The motorists here tried to censor me again.
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Norman Wells on 2 Jul 2010 16:26 Brimstone wrote: > "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:QToXn.102984$NW.96377(a)hurricane... >>>>> I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >>>>> homeopathy >>>> >>>> No, no-one can. >>>> >>>> But you could if there was any scientific proof, which is the >>>> reason science exists. >>> >>> Does science know everything there is to know? >>> >>>> It's a shame homeopaths never bother with it. >>>> >>> Perhaps scientists have yet to find out how it works? >> >> Perhaps homeopaths have to show it does first. >> >> Science exists to enable them to do that. >> >> But they don't. >> > Why should they? To be believed and to have some credibility of course, which anyone of any morality wants. > Provide one good reason why a procedure (or set of > procedures) which have been in use for well over two hundred years > should have to prove itself to some newfangled method of looking at > things? Science is merely the application of logic and knowledge. Hardly newfangled therefore. The sad fact, though, is that the last things homeopaths want are logic and knowledge applied to their art because they know they will be found seriously wanting. The fact that something may have been in use for over two hundred years is also no indication that it works. How long has snake oil been sold, I wonder?
From: Brimstone on 3 Jul 2010 04:32 "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:TXrXn.106264$EK1.28458(a)newsfe15.ams2... > Brimstone wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:QToXn.102984$NW.96377(a)hurricane... > >>>>>> I do not pretend to understand the entirity of the claims made by >>>>>> homeopathy >>>>> >>>>> No, no-one can. >>>>> >>>>> But you could if there was any scientific proof, which is the >>>>> reason science exists. >>>> >>>> Does science know everything there is to know? >>>> >>>>> It's a shame homeopaths never bother with it. >>>>> >>>> Perhaps scientists have yet to find out how it works? >>> >>> Perhaps homeopaths have to show it does first. >>> >>> Science exists to enable them to do that. >>> >>> But they don't. >>> >> Why should they? > > To be believed and to have some credibility of course, which anyone of any > morality wants. Quite obviously a great many people do believe them and give them credibility otherwise they would be out of business. >> Provide one good reason why a procedure (or set of >> procedures) which have been in use for well over two hundred years >> should have to prove itself to some newfangled method of looking at >> things? > > Science is merely the application of logic and knowledge. Hardly > newfangled therefore. The sad fact, though, is that the last things > homeopaths want are logic and knowledge applied to their art because they > know they will be found seriously wanting. That quite clearly shows your stance on the matter and removes the need for further discussion.
From: Norman Wells on 3 Jul 2010 04:52 Brimstone wrote: > "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message > news:TXrXn.106264$EK1.28458(a)newsfe15.ams2... >>>>> 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? >> >> To be believed and to have some credibility of course, which anyone >> of any morality wants. > > Quite obviously a great many people do believe them and give them > credibility otherwise they would be out of business. Selling snake oil has always been profitable. But it doesn't make it right.
From: Brimstone on 3 Jul 2010 18:11 "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:KTCXn.128358$Yb4.119513(a)hurricane... > Brimstone wrote: >> "Norman Wells" <stibbons(a)unseen.ac.am> wrote in message >> news:TXrXn.106264$EK1.28458(a)newsfe15.ams2... > >>>>>> 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? >>> >>> To be believed and to have some credibility of course, which anyone >>> of any morality wants. >> >> Quite obviously a great many people do believe them and give them >> credibility otherwise they would be out of business. > > Selling snake oil has always been profitable. > > But it doesn't make it right. If the buyers are satisfied with the product who are we to argue?
From: The Medway Handyman on 3 Jul 2010 18:17
Brimstone wrote: > "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? Look up 'burden of proof' fuckwit. I'm able to fly around the room whenever I want. I can't do it if anyone is watching, because that affects the 'vibrations'. I've been doing this for years. Prove that I can't. -- Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a viable form of transport. |