Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>>> I'd like to see someone *skeptical* replicate the experiment before I 
>>> say there's something there.
>>
>> oh!  Placebo!  Somehow, the article seems to give the impression that 
>> the researcher was sceptical of homeopathy...
> 
> What part of "replicate" did you miss in my sentence? :-)

Oh, I see.  You want further proof from another skeptical.  Maybe you 
only find many proofs from *supporters* because the scientific 
stabilishment don't generally enjoy researching into phenomena it can't 
explain and end-up with the same Scully-like conclusions as the 
skeptical researcher in the article?

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> I went looking about that one, and found dozens of replications of the
> experiment that showed no effect, *except* for when it was done at the
> Institute for Homeopathy, where suddenly the effect was found again.
> 
> Somehow, I'm not convinced. :-)
> 
> I'd like to see someone *skeptical* replicate the experiment before I
> say there's something there.

	I was about to ask if someone had replicated it...

-- 
Lisa: Oedipus killed his father and married his mother.
Homer: Who payed for THAT wedding?


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Oh, I see.  You want further proof from another skeptical.

Yes. That's called "repeatability," a fundamental property of scientific 
theories.

> Maybe you 
> only find many proofs from *supporters* because the scientific 
> stabilishment don't generally enjoy researching into phenomena it can't 
> explain and end-up with the same Scully-like conclusions as the 
> skeptical researcher in the article?

No, actually, I found 14 different laboratories that tried and failed to 
repeat the experiment, and one that repeated it twice, that one being the 
homeopathy institute. And it was the same scientist repeating it both times, 
let alone the same institute.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Oh, I see.  You want further proof from another skeptical.
> 
> Yes. That's called "repeatability," a fundamental property of scientific 
> theories.
> 
>> Maybe you only find many proofs from *supporters* because the 
>> scientific stabilishment don't generally enjoy researching into 
>> phenomena it can't explain and end-up with the same Scully-like 
>> conclusions as the skeptical researcher in the article?
> 
> No, actually, I found 14 different laboratories that tried and failed to 
> repeat the experiment, and one that repeated it twice, that one being 
> the homeopathy institute. And it was the same scientist repeating it 
> both times, let alone the same institute.

And yet the Newscientist article fails to mention this basic Google 
search at all.  Suspicious... Newscientist or NewAgeScientist? :P

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> No, actually, I found 14 different laboratories that tried and failed to 
> repeat the experiment, and one that repeated it twice, that one being the 
> homeopathy institute. And it was the same scientist repeating it both 
> times, let alone the same institute.

So the common element is the scientist performing the experiment...

Clearly, they have some supernatural mutant power-ability of which they 
aren't aware which is subconsciously affecting the results, thereby 
furthering the diabolical plot of the trans-global conspiracy to manipulate 
the economy and dissolve the fundamental cornerstones of society.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I'd like to see someone *skeptical* replicate the experiment before I 
>>> say there's something there.
>>
>> That's the problem...the whole premise is that it works because you 
>> believe it does. 
> 
> I take it you didn't actually read the article?
> 
The truly sad thing then is that "placebo" works, sometimes, even when 
the person its given to is sure it won't, as long as certain 
psychological factors, including the attitude of the person giving it, 
imply otherwise. So.. They are saying what that homeopathy works so 
poorly it doesn't even work as well as other placebo effects? lol

But seriously, the funniest thing about the whole idea is that water 
will "remember" the beneficial effects they want, apparently, but not 
all the times its been poisoned, drank, dropped out in feces, or pissed 
out of the body, all the way back to before even the mesozoic period... 
I mean, if you drained a fracking nuclear reactor and then filtered out 
the radiation, according to "their" theory it would still have the 
"effect" of being radioactive. And, they would probably even agree. But 
if you took the same water, after it ran through a uranium mine, 
presuming you waiting for any radiation to leave it first, and added it 
to "homeopathy", it somehow remembers being a cancer cure, but not a 
cancer causer... Its idiotic.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> And yet the Newscientist article fails to mention this basic Google 
> search at all.  Suspicious... Newscientist or NewAgeScientist? :P

It wasn't a basic google search for me. It was someone else referring to the 
same list, pointing to the *actual* paper about it, and then hitting the 
citation cross-reference indexes to see what other scientists said about it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> And yet the Newscientist article fails to mention this basic Google 
>> search at all.  Suspicious... Newscientist or NewAgeScientist? :P
> 
> It wasn't a basic google search for me. It was someone else referring to 
> the same list, pointing to the *actual* paper about it, and then hitting 
> the citation cross-reference indexes to see what other scientists said 
> about it.

In any case, not quite what one would expect from a respectable science 
magazine...

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> But seriously, the funniest thing about the whole idea is that water 
> will "remember" the beneficial effects they want, apparently, but not 
> all the times its been poisoned, drank, dropped out in feces, or pissed 
> out of the body, all the way back to before even the mesozoic period... 

  Hey, but the homeopathic theory goes that when you put something harmful
in the water and then dillute it, the effect becomes the opposite. Thus if
the water has been poisoned at some point, and then dilluted, then it
becomes a vaccine against poison.

  (I suppose "dilluting makes the effect reverse" makes some kind of
sense... if you have the IQ of a 2-year-old, that is. I suppose the logic
might go something like: When you take the harmful element away by
dilluting, likewise the harmful *effect* goes away, and it takes away
the harmful effect in anything that it touches.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

  Btw, there's a very common misconception about the Theory of Relativity,
even among people who should know better.

  The ToR does *not* prohibit the distance between two points growing
faster than c. On the contrary, it actually *predicts* (as a consequence
of the GR equations) that it's possible.

  What it does prohibit is anything *travelling* from one point to another
faster than c, which is a subtly (but drastically) different thing.

  Thus eg. the cosmic inflation theory is not inherently against the ToR.
The equations allow it to happen.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message