4 Comments



  1. Ah yes, intercessory prayer. One of the studies on that, published in the BMJ in 2001, is notable for having what is perhaps the best ever rapid response to any BMJ article:

    http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/28/treat-control-group

    Reply
  2. Mgufo
    “No, the size has not been “demonstrated”. What has been demonstrated is that wishful thinking can lead to misidentification of well understood contaminants such as silicates from glass or heavy metals in concentrated nitric acid.

    Ad-hominem fallacy, please, read the original paper in Langmuir (2012). In relation to the nanosilicates and heavy metals, is different to the nanosized particles, please read the Ives and Moffet paper published in Homeopathy paper.

    Nano particles do not exist at the levels of dilution typically used in homeopathy. There is no commonly used term for these levels of dilution, because the term would have no utility. Feel free to show that any objective test can reliably distinguish identically prepared remedies above 12C.

    Nope, please read a basic textbook in chemistry. The nanoparticles exists in “super-avogadro dilutions” (now, read the Langmuir and , in low dilutions (i.e., 6C) exists particles, in dilutions (i.e. 1 – 2X) exists whitout contradiction of basic laws of chemistry. Objetive evidence is published in scientific papers, not in your blog, not in “skeptik journals or magazines”.

    XDXDX…..>>

    “Feel free to show that any objective test ”

    And yout says:

    “comments are closed”

    Reply

    • Mgufo is replying to the wrong post because comments on “How does super-Avogadro dilutions in Homeopathy work?” were auto-closed on 30/5/2014; auto-closing comments on old posts is of course a normal practice to control spam, but I will see if I can re-link this commentary there.

      I understand that when your entire field relies on the fallacy of appeal to authority, any critique of that authority feels like an ad hominem. However, you are entirely wrong to state that the critique of Chikramane et. al. is ad hominem. Their error is obvious as soon as you read the paper (which I have): their assertions are based on a belief in the validity of homeopathy (openly stated), the false assertion that the mechanism of homeopathy is not understood (it is, they just don’t like the explanation), and the “nanoparticles” they found are in both cases – metals and silicates – precisely what one would expect given what is already known about glass and heavy metal impurities in nitric acid.

      That’s before you even begin to consider the fact that even they present it as hypothesis, and have failed to provide any evidence that it is generalisable.

      Naturally this has not stopped homeopathists from asserting that this is conclusive proof of mechanism, just as they did with water memory before that was refuted, but as Carl Sagan pointed out, where there is a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work, not just most of them (or, in this case, some of them, in a few restricted cases). There is no evidence that like cures like as a general or widespread principle, there is no evidence of a generalisable effect that persists at these dilutions, there is no evidence that it is persistent, there is no evidence that it is transferrable via an intermediary such as a sugar pill, there is no evidence that it is transferrable thence to the human body, there is no evidence that any hypothetical property that can be transferred end to end in this way, is in any way linked ot symptoms, let alone cure, there is no evidence, even if Chikramane et. al. were right and there’s a completely generalisable property, that these minute quantities could affect the patient. In fact every single one of these links, all of which are simply assumed to be valid by homeopathists, is contradicted by just about every relevant scientific finding.

      Pointing out the gaping holes in the argument is not ad hominem. Neither is pointing out that they are True Believers: declarations of conflict of interest are mandatory in science.

      As to your own ad hominem, I have no need to read a basic textbook in chemistry. I already have read several, my wife has a chemistry degree and was a bench chemist for a while and my best friend wrote the standard text on analytical chemistry for undergraduate courses. How do you think I know about things like ISO3696? The problem is not that I don’t understand chemistry, but that you and your fellow believers always read any source looking for points of agreement with your pre-existing beliefs, rather than reading the facts and then re-assessing whether your beliefs are correct.

      That is, in fact, the core fallacy that makes the study of homeopathy by its believers a pseudoscience.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *