Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

KDE 4.11 Haswell Desktop Effects Performance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
    I think the word you're looking for is placebo. Homeopathy is one of the schools of medicine and your usage of the term makes no sense in context because it's not delaying the system by an insignificantly tiny amount.
    If "alternative medicine" actually worked, they would call it "medicine".

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by dee. View Post
      If "alternative medicine" actually worked, they would call it "medicine".
      What do you call the berries and so on that have continuously proved to heal or prevent disease?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by curaga View Post
        What do you call the berries and so on that have continuously proved to heal or prevent disease?
        If their effect has been experimentally verified and confirmed by correctly performed independent experiments, I would call them "medicine".

        If they have been continuously proved to heal disease by old grandma hearsay, but stop working once a scientist looks at them, I'd call them "bullshit"

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          If their effect has been experimentally verified and confirmed by correctly performed independent experiments, I would call them "medicine".

          If they have been continuously proved to heal disease by old grandma hearsay, but stop working once a scientist looks at them, I'd call them "bullshit"
          this
          "medicine" is about having a statistically higher effect when compared to a placebo in a double blind medical test.
          Coming from a laboratory or a plant is not a sufficient characteristic to determine this (in both directions).

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by mgraesslin View Post
            No, no. I'm quite aware of what homeopathy is and what a placebo is. I chose that word on purpose :-) (It's also saying a lot about what I think about homeopathy and science in general - you could check my blog posts about what I think about benchmarks in general to get an idea on why I chose that word)
            I've read your blog posts and it still doesn't make much sense, even if you regard benchmarking as being incomplete and as such a dilute you're still missing the vital principle of "Like cures like" that with the extreme dilution makes homeopathy, homeopathy. If you just have one or the other it isn't homeopathy. So again since it's not having an insignificant negative effect on the speed that option is not homeopathic at all.

            and to those bashing on "Alternative" medicines, first off they're not "Alternative" medicine, Osteopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, accupuncture, massage, and homeopathy are not alternative medicines they are their own schools of medicine that aren't endorsed by the AMA, which is the group that pushes and created the divide, such that the average person has bought into the idea that allopathy is the only "legitimate" form of medicine, when in fact it has all sorts of shortfalls like being completely incapable of dealing with those bacterial and viral infections known as colds and flus, whereas naturopathy and herbalism will have you taking a rather heavy dosage mixture of anti-virals, anti-bacterials, immunoboosters and suppliments, ontop of things to reduce symptoms thereby allowing your immune system to work better and faster. Now I'm not going to defend homeopathy (other than correct usage of the term) because I don't advocate or support homeopathy but the other schools of medicine are nothing to sneeze at (pun intended) and it's very important to note that one school doesn't fit all issues particularly when we're talking allopathy. See again utter lack of capability to deal with colds and flus beyond saying deal with it and giving you something to reduce symptoms.

            Lastly to those abusing science... Science neither proves nor disproves anything, all it says it that something tends to be under a very specific set of circumstances, the entire concept of an absolute is anathema to science and further on that point the Skeptics philosophy is the furthest thing from a scientific attitude possible as a direct consequence. So saying "I don't believe it until it's been proven" is absolutely unscientific. The scientific standpoint would be to say "It's possible that that's the case but based upon the data I have available to me I find that unlikely, But here I'll check again just to be sure" . That last part is extremely important because Science never rules out any options, it says probably not and then it checks just to be sure, because things could very well have changed since the data was last gathered. If you think it does anything more concrete than that you really don't understand science.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
              I've read your blog posts and it still doesn't make much sense, even if you regard benchmarking as being incomplete and as such a dilute you're still missing the vital principle of "Like cures like"
              Which doesn't work. Water doesn't have a memory. Also in the news: apparently, it turns out trepanning, bloodletting and phrenology don't give very good results either.

              and to those bashing on "Alternative" medicines, first off they're not "Alternative" medicine, Osteopathy, naturopathy, herbalism, accupuncture, massage, and homeopathy are not alternative medicines they are their own schools of medicine
              And I suppose astrology is just its own school of physics, and healing crystals are its own school of geology?

              Nope. They're all quackery, endorsed by unscientific cranks, with the purpose of taking the money of gullible, superstitious hippies like you. And they cost lives.

              The black rhinoceros went extint in 2011, because millions of superstitious, gullible fools believe it's horn could be used as an aphrodisiac. That's an entire species gone that we're never getting back, all because of people who believe in myths, hearsay and "ancient wisdom" more than scientific evidence. Tigers, bears and sharks are being hunted because their organs can supposedly be used as a homebrew viagra. Even though we have actual viagra and even many cheaper generic alternatives by now.

              Not every type of quackery has quite as drastic environmental effects, sure, but it's the same mindset, that same magical thinking that enables the business in all of them.

              And even if you don't care about the animals, this quackery is costing human lives - just look at what happened to Steve Jobs. The guy chose "alternative medicine" to treat his cancer, and he died. Just goes to show it doesn't pay to "think different" when it comes to getting your very serious diseases treated. Speaking of, every year children with very serious diseases are being carried over to witch doctors, faith healers, spiritualists and whatnot, instead of getting proper treatment for treatable diseases, because their parents happen to be gullible nutcases or religious fanatics (same thing, really).

              when in fact it has all sorts of shortfalls like being completely incapable of dealing with those bacterial and viral infections known as colds and flus, whereas naturopathy and herbalism will have you taking a rather heavy dosage mixture of anti-virals, anti-bacterials, immunoboosters and suppliments, ontop of things to reduce symptoms thereby allowing your immune system to work better and faster.
              Bullshit. What happens is, that people take whatever naturopathic, homeopathic or deepakchoprapatic supplements they favor, and then the cold eventually goes away... as colds tends to do. And then they attribute the cure to the "supplements" (which is just a fancy workaround to sell these quack "medicines" without calling them "medicines"), even when the cold in all likelihood would have gone away just as quickly without the "supplements".

              It's called "confirmation bias". It's like when you think of a friend and then he immediately calls you on the phone and you go "omg I must be telepathic", ignoring the 20 times more common occurences when you think of a friend and they don't call you. Because our brains are evolved to have excellent pattern recognition abilities, we tend to easily find causal links for things even where none exist. And that's exactly what the snake-oil peddlers are taking advantage of.

              Now I'm not going to defend homeopathy (other than correct usage of the term) because I don't advocate or support homeopathy but the other schools of medicine are nothing to sneeze at (pun intended) and it's very important to note that one school doesn't fit all issues particularly when we're talking allopathy. See again utter lack of capability to deal with colds and flus beyond saying deal with it and giving you something to reduce symptoms.
              Naturopathy, from wikipedia:

              Naturopathy, or naturopathic medicine, is a form of alternative medicine based on a belief in vitalism, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation.
              So yeah, you're not one of those crazies who believe in homeopathy. You just believe in vital energies... use the force, Luke!

              Lastly to those abusing science... Science neither proves nor disproves anything, all it says it that something tends to be under a very specific set of circumstances, the entire concept of an absolute is anathema to science and further on that point the Skeptics philosophy is the furthest thing from a scientific attitude possible as a direct consequence. So saying "I don't believe it until it's been proven" is absolutely unscientific. The scientific standpoint would be to say "It's possible that that's the case but based upon the data I have available to me I find that unlikely, But here I'll check again just to be sure" . That last part is extremely important because Science never rules out any options, it says probably not and then it checks just to be sure, because things could very well have changed since the data was last gathered. If you think it does anything more concrete than that you really don't understand science.
              You are the one abusing science. Science does disprove things. It's how we know the earth isn't flat, the flat earth hypothesis was disproven by science. It's how we know the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, that idea also was disproved by science. It's how we know phlogiston doesn't exist, and phrenology doesn't actually provide any kind of accurate results.

              Science is a method, it's not perfect but it's the best method we have for figuring out how things work. By using the scientific method, we can test ideas and theories, and if we're being honest and don't try to twist the results to suit our preconceived notions, we can show those ideas to be either false, or supported by the evidence.

              There's no scientific evidence to support any of the so-called "alternative medicines". If there were, we'd be calling them "medicines". Each of the "alternative medicines" are based on some belief that cannot be proven - but also can't be disproven, because they are defined in vague terms. It's just like religion. We can't really disprove the existence of god, but it also isn't useful from a scientific point of view to say "the reason this reagent turns black in room temperature is because Jesus commands it to do so, case closed" because yeah, it might be what you believe in and yeah, you have every right to believe it, fair enough, but it's not science, because it's basically just a statement of faith. We don't learn anything from that. We don't learn anything from statements of faith. And science is all about learning.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Which doesn't work. Water doesn't have a memory. Also in the news: apparently, it turns out trepanning, bloodletting and phrenology don't give very good results either.
                your statement here doesn't make sense in terms of what you're replying to. My statement is that it makes absolutely no sense to use that word in that context, and an attack on homeopathy does nothing against that statement because what I said had nothing to do with the quality or lack thereof of homeopathy, but the inappropriateness of the word in context which has a very specific meaning. Which oh didn't I say I wasn't going to defend? Problem is to use that term in context it needs to fulfill two requirements

                A). The thing has to be a dilute of some sort
                B). the item involved has to induce an effect similar to that you're trying to fix, the closer the better.

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                And I suppose astrology is just its own school of physics, and healing crystals are its own school of geology?
                nice strawman you've got there

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Nope. They're all quackery, endorsed by unscientific cranks, with the purpose of taking the money of gullible, superstitious hippies like you. And they cost lives.
                Oh yeah because Massage is never used effectively in physical therapy, accupuncture is never used effectively in pain management, and herbalism doesn't form a good chunk of the basis for drugs today.... Oh wait.... that's right just the opposite of that statement is true. Just for an example one of the most common NSAIDs in use: Asprin is derived from a herbal remedy of tea made from the bark of willow trees.

                Also guess who you have to thank for surgeons washing their equipment and hands instead of simply going directly to the next patient? here's a hint it starts with home, ends with pathy and has an o in the middle.

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                The black rhinoceros went extint in 2011, because millions of superstitious, gullible fools believe it's horn could be used as an aphrodisiac. That's an entire species gone that we're never getting back, all because of people who believe in myths, hearsay and "ancient wisdom" more than scientific evidence. Tigers, bears and sharks are being hunted because their organs can supposedly be used as a homebrew viagra. Even though we have actual viagra and even many cheaper generic alternatives by now.
                once again nice strawman, you might want to take the time to learn about how actual herbalism works as opposed to cultural nonsense that existed even in the first world until the late 1900s and was never really tied to herbalism so much as the cultural belief that you could take on the attributes of an animal by grafting it to yourself or eating it (again this only stopped in the first world late 1900s (i.e. past 1960s))


                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                And even if you don't care about the animals, this quackery is costing human lives - just look at what happened to Steve Jobs. The guy chose "alternative medicine" to treat his cancer, and he died. Just goes to show it doesn't pay to "think different" when it comes to getting your very serious diseases treated. Speaking of, every year children with very serious diseases are being carried over to witch doctors, faith healers, spiritualists and whatnot, instead of getting proper treatment for treatable diseases, because their parents happen to be gullible nutcases or religious fanatics (same thing, really).
                Last I checked Steve Jobs died of Pancreatic Cancer. Now you may not be aware but there's this nasty thing about cancer that it shares in common with Herpes, you can't cure it. The only thing you can do with cancer is to try to remove it or to try to send it into recession. Thing is if he was treated with radiation therapy sure he might have possibly sent it into recession but guess what his life would have sucked and he would have only gained a few years more before it would have in all probability returned and killed him anyway. Cancer is nasty like that. I don't know about you though but I personally would rather have a few more reasonable years of life as opposed to putting myself through hell to buy myself a little bit of time.

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Bullshit. What happens is, that people take whatever naturopathic, homeopathic or deepakchoprapatic supplements they favor, and then the cold eventually goes away... as colds tends to do. And then they attribute the cure to the "supplements" (which is just a fancy workaround to sell these quack "medicines" without calling them "medicines"), even when the cold in all likelihood would have gone away just as quickly without the "supplements".
                For sure they end eventually but the question is how fast and how was the experience? There have been studies on zinc for instance and they have shown that the time it takes for the cold to go away on average is shortened, and even allopaths recommend upping your vitamin C intake, and again Asprin is useful for taking down the fever which was what again? oh that's right a variant on willow tree bark tea.

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                It's called "confirmation bias". It's like when you think of a friend and then he immediately calls you on the phone and you go "omg I must be telepathic", ignoring the 20 times more common occurences when you think of a friend and they don't call you. Because our brains are evolved to have excellent pattern recognition abilities, we tend to easily find causal links for things even where none exist. And that's exactly what the snake-oil peddlers are taking advantage of.
                That's nice except you clearly haven't done your homework. The fact that a good portion of the drug industry is based on herbalism that they then pull out the active ingredients from is quite the endorsement that herbalism works.

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Naturopathy, from wikipedia:


                So yeah, you're not one of those crazies who believe in homeopathy. You just believe in vital energies... use the force, Luke!
                This might come as news to you but your body generates a bio-electric field this is something that has been well recorded and studied. Now whether this energy has the ascribed effects is up in the air but the energy is there. Second Off while the energy thing is there as part of that school it's a side interest to the actual practice which revolves around being as minimally invasive as possible and trying to solve things through a mix of diet, stress reduction, and gentle treatments for issues where necessary, such as using peppermint (a common and well proven tool) to deal with stomach issues, under the principle that being destructive harms the body worse than trying to work to help support the body. If you're even semi-intelligent you can see how vitalitae ties those bits of the school together.

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                You are the one abusing science. Science does disprove things. It's how we know the earth isn't flat, the flat earth hypothesis was disproven by science. It's how we know the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, that idea also was disproved by science. It's how we know phlogiston doesn't exist, and phrenology doesn't actually provide any kind of accurate results.
                You do I hope realize that the flat earth thing was a lie, and that nobody believed that the earth was flat and that columbus didn't prove anything and that he was a really scummy person who enslaved and tortured the native populace right? The Egyptians and the Greeks are well known to have calculated the circumference of the earth and gotten actually very very close. Further on that point no science can't disprove things, it can only say that things tend to be or not to be. it always leaves open the possibility that the earth just might be turning flat whenever you look away and that it might have become flat since the last time you checked and so it check again. It never ever ever ever says "X is true" it always says "X is likely based upon the data I have at the moment"

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                Science is a method, it's not perfect but it's the best method we have for figuring out how things work. By using the scientific method, we can test ideas and theories, and if we're being honest and don't try to twist the results to suit our preconceived notions, we can show those ideas to be either false, or supported by the evidence.
                Not even close, Science is about 3 things: Data gathering, analysis (generation of a model based upon said data), and a temporary conclusion based upon the data and analysis. Note the very important word there "Temporary" nothing in science is ever set in stone even when it's a "law". All a law really is is something that testing hasn't invalidated once yet. You should appreciate this quote from Einstein on the whole matter
                Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions. He may also believe in the existence of the ideal limit of knowledge and that it is approached by the human mind. He may call this ideal limit the objective truth.
                (emphasis mine) Science is always and well aware that it doesn't have the actual picture but that it has a model of what the inside of this metaphorical watch may look like, and thus that it may be wrong about it, and thus it never declares an absolute, because we cannot see inside that watch.

                Originally posted by dee. View Post
                There's no scientific evidence to support any of the so-called "alternative medicines". If there were, we'd be calling them "medicines". Each of the "alternative medicines" are based on some belief that cannot be proven - but also can't be disproven, because they are defined in vague terms. It's just like religion. We can't really disprove the existence of god, but it also isn't useful from a scientific point of view to say "the reason this reagent turns black in room temperature is because Jesus commands it to do so, case closed" because yeah, it might be what you believe in and yeah, you have every right to believe it, fair enough, but it's not science, because it's basically just a statement of faith. We don't learn anything from that. We don't learn anything from statements of faith. And science is all about learning.
                First off have you ever heard that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence? So starting out with your entire statement there is wrong and purely skeptic philisophical bullshit, second off if you'd actually spend the time to do your homework you'd learn just how wrong you are on the matter. You have said there is no evidence I have provided examples and uses. I believe this means that the burden of evidence is now on you to disprove me rather than just pulling statements out of your ass without having done your homework to back it up.
                Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 24 October 2013, 12:53 AM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  i wonder why western people despise homeopathy this much.. from where i come, we have big universities and colleges teaching only homeopathy. i dont think they are teaching about "memory of water" there for all these years..

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
                    your statement here doesn't make sense in terms of what you're replying to. My statement is that it makes absolutely no sense to use that word in that context, and an attack on homeopathy does nothing against that statement because what I said had nothing to do with the quality or lack thereof of homeopathy, but the inappropriateness of the word in context which has a very specific meaning. Which oh didn't I say I wasn't going to defend? Problem is to use that term in context it needs to fulfill two requirements

                    A). The thing has to be a dilute of some sort
                    B). the item involved has to induce an effect similar to that you're trying to fix, the closer the better.
                    Which again is a whole lot of bullshit, with no evidence of anything ever functioning that way. Since the homeopathic nutcases seem to believe "the more you dilute, the more potent it becomes", they dilute their liquids so much that it ends up as nothing but water, with a stray molecule floating around in some doses.

                    nice strawman you've got there
                    Try learning the meaning of the word "strawman".

                    Oh yeah because Massage is never used effectively in physical therapy, accupuncture is never used effectively in pain management, and herbalism doesn't form a good chunk of the basis for drugs today.... Oh wait.... that's right just the opposite of that statement is true.
                    Massage as such doesn't belong in the list, as it has demonstrable benefits. When used therapeutically as part of medical treatment, it is usually called "physiotherapy". It is not alternate medicine, as it is recognized as a working treatment, whose efficacy is backed by evidence. As long as you stay with actual massage and don't go into chiropractic quackery...

                    Herbalism is a vague term which you need to define. Many people who are into alt-med quackery fall into the naturalistic fallacy: Just because something exists in nature does not make it good or beneficial: cyanide exists in nature, and it's very deadly for you. (Although one form of vitamin B-12 contains small amounts of it.) The entire dichotomy between natural/unnatural chemicals is entirely artificial, and I'll tell you why.

                    Just for an example one of the most common NSAIDs in use: Asprin is derived from a herbal remedy of tea made from the bark of willow trees.
                    That is because willow bark contains salicylic acid, and aspirin is acetylated salicylic acid. There's a hydroxyl group on salicylic acid which forms an ester with acetic acid, forming acetyl salicylic acid.

                    Big surprise! Many chemicals have precursors that come from plants etc. In fact, ALL chemicals have precursors that come from nature! No chemicals are synthesized by waving a magic wand and making "chemicals" appear from thin air! Ergo: ALL chemicals are natural!

                    For that matter, many herbs also contain chemicals that are inconvenient or impossible to take in their natural form, either because the rest of the plant is poisonous or otherwise harmful, or because the concentrations are so small that it's not feasible without heavy distillation, or because the rest of the plant has some other non-desirable side effects. In many cases, we can, with science and chemistry, even improve the chemicals found in plants (or animals or fungi or microbial life).

                    Also guess who you have to thank for surgeons washing their equipment and hands instead of simply going directly to the next patient? here's a hint it starts with home, ends with pathy and has an o in the middle.
                    Haha, no, you dork. Surgeons wash their equipment and hands to keep the bacteria etc. in them from entering the wounds and infecting the patient. Nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy.

                    once again nice strawman, you might want to take the time to learn about how actual herbalism works as opposed to cultural nonsense that existed even in the first world until the late 1900s and was never really tied to herbalism so much as the cultural belief that you could take on the attributes of an animal by grafting it to yourself or eating it (again this only stopped in the first world late 1900s (i.e. past 1960s))
                    Nope, no strawman. Once again, learn what the term means. I suggest wikipedia:

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

                    And yes, this thing is still things going on - thousands of endangered animals are getting killed, in fact some species are endangered because of these superstitious beliefs. The mentality behind an asian man wanting to treat his lacking erection by eating a tiger's gallbladder is exactly the same as someone who buys "homeopathic remedies" and wears magnetic bracelets and healing crystals...

                    Last I checked Steve Jobs died of Pancreatic Cancer. Now you may not be aware but there's this nasty thing about cancer that it shares in common with Herpes, you can't cure it. The only thing you can do with cancer is to try to remove it or to try to send it into recession. Thing is if he was treated with radiation therapy sure he might have possibly sent it into recession but guess what his life would have sucked and he would have only gained a few years more before it would have in all probability returned and killed him anyway. Cancer is nasty like that. I don't know about you though but I personally would rather have a few more reasonable years of life as opposed to putting myself through hell to buy myself a little bit of time.
                    Easy for you to say when you don't have cancer. And the thing is, Steve Jobs didn't say "oh, I don't want to go through all those treatments, I'd rather live what life I have left comfortably". He didn't refuse treatments to choose to be with his family, or job, or anything. No, he refused medical treatment, because he believed in alternate medicine, like homeopathy, miracle diets and such. He didn't say "ok I know I'm going to die but I'm ok with it", he wanted to be cured, but he was convinced that he could beat cancer by only using "alternate medicine".

                    Later on, when the quackery wasn't working, Jobs went to get medical treatment, but it was too late by then. So it wasn't a question of not wanting to go through the treatment, it was a question of putting your faith in quackery, then coming to your senses too late and paying the price.

                    And yes, cancer treatment is imperfect currently, there's a chance it won't work, there's a chance the cancer can come back later... but you know what, it is the best we have - it certainly works infinitely better than alt-med quack treatments. You know what else? You know how cancer treatments are advancing all the time, how we're making big advances constantly on finding new and better ways to cure cancer - those advances are all made thanks to evidence-based medical science. Not homeopathy, naturopathy, healing crystals, astrology or alchemy...


                    That's nice except you clearly haven't done your homework. The fact that a good portion of the drug industry is based on herbalism that they then pull out the active ingredients from is quite the endorsement that herbalism works.
                    Again, define what you mean by "herbalism".

                    Big news! All chemicals are derived from nature in some way. Of course, we look for new chemicals in nature. The difference between pharmaceutical chemicals and traditional herbal medicine is that the traditional medicine is a trial-and-error thing, it's based on tradition and folklore: some herb may be known as a "cure" for some illness, and it may actually work, or it may be a placebo, or it may work but also be harmful in other ways - they don't know. Because it takes medical science, pharmaceutical chemistry, neurochemistry, biochemistry, etc. to actually figure these things out, how they actually function, and which chemical (if any) in the plant (most contain hundreds) is the active ingredient responsible for the desired effect.

                    This might come as news to you but your body generates a bio-electric field
                    Which is an electric field and has nothing to do with any quackery concept of "vital energy".

                    Now whether this energy has the ascribed effects is up in the air but the energy is there.
                    There's energy everywhere. E=mc^2. Light is energy, motion is energy, heat is energy, sound is energy... everything in existence has some kind of energy. But none of these are the "vital energy" that is described in quackery.

                    Second Off while the energy thing is there as part of that school it's a side interest to the actual practice which revolves around being as minimally invasive as possible and trying to solve things through a mix of diet, stress reduction, and gentle treatments for issues where necessary, such as using peppermint (a common and well proven tool) to deal with stomach issues, under the principle that being destructive harms the body worse than trying to work to help support the body. If you're even semi-intelligent you can see how vitalitae ties those bits of the school together
                    No, if you're actually intelligent you'll see that that is all a huge load of bullcrap.

                    Ooh, you use peppermint to treat stomachaches and everyone knows that peppermint works for stomachaches: wow! Now that obviously means that all the rest of the stuff that they do must be correct too, right?

                    Nope. That's a common strategy used by nutcases, religious zealots and the like, when they don't have any actual evidence or rational arguments to back up their views (ie. always). It's the same when the Jehova's witnesses want to convert you, they use arguments like this: "look, the bible says 'don't kill', and obviously we all know killing is bad. So since the bible is right about that, all the other stuff must be right as well!"

                    You do I hope realize that the flat earth thing was a lie, and that nobody believed that the earth was flat and that columbus didn't prove anything and that he was a really scummy person who enslaved and tortured the native populace right? The Egyptians and the Greeks are well known to have calculated the circumference of the earth and gotten actually very very close.
                    No one has said anything about columbus. Flat earth was a myth believed by common people during various times in (pre-)history.

                    Further on that point no science can't disprove things, it can only say that things tend to be or not to be. it always leaves open the possibility that the earth just might be turning flat whenever you look away and that it might have become flat since the last time you checked and so it check again. It never ever ever ever says "X is true" it always says "X is likely based upon the data I have at the moment"
                    No. The way it works is that nothing can be 100% certain. In practice however, the distinction between 99,9999% and 100% is merely academic. Since we have to draw the line somewhere, we have to accept that 99,999...% certainty as certain in practice. Which is what is actually done. We know with 99,999...% certainty that the earth is not flat. The error margin in that statement comes from things like, we might be living in a computer simulation in which case it would be impossible to say what anything is really. So mostly just philosophical things that have no real effect on anything.

                    That doesn't mean that nothing can be disproven. Things can be disproven and are, constantly. When a hypothesis makes predictions which do not match the observed evidence, the hypothesis is disproven, plain and simple. You don't seem to understand a fundamental distinction here: proving and disproving are entirely different things. We disprove things constantly, that's how science works, how theories get advanced.

                    Note the very important word there "Temporary" nothing in science is ever set in stone even when it's a "law". All a law really is is something that testing hasn't invalidated once yet.
                    The fact that we might get new knowledge in the future does not give you a free pass to dismiss all current knowledge. That's not how it works. What is known now is the best knowledge we currently have, and that's what we have to go by for now, until(if) better knowledge appears. If you disagree with some part of it, the burden is on your to show it false, or present a better hypothesis. You can't just assume, "well it'll be proven false in the future anyway so I don't have to believe it". That's putting the cart before the horse.

                    First off have you ever heard that an absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence? So starting out with your entire statement there is wrong and purely skeptic philisophical bullshit, second off if you'd actually spend the time to do your homework you'd learn just how wrong you are on the matter. You have said there is no evidence I have provided examples and uses. I believe this means that the burden of evidence is now on you to disprove me rather than just pulling statements out of your ass without having done your homework to back it up.
                    Ok, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

                    The idea that nothing is 100% certain does not mean that every possibility is equally probable. And actually, absence of evidence can be, in many cases, taken as evidence of absence - particularly, in cases where the claim is unfalsifiable. Furthermore, as it's not possible to prove the negative, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. That is, if you're claiming that naturopathy has health effects, or that the body contains some kind of magical energy field that somehow reacts beneficently with naturopathic medicines(tm), now only $5 a bottle, or something... then you're making a positive claim and it's up to you to provide evidence for that claim, not for others to disprove it.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by fakeJap View Post
                      i wonder why western people despise homeopathy this much.. from where i come, we have big universities and colleges teaching only homeopathy. i dont think they are teaching about "memory of water" there for all these years..
                      Because it's superstitious garbage that doesn't actually work. It's based on beliefs and magical thinking, not scientific evidence.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X