>  Suppose you have 30 containers with 0.9 liters of water in each (totaling
> 27 liters). Put 0.1 liters into the first container, then take 0.1 liters
> from this solution, put it in the second container, then take 0.1 liters 
> of
> this solution, put it in the third container, and so on.

Where do you get 27 liters of water from that doesn't have a single molecule 
in it of the thing you are trying to dilute?

Better hope nobody has already tried it and thrown away the 10% solution 
into the sea :-)

Post a reply to this message

>  Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological 
> phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?

In most cases I suspect it is because the person just can't been bothered to 
research it, they have more important things in their life to worry about 
than whether some cool-sounding fad medicine is scientifically proven to 
work or not.  Hey they might not even realise there is such a thing as a 
scientific test.

I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and explained 
the science and the study results, they would believe you.

Post a reply to this message

"scott" <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and explained
> the science and the study results, they would believe you.

I doubt it. If you could reason with people believing in such things, they
wouldn't believe in them in the first place.

Post a reply to this message

>> I suspect if you confronted most people who bought this stuff and 
>> explained
>> the science and the study results, they would believe you.
>
> I doubt it. If you could reason with people believing in such things, they
> wouldn't believe in them in the first place.

The thing is they just don't care about the science, they buy it because it 
seems cool, and don't even give a second thought to how it has been tested 
or what "30C" actually means.  Most people are reasonable once you explain 
things to them (of course there are exceptions, the "die hard" believers).

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological 
> > phenomenon
> > behind this kind of thinking?

> In most cases I suspect it is because the person just can't been bothered to 
> research it, they have more important things in their life to worry about 
> than whether some cool-sounding fad medicine is scientifically proven to 
> work or not.  Hey they might not even realise there is such a thing as a 
> scientific test.

  I specifically talked about people who keep believing in it even *after*
they have been told about the better tests. In other words, they refuse to
believe in the accuracy of the scientifical tests.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >  Suppose you have 30 containers with 0.9 liters of water in each (totaling
> > 27 liters). Put 0.1 liters into the first container, then take 0.1 liters
> > from this solution, put it in the second container, then take 0.1 liters 
> > of
> > this solution, put it in the third container, and so on.

> Where do you get 27 liters of water from that doesn't have a single molecule 
> in it of the thing you are trying to dilute?

> Better hope nobody has already tried it and thrown away the 10% solution 
> into the sea :-)

  I'm sure homeopaths will argue something like the solution specifically
needing to be performed by "succussion" or else there will be no effect.
(Don't bother asking for the physical or chemical explanation for this.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 26/03/2010 8:28 AM, Warp wrote:

>
>    I have hard time understanding the psychological phenomenon that many
> people are eager to believe in some things based solely on what other
> people *claim*, without any actual convincing evidence, or with just some

[snip]

>    Why do so many people think like this? What is the psychological phenomenon
> behind this kind of thinking?
>



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sometimes this is called "over use". People are exposed, directly or 


That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will feel 
better.  If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe only 25 
will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine getting weaker. 
It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Yes, we're traveling togeher,
   but to different destinations.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/26/2010 9:53 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sometimes this is called "over use". People are exposed, directly or
>
>
> That's not what I'm talking about.
>
> I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will
> feel better. If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe
> only 25 will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine
> getting weaker. It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.
>
Hmm. Ok, then the other argument is that in the last 10 years, or so, 
the amount of pure bullshit being sold has doubled, at least, even to 
the extent of them being sold in markets. The overall perception may 
have begun to be distorted, such that people are already taking products 
they do no realize *are* placebos, such as AirBorne, and having 
convinced themselves that those work, they have started "training" 
themselves to expect *any* fake product to work too.

In effect, its become like a meditative practice. Do it enough times and 
your brain starts to *expect* something to work, even when it doesn't. I 
wouldn't be surprised if this was highly common back when herbal 
remedies where the only ones available, and 99% of the contents of books 
on the subject where, as they still are, made up of guesses, false 
positives, and/or even contradictions between the real effect of some 
herbs (if you took enough), and what they have been recommended for.

If what you need a "cure" for is something controllable, like pain (and 
you can control that on a huge level, depending on skill, and possibly 
other factors), using a false source of cure, to help trick yourself 
into not feeling it, may actually be, for many people **as** effective 
as real medication. Then again, if you where my grandmother, just 
deciding not to feel the pain would be sufficient (she literally let 
them sew up her leg, without meds, at 80, after slashing it open almost 
all the way down the side, due to a condition that produces really thin 
skin). And that.. Is kind of a huge problem. Because people don't 
measure, and can't measure, their condition based on *if* they still 
have the condition, the measure it based on pain, or symptoms, and most 
of those things *can be* controlled mentally, without actually fixing 
the problem causing them. And, that makes it even *more* dangerous.

-- 
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

On 03/26/10 09:53, Darren New wrote:
> I'm saying if you test 100 people with placebos today, maybe 35 will
> feel better.  If you tested 100 people with placebos 25 years ago, maybe
> only 25 will feel better. It hasn't anything to do with the medicine
> getting weaker. It's only getting weaker *relative* to the placebo.

	Dan Ariely got an Ig Noble Prize for showing that expensive placebos
are more effective than cheap ones.

	Point being that a lot of other factors dictate the effectiveness of a
placebo. Some of those may be the reason for what you're describing.

-- 
Mary had a little lamb, a little beef, and a little ham.

Post a reply to this message