How can skeptics have a dialogue with homeopaths?
normal therapies query by Michelle: How can skeptics have a dialogue with homeopaths?
with no pointing out the stupidity of their arguments? I am thinking about the paranoid ramblings about large pharma as effectively as the ignorance of straightforward science.
Goodhealth surfing
No mate the query is fine as it is, can you solution it?
organic remedies very best answer:
Response by shad0wr4ven
There is no such point as logical persuasive dialogue with paranoia.
Give your response to this question under!
Crucially, homeopaths lack the educational level to understand how their potions can only be water. They also lack the education to understand the basics of statistical analysis and clinical trials. This also applies to anyone who posts on this forum supporting homeopathy.
In the VERY rare situation where you have an educated person such as a doctor pushing this quackery, they are aware it cannot work but as it’s a ready source of low risk, profitable and desirable (as in no yukky) work, then they know it’s just too much of a good earner to ignore.
In the first situation, dialogue is impossible as the homeopaths lack the educational level necessary to converse about the subject.
In the second situation, dialogue is avoided as they are aware it does not work and also aware that all they have to defend themselves is outright denial, which tends to make them look foolish in the eyes of any existing and prospective customers.
It’s very interesting question.
May be it is better to formulate like this: How can homeopaths have a dialogue with skeptics?
Or may be: How can alternative medicine’s representative have a dialogue with skeptics?
Most of skeptics rely on the researches conducted by others, so-called “authority”, and have no their own experience nor practical knowledge about discussed topic. Some of them are fanatics who cannot be speaked with. It’s impossible to make them see truth even if you make a wonder for them. They are stubborn blinds.
But I suppose that anyway most of skeptics could be convinced to change their minds. It’s really hard work and it is difficult to do this, you have to spend too much time to prove the obvious things for them. But it’s possible.
My experience shows that, unfortunately, a lot of doctors have low level of education, or poor qualification. But every doctor says that he is a good doctor. I never heard from any doctor that he/she is not good in treatment!!!
Regarding scientific approach: please, don’t make me laugh! Any so-called “scientific” mathematical statistical methods can be used for any purpose you want – to prove or to disprove, if the conditions of experiments/trials are incorrect. I know many professional scientific tricks which allow scientists to get preferred conclusion and thus get more money and grants for further intellectual masturbation of their minds which they call “researches or explorations”.
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.” (c) Mark Twain
Please note how much the “dislike” or “negative” “finger” clicks on my message below – probably it is the cases of such kind of doctors, which dont like the truth. They are full of arrogance and pride inside them, thinking that they are gods, but dont want to be smart and clever to help their patients in the best way.
P.S. I’m also sceptic. I’m very skeptical about the evidences that other skeptics give. I’m suspicious about every thing that is clear for skeptic. So, it’s my right to be skeptical about skeptics and about the correctness of their opinions. The truth is above all skeptics.
P.P.S. As I noticed, in this discussion the only criterion of the good doctor – has he/she PhD or not? The real criterion of any person calling himself a doctor is health of their patients. If you posses more than tens PhDs and cannot help people suffering from chronic and serious diseased – you are not a doctor at all.
http://www.GoodHealthSurfing.org
I guess if you want to have dialogue with someone you need to look at what you have in common.
Edit:
MR. G.
I would like to make it clear that I would never be friends with anyone who likes to associate himself with a user who falsly claimed I threatened to Rape and abduct his non existent wife.
I don’t have a PHd. Correct. Neither do most of the bearers of the title “Doctor” in NZ.
I am fully entitled to use the honorary title. I can so I will.
If you don’t like it you know where you can stick it sunshine.
Morally I do quite a lot in daily practice to educate whcih is why anyone to do with healing was allowed to use the title in the first place. Docere means to teach.
NB. According to some research I read in the new scientist the testing methodology using placebo is being seriously questioned as it has been found to be not constant. As the results of placebo vary its no longer considered to be a yard stick. What was found is placebo and the “real medicine” both perform better when the patient knows what they are taking it for. Both perform worse when they do not know.
Placebo is a factor of success for any medical modality.
@ Rhianna. Yeah i just downloaded my Phd from Thunderwood college. Its in QE!
In regards to how long have you been away, NOT LONG ENOUGH!
Kalos reminded me that the title isn’t protected in New Zealand and I thought, “hey i should be using that!”
I wouldn’t have bothered had he not bought the subject up because it’s completely meaningless. Over here repair men call themselves “Washing Machine Doctors” etc..
Now the title Osteopath….’
Thats protected. Thats what I studied for all those years in oxford Brookes Uni……
Edit:
####Osteopathy school very nearly closed around the time of his attendance due to shortcomings so serious it could not get accreditation. The school’s appalling reputation at that time meant it took almost any prospective student who applied. (The school was later sued by some graduates, who won a settlement).###
Nah, I joined once the course was revamped and had got accreditation.
“graduates’ From the old program when it was the Oxford School of osteopathy had BSc but it was from another university.
When the Uni took it over they sacked all the old staff, got a whole new Sylabus to GOsC demands and a fresh set of teaching staff. Those are the guys that tauight me osteopathy not the ones before.
It was indeed one of the worst institutions when it was the oxford school of osteopathy but its now one of the best. I didn’t go anywhere near it before accreditation.
Ah….
Kalos likes to lie so much. Such a shame none of his BS actually holds water.
NB. A guy who did the same course I did giving access to higher education got into med school. Another lady went on to Physiotherapy. Universities don’t judge mature students on what they did when they were 16 unlike some of the answerers on here.
It is difficult.
I did recently try to get alternative medicine users on here to think of something that they thought was BS and try to apply the same logic to the things they DO believe in.
I fear it fell on stony ground.
The problem is that Homeopaths start by saying “IT does work because it worked for me”. They then look for evidence to support that.
When I first heard about homeopathy I had no reason to believe it or disbelieve it so I just looked at the facts. The facts are clearly ridiculous from the very onset. In fact they are laughably embarrassing.
Lightning is a practioner of AltMed himself but even he admits that homeopathy is only a placebo
Oh and LIGHTNING. you’re not a doctor my friend. In any sense. Not actually and not morally. behave yourself
#####MR. G.
I would like to make it clear that I would never be friends with anyone who likes to associate himself with a user who falsly claimed I threatened to Rape and abduct his non existent wife######
I have no idea what this means.
We should be friends Lighty baby. we could take moonlit strolls in Skegness. It would be wonderful.
friend me on FB. I have a few Altmed loving friends that like to argue with me. Just because you’re wrong doesn’t mean that we can’t be civil.
I don’t think that is possible, at least not with those who frequent YA. And the points you mention are the major obstacles.
But it does serve a meaningful purpose to post the skeptic inputs. I am thinking of people looking into the possibility of homeopathy actually working, who finds these QA’s as part of their research.
Even though homeopathy is biologically implausible, quite extensive research as been done to check out if it works anyway. Sometimes homeopaths link to some of these studies, and that is often where the chances of explaining (in a verifyable way) where they get things wrong are greatest. But I don’t think we have seen any of them yet trying to verify if their initial assertions about the findings of these studies are correct, or the skeptic perhaps maybe possibly could have a minimal point. But in this situation anybody who finds it as part of his/her own research will have a chance to check out the evidence for him/her self
There is never a question which is stupid. It may be too simple, therefore too difficult to answer. Talk to an able Homoeopath and I assure you it will be a real fun and knowledge conversing with him.
You can’t make sense out of nonsense.
If someone has elected to put their hands over their ears and scream “I’m not listening!” there
s very little you can do to try and reach them.
EDIT: Never argue with an idiot, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Best not to engage in dialogue with them. They only start with the fallacies to avoid providing evidence – so no matter what they crap on about, keep dragging them back to evidence. Without that, they have nothing. Which they don’t.
The only upside to engaging their preposterous claims to benefit casual observers.
“That’s unpossible!”
Edit: Hi Rhianna!