(07-02-2012, 07:40 PM)SuperSleeper Wrote: The problem with this is that some folks have an almost cult-like belief in science. If science can't touch it, test it or perform an experiment on it, they reason that it must not be real.
For some, science and human logic becomes their religion. If the "final authority" of science or "human logic" says something doesn't exist, then they must follow their "religion" and conclude that this is the final "truth".
Only one problem with such a belief system: scientifically established "facts" throughout history have been proven wrong time and time again. Mankind is flawed, and our brains are not perfect computers that are able to scientifically maintain a completely unbiased and perfectly comprehensive test to prove anything.
Reality may not be exactly like you perceive it to be, in other words.
Well, this topic has strayed far from the original post for sure. I won't be adding more to it but wanted to interject the above possibility for folks to consider.
I'll keep this thread open for another 24 hours if anyone wants to add anything. After that, I'll close it to new replies since it has gotten so far off-topic.
PS - this is no way a personal attack on you archangle... you've made some very good points that need to be considered here. thanks!
If Homeopathy works, it IS science. It will show up in statistical studies.
If voodoo works, it IS science. It will show up in statistical studies.
If HooHah root works, it IS science as well. It will show up in statistical studies.
Willow bark extract works. It IS science. We call it aspirin.
Injections of increasing concentrations of diluted allergens work in statistical studies. They are science. It's called immunotherapy or allergy shots.
What the FDA and the founders of "homeopathy" call homeopathy DOESN'T work in statistical studies.
Most herbs DON'T work in statistical studies.
If the latest drugs from GRP pharmaceuticals don't work, it ISN'T science.
Yes, you may have taken homeopathic HooHa root and gotten better. Someone got better after sending money to Jim Baker. Or sacrificing a goat to Mpanda. Someone found a potato chip that looks like the virgin Mary and got better. Someone got better without doing anything in particular.
People simply don't understand the difference between standard pharmaceuticals and homeopathy, herbal remedies, etc. Let's pretend there's a new drug called "XYZ"
When you test XYZ for FDA approval, you will probably find it has a significant and definite effect on the human body. What you're usually trying to determine is whether its effect on the human body is lasting and helpful over time to treat disease A. You're also trying to find out if it has any effects other than the intended ones.
If XYZ gets FDA approval, it will be known that it has a definite effect on the human body in a significant percentage of the patients it is intended to treat. The biggest unknowns will be what the long term outcome may be, or if there is some dangerous side effect in a small number of cases.
When you test homeopathy, most herbal remedies, or faith healing, you don't find the statistical support. Every so often someone will publish a study and conclude that maybe X does work after all. If you read the studies, you will find that what they've found is a statistically very small amount of improvement. It might be something like a few percent, but their scientific conclusion is that it wasn't statistically proven that X does NOT work.
There is a quantum difference between studies of pseudoscientific cures and scientific cures. Scientific cures have statistics that shine out like the noonday sun that SOMETHING is happening. Studies of pseudoscience are like staring in a dimly lit room dark and saying, "I think I can see something out there in the dark. I can't rule out the possibility that something is out there."
There's an even more sinister problem with belief in homeopathy. You may believe that a homeopathic dilution of HooHah root extract has some good effect on your liver, despite having no statistical evidence. Why do you believe that a homeopathic dilution of HooHah root doesn't have some harmful effect on your body despite no statistical testing?
If homeopathy actually does something to the body, why would the effect always be good, not bad?
The same is true for herbal remedies.
You believe in the good with no evidence, yet you dismiss the possibility of harm despite the lack of evidence.