Is Homeopathy Effective?

[Trailblazer]

So how about you just accept that we are all happy to accept those particular claims. And in the future, let's confine our discussion to the validity of the SUPERNATURAL claims of Baha'i faith. Because THOSE are the things that people are disagreeing with. And when we are having a discussion about the evidence for and validity of the supernatural claims and you say you have evidence, people who haven't followed the thread might think that you are saying you have evidence for the supernatural claims, and that's just not true.

I do not have evidence that 'proves' the supernatural claims of Baha'u'llah are true, I only have evidence that 'indicates' the claims are true. In other words I do not have the verifiable evidence that you want, so what is there to discuss?

It appears to me as if this game is over.

 

[Tiberius]

I do not have evidence that 'proves' the supernatural claims of Baha'u'llah are true, I only have evidence that 'indicates' the claims are true. In other words I do not have the verifiable evidence that you want, so what is there to discuss?

It appears to me as if this game is over.

Hang on, you were just saying that evidence and proof were two different things. Now you are saying that evidence can be proof?

Once again, your inconsistencies are out in the open for all to see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not have evidence that 'proves' the supernatural claims of Baha'u'llah are true, I only have evidence that 'indicates' the claims are true. In other words I do not have the verifiable evidence that you want, so what is there to discuss?

It appears to me as if this game is over.

I am curious. If you have such evidence why didn't you post any?

 

[Kenny]

From a discussion in another thread where @Trailblazer mentioned that she takes the position that homeopathic medicines have been tested and have a place in medical treatments. I disagree, and hold that there has never been any scientific test that shows that homeopathic methods have created any effective medicines.

I'd be interested in hearing from any pro-homeopathy people here. Do you have any evidence that homeopathic remedies have any effectiveness for any medical condition? If so, could you present it?

I take my blood tests to a herbalist (licensed) for the last 10-15 years. All of the positions that were outside the "norm" (which were about a dozen or more) are now within the "norm" except my cholesterol. Though better, year by year, still working on it to get it into the "norm".

 

[Tiberius]

I take my blood tests to a herbalist (licensed) for the last 10-15 years. All of the positions that were outside the "norm" (which were about a dozen or more) are now within the "norm" except my cholesterol. Though better, year by year, still working on it to get it into the "norm".

What part of that is homeopathy?

 

[Trailblazer]

I am curious. If you have such evidence why didn't you post any?

I did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did.

No, you have only claimed to and then went a bit apepoop when people pointed out your logical fallacies. But go ahead. Post some clear evidence for your beliefs. Start with your best example and why it is evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Trailblazer]

But go ahead. Post some clear evidence for your beliefs. Start with your best example and why it is evidence for your beliefs.

Been there, done that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Been there, done that.

Yes, and you utterly failed. Which is why you need to try to insult others for what appears to be your own "insanity". All you have to do is to post real evidence that follows the rules of evidence. You have never done so and people have explained why.

Meanwhile, let's try to get this thread back on topic. Do you know why and how we know that homeopathy does not work? Wait. Of course you do not know.

Would you like to learn how we know that homeopathy does not work?

 

[Trailblazer]

Hang on, you were just saying that evidence and proof were two different things. Now you are saying that evidence can be proof?

Once again, your inconsistencies are out in the open for all to see.

I said: I do not have evidence that 'proves' the supernatural claims of Baha'u'llah are true, I only have evidence that 'indicates' the claims are true. In other words I do not have the verifiable evidence that you want, so what is there to discuss?

That is a clear and plain statement of my position.
I did not say that evidence can be proof, that is just how you interpreted what I said, what you thought it meant.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, and you utterly failed. Which is why you need to try to insult others for what appears to be your own "insanity".

I was not insulting others, I was referring to my own insanity!
I guess that is called the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

Meanwhile, let's try to get this thread back on topic. Do you know why and how we know that homeopathy does not work? Wait. Of course you do not know.

Would you like to learn how we know that homeopathy does not work?

No, I do not believe that claim and I do not want to know why you believe it.
You can say anything you want to about me being ignorant but that says more about you than it says about me.
I have no interest in arguing with you or anyone else and the beauty of free will is that I can choose not to.

Happy trails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was not insulting others, I was referring to my own insanity!
I guess that is called the fallacy of jumping to conclusions.

No, I do not believe that claim and I do not want to know why you believe it.
You can say anything you want to about me being ignorant but that says more about you than it says about me.
I have no interest in arguing with you or anyone else and the beauty of free will is that I can choose not to.

Happy trails.

By definition if you do not want to learn you are ignorant. This demonstrates that once again you are not reasoning rationally. You believe in homeopathy not because of any evidence. You merely believe because you want to believe. When others point out that you are not reasoning rationally that is not an attack. It is an observation, and it usually comes along with help on how to avoid irrational thought.

Why are you afraid to learn? If anything you might be able to see a flaw in the reasoning (though I seriously doubt it). At any rate learning makes one a better debater. Miring oneself in ignorance only makes you an easy target for those that do reason rationally.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And right now the Green Bay Packers are probably cursing homeopathy.

 

[Trailblazer]

By definition if you do not want to learn you are ignorant.

No, that is not the definition of ignorant.
Just because I do not want to hear what you have to say about homeopathy that does not mean I am ignorant.
I want to learn, but if I am going to spend my time learning, I will learn from reliable sources that are not biased.

 

[Kenny]

What part of that is homeopathy?

You know what? Absolutely none of it. My error. I was thinking of an herbalist. OOPS!

 

[Tiberius]

I said: I do not have evidence that 'proves' the supernatural claims of Baha'u'llah are true, I only have evidence that 'indicates' the claims are true. In other words I do not have the verifiable evidence that you want, so what is there to discuss?

That is a clear and plain statement of my position.
I did not say that evidence can be proof, that is just how you interpreted what I said, what you thought it meant.

Which just goes to show that you do not understand what counts as evidence.

Now, let's get this back on topic. What do you have that shows that homeopathy is effective?

 

[Tiberius]

No, that is not the definition of ignorant.
Just because I do not want to hear what you have to say about homeopathy that does not mean I am ignorant.
I want to learn, but if I am going to spend my time learning, I will learn from reliable sources that are not biased.

I gotta agree with you there.

Ignorance is just not knowing something, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But not knowing something and deciding that you do not want to know it, particularly when you are are trying to have a conversation about it, that's just stupid.

(And I was using the word "you" in a general sense, not referring to any person in particular, so don't report me for some perceived insult.)

 

[Trailblazer]

Now, let's get this back on topic. What do you have that shows that homeopathy is effective?

I already stated at the beginning of this thread that I have no interest in discussing this. That does not mean I do not think that homeopathy is effective or that I could not present evidence, it only means I do not want to discuss it.

Please note that I did not start this thread so it is not MY topic. If you want to know about the effectiveness of homeopathy all you have to do is research it on the internet.

 

[Trailblazer]

But not knowing something and deciding that you do not want to know it, particularly when you are are trying to have a conversation about it, that's just stupid.

What would lead you to believe that I do not want to know about homeopathy, the fact that that I studied it for four years?

I am not trying to have a conversation about homeopathy. As I said at the beginning of this thread and as I just said again on my previous post to you above, I don't want to discuss it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that is not the definition of ignorant.
Just because I do not want to hear what you have to say about homeopathy that does not mean I am ignorant.
I want to learn, but if I am going to spend my time learning, I will learn from reliable sources that are not biased.

It is not what "I have to say". Please, you are projecting now. I can support my claims with valid sources. Right now you are unfortunately reasoning irrationally and you cannot tell if a source is biased or not.