to think homeopaths really just make money out of the gullible?

[WidowWadman]

A remedy made from diluted bits of the Berlin Wall - seriously, that's surely just a test to find out how far they can push it, isn't?

In the same way religions make money out the gullible. It's all the same stuff.
If one person believes in the little purple radiator people they're nuts. If 100,000 believe in them they're a small religious cult. If 100,000,000 people believe in them they'll elect one president and he'll have acess to nuclear weapons. Won't stop every one of them from being nuts though.

claig Charles has an arts degree, Cherie Blair has a law degree - neither of them seems to have done much science. They quite possibly lack the education to understand why homeopathy is BS and may be tricked by a persuasively written paper.
Also doesn't help that homeopaths quite happily accept that homeopathy is quite often mixed up with herbal stuff (which actually does contain ingredients)

homeopathy dislikes science as it demonstrably refutes its woo as rubbish. it is

Hey i have a (good solid subject) arts degree < non-defensive emoticon> but i also have science Gcses and powers of discrimination..Charles has too much time on his hands. And Cherie? Clearly super-bright but lacking in some basic commonsense as many highly intelligent people are.

Agree that Cherie is not a scientist, but there is no doubt that she is clever. So it can't be to do with IQ, and it is most often the better educated middle and upper classes who believe in these things.

It is the type of thing that the AbFab duo would quite likely be into.

Homeopaths are real, and now they can even get married.

There are lots of clever people with arts backgrounds who just seem to switch off their brains when it comes to anything scientific, and instead accept whatever vaguely deep, meaningful, spiritual waffle is used to 'explain' homeopathy, kinesiology, crystals etc . One 'qualified' homeopath I know has a languages degree; another who has recently set up a Chinese traditional medicine practice used to be a drama teacher. I don't think either of them has done any actual science for nearly 30 years (they are both mid-40s).

(I have an arts/social sciences background, but have always had an interest in science, and also had to develop fairly well-tuned critical-thinking and statistical analysis skills as part of my job - as well as being naturally inclined to be sceptical about things)

I think it may in fact be something to do with those who have a greater belief in spirituality.

Dawkins is a scientist and does not believe in God and he is anti most forms of woo as far as I know. SGB is known for her legendary views on "friends in the sky" - can't remember the exact term - and she is anti woo with a vengeance

Prince Charles is a bit new age and is spiritual and so is Cherie.

I think that is where the split occurs. Some people believe there is something more out there than we know and they try to tap into it or look for it or believe in it.

Cant we just stick to telling jokes

The Guardian article I linked to had the woman who was about to do her science PHD and then ditched it for a 3 year homeopathy course. So even scientists sometimes believe in woo.

Agree. You can be clever and 'well educated' but that education can be exclusively arts based meaning that you are not well educated in terms of scientific method - I used to have a larf in English A level seeing just how far I could push some ludicrous interpretation of Middlemarch. I was never 'wrong' because how can one's subjective interpretation of a book or poem ever be wrong?

H: "I made you a remedy"

P: "wow thank you so much"

H: "oh, its nothing :)"

The placebo effect is real and quite good at making people feel better. But there is a big ethical question mark.

What we have to do is extract the placebo effect. Is it down to bedside manner? Could GPs be taught it so you feel better without evil chemical drugs?

(evil chemical drugs work even better than placebos)

Yes, claig - some people demand evidence for things, some rely on faith. Which is more appropriate for medical care?

As I have said before, homeopathy is essentially a belief system, not a form of medicine. It is on the same level as faith-healing and crystal therapy.

Not sure if anyones already mentioned it (as haven't read all 25 pages of thread) but Mitchell and Webbs Homeopathic Emergency Hospital sketch was brilliant. One Dr feeling down as they have been unable to save the cardiac arrests, victims of severe accidents etc so the other Dr says 'ok, so we couldn't help them..but when someone comes in with a touch of 'the nerves', a vague sense of unease..or just with more money than sense..we'll be there'.

But Claig, the scientist-turned-homeopath seemed to me, and to a PP, as if she had a breakdown. It made sad reading, in fact. Something not quite right there.

And Steiner seem to be into some woo, and from the little I know about them, they are into spiritual stuff.

And witches covens etc probably are also into woo.

"Yes, claig - some people demand evidence for things, some rely on faith. Which is more appropriate for medical care?"

Yes it seems to be linked with faith and probably correlates quite highly with those who are more on that scale.

I am more for scientific evidence on this one, but I can understand the wooers because I tip a bit onto the faith and metaphysical scale myself.

What's your background, Claig? Educationally/professionally?
Genuine question, as you come across as an interesting person, who's taken a bit of a drubbing with good grace, and you seem like you're really after answers.

The placebo effect is real and well documented. I have no problem accepting that. But homeopathics are not relying on the placebo effect. They say their water actually works. That water has a memory. Despite providing no evidence by way of randomised clinical trials etc.

This is why I legitimately detest homeopathy. People have died using homeopathic remedies to treat cancer for eg.

i love Mitchell and Webb. Off for some homeopathic lagar.

Right, thanks for that.
I didn't think you were daft, or uneducated!
There's a lot to be said, though, for schlepping through labs and scientific method at school, beyond GCSE. It kind of sticks. I ended up doing an arts degree and then a meeja further degree, but that's because I was rubbish at maths!

Would you say you didn't do this?

I think the main reason why your actual, gullible, woo-buying fucknugget gets so howly and defensive and starts almost pooing with rage when confronted with facts is this: woo-lovers hate scientists because woo-lovers are consumed with bitter resentment about the fact that they are stupid. They think that people actually being clever is something clever people do in order to spite them. Woo 'disciplines' make room for the thick and mentally lazy and comfort them with a lot of nonsense that only 'sensitive' ie thick and gullible people 'understand.

Nearly cried laughing. What a perfect polished paragraph of vitriol (and I agree).

I never liked experiments etc - too messy for me.
I prefer abstract thought which is why I like philosophy. I found arts easier, but chose maths as it was abstract and also difficult and offered more job prospects than philosophy.