Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vanblah
I never said that homeopathic remedies work or didn't work. I just said that not ALL homeopathy is bullshit. The "theory" behind it is sound (antibiotics and other inoculations) ... these compounds exist in nature therefore we should be able to take advantage of them in natural remedies (if you discount the spirituality side which is a whole other argument).
|
You cannot just assert that the 'theory' behind something is sound. What do you see that theory being? I'm still not sure you entirely understand it...it is nothing like antibiotics, it has nothing to do with herbal remedies, and other than requiring a leap of faith in the face of massive scientific evidence, it has little to do with spirituality, either...so I'm not sure why you broght those up.
Quote:
While I AM skeptical of almost all homeopathic remedies on the market I don't ever discount anything just because somebody says it's bullshit. I'm somewhat of a radical materialist when it comes to this kind of stuff--I need to see it to believe it (or disbelieve it). Would I use a homeopathic product? Probably not. Unless someone really had irrefutable proof that it worked.
Perhaps I should refine my stance ... I assumed that you were lumping naturopathic "medicine" in with homeopathic remedies. While I am still skeptical of naturopathy I find the evidence for its success somewhat stronger than in so-called homeopathic remedies.
|
Homeopathy is a subset of naturopathy, not the other way around, so any implication that I was talking about naturopathy as a whole is undue extrapolation on your part...your assumption was erraneous.
Quote:
|
So it probably comes down to an argument of semantics and is pointless beyond entertainment. I also don't put a lot of stock in Wikipedia as a source ... especially in an article with an obvious bias starting as early as the second paragraph.
|
You don't put a lot of stock in wikipedia as a source? Wikipedia has an 'obvious bias'?
Good one. Do you understand what wikipedia is, and how it works? I gave you that link because it was easier than pasting in the
147 annotated references at the bottom. On a subject such as homeopathy, with a loud minority and companies with a financial stake in the accuracy, wikipedia editors are going to be
extremely diligent with their sourcing, to prevent critics from having any viable methods of attacking the article.