientific evidence suggests that homeopathy is placebo effect, blah blah blah, no evidence offered"), so i clicked through to the actual report here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdfpages 5 to 28 appear relevant from the table of contents
on page 5, two paragraphs purport to answer the question "What is homeopathy?"
they are laughable in the extreme - totally simplistic, missing the point entirely
they are a bit like a description of surgery as follows: "if a part of you is sick, them cut it off"
then, on page 7, we get this:
"Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the best way of determining whether a causeeffect relationship exists between a treatment and an outcome"
what is sorely missing here is: provided the constellation of definition of health and illness, diagnostic method and therapeutic actions is suitable for that sort of test
homeopathy isn't, because it is holistic medicine, even if it is practised by a whole bunch of quacks who don't really understand the deep, metaphysical tension between homeopathy and allopathy (many of them are in fact practising doctors, in most EU countries you need to be an MD to do homeopathy)
*
dear Beardman Meow
will you just hold them mutts for a goddamn minute??
*
any questions?
