Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology (Read 19252 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #50 –
Quote from: Soap on
We do not, and baring unforeseen circumstances never will, know the "laws of nature".  We have working models describing observations to varying degrees of precision (some of those quite high).  I believe it is exactly this sort of misstatement on your part greynol is attempting to challenge.  The whole blood language "established laws of nature" reeks of missing the point.


There is no misstatement except, IMO, in your response.  You seem to think that "knowlege" is something absolute, but both in common discussion and in scientific language it is rarely if ever meant that way, and I never claim absolute knowlege.  Science is not philosophy though it can of course be informed by philosophy. 

Still, science is a practical discipline and it's results are good enough to trust your life to, as you do every time you fly in an airplane.  That's not absolute knowledge, but then neither science nor I make any claims of absolute knowlege.  I do not even know, absolutely, that I am sitting here typing this response.  It could all be a dream you know.  But it is still perfectly appropriate to say that I know I am sitting here typing this.  I know beyond any reasonable doubt, which is all I ever mean when I say "know" on this forum.

When you try to treat words like "knowlege" when I use them as if they were claims of absolute knowlege you are merely misrepresenting my words.  Not a very impressive or productive way of arguing, to my mind at least.  All you are doing, so far as I can see, is bandying an equivocation in the guise of an argument.

This forum is not about philosophy, but about science as it is applied to sound reproduction.  By bringing in such airy philosophical concepts you are really skirting the terms of service, it seems to me.
Ed Seedhouse
VA7SDH

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #51 –
Quote from: Soap on
We do not, and baring unforeseen circumstances never will, know the "laws of nature".


I think this overstates the problem. What we don't know about the laws of nature is what they are with perfect accuracy.

Do we know them? Of course we do. We know very many of them far better than we know our parents or our spouses, and we think we know them well. In the usual language that we use, humanity knows very, very, many laws of nature very, very well. We just don't know them perfectly. Being inexact creatures, we never will.

How well do we need to know the laws of nature? We only need to know them well enough to be effective at exploiting them in the current context and with a minimal planning horizon.

In the case of homeopathy, we probably already know what we need to know. Physical effects seem exceedinly unlikely, and any tangible benefits seem to be primarily psychological.

Speaking of areas where we are probably behind in terms of knowing what we need to know to be effective, there's always the soft sciences - psychology, sociology, politics, economics, etc...


Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #52 –
It's been a long busy day, so I only have some time now to past a few answers.

Quote from: greynol on
I really don't have a horse in the race, Maarten, what I think or don't think is irrelevant.  Why are you evading my question about god?  It is at the very heart of my point.

(...link to unrelated discussion...)


What god do you want me to disprove?
If you propose a god who, just for the fun of it, makes homeopathy not work whenever there is a chance that someone is doing a scientific study, but otherwise rewards his/her faithful follower by curing him when he buys a bottle of overpriced water, yes you must win the debate. A god acting like that has to do a lot more of course to continuously spoof all the measurements scientists are taking all the time. These measurements are not all independent, they form one big coherent structure of knowledge. Of course, an all-powerful god can easily fool all of us. Do you still like the technology that has come about because of the work of these foolhardy scientists? Do you think this god approves of all these appliances that have been developed by people chasing his pranks instead of seeing his/her light?

This really goes back to the post which I think started this discussion (post #7)
"Wow never heard that one about the holocaust (not in the MSM, just from kooks). I always say too how can believers in, say, astrology, can use things like GPS systems, and computers, and even cars and planes when the same laws that make them work invalidate their beliefs. Of course, it's a rhetorical question."


EDIT: Even though I say "do you" all the time, I don't mean to question you personally, so please treat these as rethorical questions.

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #53 –
Quote from: Axon on
No scientific theory is accepted or dismissed based on evidence.


Theory: Rocks (in my hand, on the surface of the earth, in the atmosphere, etc) fall up.

Test: Let go
Rock falls down.
Evidence dismisses theory.

It's primary falsification!
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #54 –
Quote from: Northpack on
Quote from: Woodinville on
Sorry, but you can't prove a negative.

Right. Finally someone got it. Well, at least a good part of it.

Quote from: greynol on
The issue at hand is that people have made claims that the negative has indeed been proven; nothing more, nothing less.

...and that's the other part. Thanks, greynol.



True and true.
However, that still leaves anyone claiming that homeopathy works because of some 'other' reason and meanwhile continuing to use "modern" inventions a hypocrite.

"well, when scientists make statements about homeopathy based on the scientific understanding of the world, they are flat out wrong, but when they design an airplane or a mobile phone or lasering of the eye, of course they get things right and I'll happily trust them." (me paraphrasing a bit)

You can stay on your high philosphical chair and claim that the negative has not been proven, but maybe sometime you want to come down into the real world and think about what you really accept everyday as truth. Im(ns)ho, the problem with philosophy is that, while it is a very nice logical way of thinking, it doesn't necessarily apply to the real world.

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #55 –
Quote from: Maarten on
"well, when scientists make statements about homeopathy based on the scientific understanding of the world, they are flat out wrong, but when they design an airplane or a mobile phone or lasering of the eye, of course they get things right and I'll happily trust them." (me paraphrasing a bit)

You can stay on your high philosphical chair and claim that the negative has not been proven, but maybe sometime you want to come down into the real world and think about what you really accept everyday as truth. Im(ns)ho, the problem with philosophy is that, while it is a very nice logical way of thinking, it doesn't necessarily apply to the real world.


In the case of homeocrapathy, the obligation is for POSTIVE PROOF from the homecrapath. 

There is no such thing as absolute negative proof. However, the homeopath is making a very, VERY extraordinary positive assertion, namely that water has "memory", and that that water has persistant memory even though every molecule, on average, exchanges a proton with the rest of the fluid once every 45 minutes, give or take, at room temperature.

After 10 periods of 45 minutes, only 1/1024 water molecules even HAS the same actual atoms in place. And so on.
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #56 –
Just a question/thought on the idea of proving negatives. Is it really an issue because it is a negative per se or is it an issue because a negative is to broad in it's possibilities to test fully? example. Can't prove there aren't pink elephants. Why not? Because it's negative or because the universe is too big? Let's narrow the negative. Lets say the negative is there are no pink elephants in my garage. It is now narrow enough and practical to properly test and even draw a conclusion no? I can't prove no pink elephants in the universe but I think I can prove no pink elephants in my garage?

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #57 –
Quote from: analog scott on
Just a question/thought on the idea of proving negatives. Is it really an issue because it is a negative per se or is it an issue because a negative is to broad in it's possibilities to test fully? example. Can't prove there aren't pink elephants. Why not? Because it's negative or because the universe is too big? Let's narrow the negative. Lets say the negative is there are no pink elephants in my garage. It is now narrow enough and practical to properly test and even draw a conclusion no? I can't prove no pink elephants in the universe but I think I can prove no pink elephants in my garage?


One can read the genome of elephants, and find there is no gene for giving elephants a pink color. Moreover, one can study which pigments exist in the animal kingdom, and which other ways animals / plants gain colours, and one can conclude that the current population of elephants on planet earth does not have the capability of breeding a pink elephant this generation or the next.

Elephants away from earth don't exist. Even on earth species change quickly as soon as populations drift apart. Even if there would be an animal on some other planet looking very much like a (pink or grey) elephant, that species would not be able to interbreed with elephants from earth, so it really would be a different species.

So, unless you want to claim some kind of god like the one I described before (in which case it really doesn't make any sense to describe or discuss anything at all I think), I really don't see how you can claim "a pink elephant may just exist somewhere in a dark corner". While the claim may seem very specific, you actually claim that the way science thinks the world can be described is wrong.


(I realize my argumentation is evolving as the discussion goes on. I guess I am learning something at least from this...)

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #58 –
Quote from: Maarten on
Quote from: analog scott on
Just a question/thought on the idea of proving negatives. Is it really an issue because it is a negative per se or is it an issue because a negative is to broad in it's possibilities to test fully? example. Can't prove there aren't pink elephants. Why not? Because it's negative or because the universe is too big? Let's narrow the negative. Lets say the negative is there are no pink elephants in my garage. It is now narrow enough and practical to properly test and even draw a conclusion no? I can't prove no pink elephants in the universe but I think I can prove no pink elephants in my garage?


One can read the genome of elephants, and find there is no gene for giving elephants a pink color. Moreover, one can study which pigments exist in the animal kingdom, and which other ways animals / plants gain colours, and one can conclude that the current population of elephants on planet earth does not have the capability of breeding a pink elephant this generation or the next.

Elephants away from earth don't exist. Even on earth species change quickly as soon as populations drift apart. Even if there would be an animal on some other planet looking very much like a (pink or grey) elephant, that species would not be able to interbreed with elephants from earth, so it really would be a different species.

So, unless you want to claim some kind of god like the one I described before (in which case it really doesn't make any sense to describe or discuss anything at all I think), I really don't see how you can claim "a pink elephant may just exist somewhere in a dark corner". While the claim may seem very specific, you actually claim that the way science thinks the world can be described is wrong.


(I realize my argumentation is evolving as the discussion goes on. I guess I am learning something at least from this...)



isn't that a series of theories rather than actual proof?

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #59 –
Quote from: analog scott on
isn't that a series of theories rather than actual proof?


What I am trying to get across is that if you say "there might be pink elephants somewhere" you actually claim this whole series of theories is false. That would leave people claiming pink elephants might exist having to prove these theories false, and propose new theories which explain all known relevant observations and support their claim, instead of me having to be god and see all of the universe at once.

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #60 –
Quote from: Maarten on
Quote from: analog scott on
isn't that a series of theories rather than actual proof?


What I am trying to get across is that if you say "there might be pink elephants somewhere" you actually claim this whole series of theories is false. That would leave people claiming pink elephants might exist having to prove these theories false, and propose new theories which explain all known relevant observations and support their claim, instead of me having to be god and see all of the universe at once.


It was my understanding that in science those who offer theories have the burden of testing them. "there might be pink elephants some where" isn't really a theory it is a by product of "you can't prove no pink elephants." I know it seems like hair splitting but I think it maintains a proper frame work in the expression of what we know and don't know on a scientific level. So I think the correct scientific response to the assertion 'there might be pink elephants" would be "OK prove it" rather than "No, there are not pink elephants." There really is a big difference there.

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #61 –
Quote from: analog scott link=msg=0 date=
It was my understanding that in science those who offer theories have the burden of testing them. "there might be pink elephants some where" isn't really a theory it is a by product of "you can't prove no pink elephants." I know it seems like hair splitting but I think it maintains a proper frame work in the expression of what we know and don't know on a scientific level. So I think the correct scientific response to the assertion 'there might be pink elephants" would be "OK prove it" rather than "No, there are not pink elephants." There really is a big difference there.


The problem with that is that there are people who use "but we don't know everything" to assert that pink elephants really can exist after all. Read up earlier in the thread for their arguments (only it was about homeopathy or astrology back then).
I can't prove "no pink elephants," but I can prove "no pink elephants according to current scientific theories." Now anyone claiming "pink elephants really can exist" will have to propose theories which incorporate the possibility of pink elephants. If anyone poses such a theory, I really wouldn't have any difficulty anymore with the original statement, even if no-one has ever actually seen a pink elephant yet.
Now of course, I am shifting the burden here. However, I am shifting the burden from something positively impossible (me having to be god and see all of the universe at once) to something difficult but doable (well, doable if pink elephants can actually exist).

While it may sound like a nice easy escape route, keep in mind that someone who wants to defend, say, homeopathy, has to come up with new theories for basically all of the natural sciences so far, including the most basic ideas about matter and interactions. Something on top of current theories doesn't work as, once more, they are incompatible. No wonder they want to stick to me having to prove the negative.

Science completely invalidates homeopathy and astrology

Reply #62 –
Quote from: Maarten on
Quote from: analog scott link=msg=0 date=
It was my understanding that in science those who offer theories have the burden of testing them. "there might be pink elephants some where" isn't really a theory it is a by product of "you can't prove no pink elephants." I know it seems like hair splitting but I think it maintains a proper frame work in the expression of what we know and don't know on a scientific level. So I think the correct scientific response to the assertion 'there might be pink elephants" would be "OK prove it" rather than "No, there are not pink elephants." There really is a big difference there.


The problem with that is that there are people who use "but we don't know everything" to assert that pink elephants really can exist after all. Read up earlier in the thread for their arguments (only it was about homeopathy or astrology back then).


And they would be correct. But there is a big difference between "can" and "do." Not a really good reason to break from well working conventions of proof IMO.


Quote from: Maarten on
I can't prove "no pink elephants," but I can prove "no pink elephants according to current scientific theories."



Can you? What current theory precludes the *possibility* of pink elephants?


Quote from: Maarten on
Now anyone claiming "pink elephants really can exist" will have to propose theories which incorporate the possibility of pink elephants.



Agreed. then they would have to prove those theories. That is where the burden should lie. but the real scientist has no dog in this fight. The real scientist is only interested in discovery via the scientific method. So the scientific position on pink elephants would be we haven't observed them and until shown otherwise we have no reason to believe they are out there but we do not preclude the possibility of them until we have good reason to do so.


Quote from: Maarten on
If anyone poses such a theory, I really wouldn't have any difficulty anymore with the original statement, even if no-one has ever actually seen a pink elephant yet.
Now of course, I am shifting the burden here. However, I am shifting the burden from something positively impossible (me having to be god and see all of the universe at once) to something difficult but doable (well, doable if pink elephants can actually exist).

While it may sound like a nice easy escape route, keep in mind that someone who wants to defend, say, homeopathy, has to come up with new theories for basically all of the natural sciences so far, including the most basic ideas about matter and interactions. Something on top of current theories doesn't work as, once more, they are incompatible. No wonder they want to stick to me having to prove the negative.



This is why it is key not to assert the negative unless one can prove the negative. Which gets me back to my original question. is it that we can't prove negatives or that we can't prove negatives that are simply to open to possibilites that can not be tested? I think I can prove no pink elephants in my garage. Am I worng about that?

Just as a note, I think we need to be careful not to get caught up in technicalities about pink elephants. It's an arbitrary example. The issue is proving negatives not proving pink elephants.