The motorists here tried to censor me again.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: boltar2003 on 2 Jul 2010 13:56 On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:41:10 +0100 Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >homeopathy, but to play devil's advocate, if water is capable of >having the type of memory claimed, it does not follow (and is not even >likely) that such a memory would apply to *every* substance that >exists. Oh FFS. I was talking about the water being effected by the glass, not about the glass having a memory. Glass is just bunch of chemicals too you know so unless the magic water memory only works on "special" types of chemicals it should be effected by it. B2003
From: Norman Wells on 2 Jul 2010 14:29 Cynic wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:06:34 +0100, "Norman Wells" > <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote: > >>> I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >>> homeopathy > >> No, no-one can. > > Of course the *claims* being made are capable of being understood. > >> But you could if there was any scientific proof, which is the reason >> science exists. > > You obviously don't understand what science can and cannot be used > for. The fact that something cannot be proven does not mean that it > cannot exist. Science is generally very good at providing proof of > something, but less useful in *disproving* something. Of course. That's why I want proper scientific proof that homeopathy works. If those who say it does can't provide that proof, and they haven't despite the incentives they have to do so, then it's clear it doesn't. > Science is unlikely to ever be able to *disprove* the presence of life > (intelligent or otherwise) on other planets, for example. Nor fairies, as far as you're concerned. > Scientific method involves being able to reliably reproduce a > particular phenomenon. Therefore there is an inbuilt assumption that > *none* of the "laws of nature" change significantly from second to > second or even century to century. Which may be a reasonable > assumption, but itself is unproven supposition. And even if it is > true, it is quite possible that there is an unknown variable present > such that two experiments that *appear* to be set up identically, in > fact differ in some unseen but important aspect that results in them > producing two completely different results. > > There are several things that have been observed in a way that is > reliable enough that we can be certain that they exist ... unlike homeopathy or fairies then >, yet science > has been unable to either reproduce or explain them. Ball lightening > is a classic example - which was something that was widely disbelieved > to exist at all until it was seen by chance by a group of extremely > trustworthy observers who also captured it on film. The "green flash" > is another phenomenon that became almost a matter of faith by those > who claimed it existed, while scientific circles were very dismissive > of the possibility until a high-speed camera was set up that captured > it on one of the rare days that it occured, and then scientists were > jumping on the bandwagon to suggest theories of what caused it, and > reasons why previous experiments had all failed. It was, > incidentally, something that I had myself considered to be very > unlikely after having failed to see it after looking on many tropical > evenings. I was certain that it was an artifact caused by > after-images on the retina of the observer. It obviously is. Turn off a bright light of any colour and the retina will say you're seeing the complementary colour. Turn off red-orange suddenly and you'll see a green image. No mystery. > I have read of many things that appear to be genuine reports of rare > phenomena that are inexplicable. Obviously they could also be due to > false reporting, either accidental or deliberate, but it would be > foolish to assume that none of them at all are evidence of processes > that we know nothing about at all. First, you have to have some reliable reports. They are totally non-existent in the case of both homeopathy and fairies.
From: Brimstone on 2 Jul 2010 14:52 "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:1SoXn.102980$NW.43744(a)hurricane... > Brimstone wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:FimXn.99673$NW.51767(a)hurricane... >>> Brimstone wrote: >>>> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>> news:vv6Xn.86515$x15.34714(a)hurricane... >>>>> Brimstone wrote: >>>>>> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >>>>>> news:6m1Xn.110852$aS3.9251(a)hurricane... >>>>>> >>>>>>> You stick if you like with your view that water can have a >>>>>>> memory, and that fairies may exist. What do I care if it makes >>>>>>> you ridiculous? >>>>>> Someone who tries to deny the existence of something when no one >>>>>> knows one way or the other is the most ridiculous of all. "Closed >>>>>> mind" is the usual term I believe. >>>>> >>>>> Do you think fairies exist then? >>>>> >>>>> Or can you rule the possibility out completely? >>>>> >>>> In the absence of any evidence either way, I'm ruling the >>>> possibility of fairies neither in nor out. >>> >>> A possibility either exists or it doesn't. You cannot rule a >>> possibility neither in nor out. >>> >>> Since you have not categorically denied that fairies exist, despite >>> being asked, it follows you think that they may exist. >> >> A willingness to accept the possibility of fairies is not the same as >> believing in fairies. > > Oh, but it is. Says who? > If you have no belief in their existence, you would be able to > categorically deny that they exist. Since you don't, you must think they > can. Wrong again. You're obviously incapable of understanding the concept of an open mind. > >>> Don't you think a belief in fairies is a pretty naive and foolish >>> view for a grown man to hold? >>> >> On what basis do you make that assumption? > > It's not an assumption. It's a question. And one you have conspicuously > failed to address. > Within the question is an assumption. On what basis do you make it?
From: Brimstone on 2 Jul 2010 14:56 "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:QToXn.102984$NW.96377(a)hurricane... > Brimstone wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:QnmXn.99680$NW.14569(a)hurricane... >>> Cynic wrote: >>> >>>> I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >>>> homeopathy >>> >>> No, no-one can. >>> >>> But you could if there was any scientific proof, which is the reason >>> science exists. >> >> Does science know everything there is to know? >> >>> It's a shame homeopaths never bother with it. >>> >> Perhaps scientists have yet to find out how it works? > > Perhaps homeopaths have to show it does first. > > Science exists to enable them to do that. > > But they don't. > Why should they? Provide one good reason why a procedure (or set of procedures) which have been in use for well over two hundred years should have to prove itself to some newfangled method of looking at things?
From: Brimstone on 2 Jul 2010 15:00
<boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:i0l97v$ouj$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:41:10 +0100 > Cynic <cynic_999(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >>homeopathy, but to play devil's advocate, if water is capable of >>having the type of memory claimed, it does not follow (and is not even >>likely) that such a memory would apply to *every* substance that >>exists. > > Oh FFS. I was talking about the water being effected by the glass, not > about > the glass having a memory. Glass is just bunch of chemicals too you know > so unless the magic water memory only works on "special" types of > chemicals > it should be effected by it. > It would be really useful if people understood that there is a difference between "effect" and "affect" and to use them in the appropriate places. Even supposedly educated journalists can't get it right. |