Still, how would you actually define the meaning of "a true force."

Do you really understand gravity? If you do, then you are even ahead of scientists.

And apologies for the double post... but I've just stumbled accross a most informative site on the subject.

http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

Childish, but fun :D

M

Actually, the Global Warming may be caused by Solar activity:

Ice cups on Mars have already melted...

Conclusion

The empirical evidence isn't conclusive on whether global warming is happening on Mars. However, to answer the question on whether the sun is causing Earth's global warming, there is plentiful data on solar activity and Earth's climate. Many papers have examined this data, concluding the correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.

So the argument that Martian warming disproves anthropogenic global warming fails on two points - there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming and Mars' climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations.

OH OK, if you say so.... LOL

Evidence of efficacy
65. Lack of scientific plausibility is disappointing, but does not necessarily mean that a
treatment does not work. What is important is how a treatment performs when tested
fairly against a placebo treatment or other treatments. We consider that the best evidence is
provided by randomised controlled trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews of RCTs.
66. We received conflicting opinions on whether homeopathic products are efficacious
(that is, whether they work better than a placebo treatment). The British Homeopathic
Association (BHA) told us that:
Four out of five comprehensive systematic reviews of RCTs in homeopathy have
reached the qualified conclusion that homeopathy differs from placebo.74
67. Professor Edzard Ernst, Director of the Complementary Medicine Group at the
Peninsula Medical School, disputed this summary of the evidence in detail. The systematic
reviews to which the BHA refers are: Kleijnen et al, 1991;75 Boissel et al, 1996;76 Cucherat et
al, 2000;77 Linde et al, 1997;78 and Shang et al, 2005.79 Professor Ernst pointed out that:
1. The Kleijnen review is now 18 years old and thus outdated.
2. Boissel et al merely combined p-values80 of the included studies. This article is now
also outdated. Furthermore it is not unambiguously positive.
3. Cucherat et al is the publication of the Boissel document which was a EUsponsored
report. [The authors themselves noted that “there is some evidence that
homeopathic treatments are more effective than placebo; however, the strength of
this evidence is low because of the low methodological quality of the trials.”81]
4. Linde et al has been re-analysed by various authors, including Linde himself, and
all of the 6 re-analyses (none of which were cited in the BHA’s submission) have
come out negative.
5. Shang et al very clearly arrived at a devastatingly negative overall conclusion.82 68. Professor Ernst also commented on the BHA’s claims about reviews that offered
positive reviews for allergies,83 upper respiratory tract infections84 and rheumatic diseases85
were equally flawed: the “review” on allergies was a lecture series, not a systematic review;
the “reviews” on upper respiratory tract infections were health technology assessments, not
systematic reviews, and mostly contained uncontrolled data; and the “review” on
rheumatic diseases was not conclusive.86 Finally, he pointed out that the BHA had omitted
several systematic reviews and meta-analyses, each of which “must have been known to the
BHA” and “all of them arrived at negative conclusions”.87
Second rule of proper science, THOU SHALL NOT CHERRY PICK RESEARCH!

69. The review which we consider the most comprehensive to date is that by Shang et al.88
The review compared 110 placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy matched according to
disorder and type of outcome to trials of conventional medicine. The study only included
trials that were controlled, included randomised assignment to treatment or placebo
groups and were accompanied by sufficient data for odds ratio calculations.89 The authors
concluded that “when analyses were restricted to large trials of higher quality there was no
convincing evidence that homeopathy was superior to placebo”.90

70. In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that
homeopathic products perform no better than placebos.

There have now been around 200 trials of homeopathy against placebo sugar pills
and, taken collectively, they show that there is no evidence that homeopathy pills are
any better than a placebo. […] it is not worth doing any more placebo controlled
trials because you would be throwing good money after bad and you would have to
have a huge number of very strongly positive trials to outweigh all of the negative
ones.100

I forgot to say Thanks for digging up the report :D

The evidence check
Scientific plausibility for a mode of action
48. Both critics and supporters of homeopathy have questioned the scientific plausibility of
any direct physiological mode of action. For example, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of
Great Britain (RPSGB), which is firmly in the “critic” camp,48 argues that “no plausible
scientific reason has yet been proposed as to why it should work”.49 The Prince’s
Foundation for Integrated Health, which is more supportive of homeopathy,50 also notes:
“any specific mechanism of action based on extreme dilution is implausible and regarded
as unsupportable by the majority of scientists working in this field”.51
49. There appear to be two main concerns. The first is the principle of like-cures-like and
the second is about how ultra-dilutions could retain characteristics of the active ingredient.
We deal with each in turn. 50. The principle of like-cures-like was described by Dr Peter Fisher as analogous to the
principle of toxicology hormesis.52 Professor Edward Calabrese, a toxicology expert from
the University of Massachusetts, has described hormesis as “a dose-response relationship
phenomenon characterized by low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition”.53 In other
words, the impact of toxins on physiology depends on dose: substances that are toxic in
high doses may be beneficial in low doses. For example, “as the dose of a carcinogen
decreases, it reaches a point where the agent actually may reduce the risk of cancer below
that of the control group”.54 And this has been likened to the like-cures-like principle
central to homeopathy,55 whereby a substance that causes a particular symptom will cure
that symptom if administered at a low dose.

51. There are two aspects of the argument that the like-cures-like principle is based on
hormesis that concern us.
a) Over-extrapolation: it is not good scientific practice to conclude that because some
substances are harmful at high doses and beneficial at low doses, that all substances
behave in the same way; and
b) Provings using ultra-dilutions: the similarity with hormesis breaks down further if
provings are carried out using ultra-dilutions. Hormesis is a dose-response: it provides
no rationale for expecting an ultra-dilution to cause symptoms in “healthy” people and
the same ultra-dilution to cure those symptoms in “unwell” people.
52. We have a further concern about the like-cures-like principle. It is not reasonable to
lump “symptoms” into categories independent of physiological causation. For example,
there are many different kinds of stimulants—caffeine, nicotine, amphetamines—but the
metabolic pathways they use to cause stimulation differ. The principle of like-cures-like
overlooks this complication, by holding that any kind of stimulant could, at low enough
doses, counteract insomnia. But insomnia is caused by different things, such as pain,
hormonal changes, psychological disorders or jet lag as well as the use of stimulants.
Treating the symptoms and ignoring the causes is simply not good medical practice. 53. Finally, there are examples of practice. We are concerned by some homeopathic
products. For example, it is possible to buy homeopathic products made from body parts
such as hip joints and colons, animals such as iguana and dragonfly, and different kinds of
sunlight. We are doubly concerned that it is also possible to buy products derived from
precious archaeological features such as the Great Wall of China and Stonehenge.56 We do
not understand what symptoms could be induced (and therefore be treated) by these
products under the like-cures-like principle. and neither do homeopaths . .

54. We conclude that the principle of like-cures-like is theoretically weak. It fails to
provide a credible physiological mode of action for homeopathic products. We note
that this is the settled view of medical science.57

Ultra-dilutions
55. Under the homeopathic principles, “the greater the dilution, the more potent the
medicine”.58 Dr Peter Fisher, Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital,
described how homeopathic dilutions are made:
[They] are prepared by a process of sequential dilution with vigorous shaking at each
stage of dilution, known as succussion. Dilution is usually in steps of 1:10 or 1:100,
referred to as x or d (decimal) or c (centesimal) respectively.59
56. For example, a 30C dilution indicates that the solution has been diluted in the ratio of
1:100, thirty times successively; one drop of the original solution would be diluted with 100
drops of water and the resulting solution would be diluted again, and so on until 30
dilutions had taken place. According to the Prince’s Foundation for Integrated Health, in
some homeopathic products “not even a single molecule of the original substance remains
in the diluted medicine prescribed to the patient”.60
57. Dr Fisher stated that the process of “shaking is important”61 but was unable to say how
much shaking was required. He said “that has not been fully investigated”62 but did tell us
that “You have to shake it vigorously [...] if you just stir it gently, it does not work”.63
58. A number of theories have been proposed to explain how water that does not contain a
single molecule of the active ingredient can retain the properties of that ingredient and
have a physiological action on the patient. The most frequently mentioned in the written
evidence is the theory of “molecular memory”, which proposes that water can retain some
imprint of substances previously dissolved in it. Some of the explanations for how water
might remember substances dissolved in it cite electromagnetic properties,64 frequency
imprinting,65 quantum physics66 and supra-molecular behaviour of water (that is, largescale
interactions).67
59. There are enormous difficulties presented by the notion that water can “remember”
substances that have previously been dissolved in it. When substances are dissolved in water, the water molecules will form structures around the solute molecules; but the
hydrogen bonds between water molecules are far too weak and short-lived to hold that
structure once the solute has been removed. It is not surprising that experiments that claim
to have demonstrated the memory of water have failed to be reproducible.68 The notion
that water could hold imprints of solutions previously dissolved in it is so far removed
from current scientific understanding that, as Professor David Colquhoun, Professor of
Pharmacology at UCL, put it: “If homeopathy worked the whole of chemistry and physics
would have to be overturned”.69 Professor Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser to the
RPSGB, put it a little less dramatically: I think it probably would be revolutionary if homeopathy was proved to be right,
because it does go against a lot of fundamental understanding of science as it stands
at the moment.70

60. Even if water could retain a memory of previously dissolved substances we know of no
explanation for why the sugar-based homeopathic pills routinely dispensed would retain
such a memory.
61. We consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances
previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible.
62. When we asked Professor David Harper, Chief Scientist at the DH, about the scientific
plausibility of homeopathy, he agreed with our assessment that there was “a lack of
scientific plausibility in how homeopathic remedies might work”.71 However, he added
“that is not to say there should not be research into like cures like or molecular memory. I
think that is a different thing.”72
63. We would challenge Professor Harper’s comment that research funding should be
directed towards exploring theories that are not scientifically plausible. Research funding
is limited and highly competitive. The Government should continue its policy of
funding the highest quality applications for important scientific research determined
on the basis of peer review.
64. The Government Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor John Beddington, has told us in
unequivocal terms that he is of the view that there is no evidence base for homeopathy.73
We recommend that the Government Chief Scientific Adviser and Professor Harper,
Chief Scientist at the DH, get together to see if they can reach an agreed position on the
question of whether there is any merit in research funding being directed towards the
claimed modes of action of homeopathy.

... in fact, Free Will is an illusion, a philosophycal concept of the relative kind -- perceived only in relation to other issues...

* Even Randomness is possible only within a finit set:
A set of random numbers -- extended to infinity -- will, sooner or later, acquire a certain pattern.

Nevertheless, to a certain degree, we are Free to exercise our Wills... (But only to a certain degree -- permitted by law! )

P.S. After all, there's a system to every madness!

Think again! I'll post it later as time permits. However, regarding your quote:



If they didn't work at all they would have said that. THEY DIDN'T! At least they are open-minded.

It also appears that your quote was made BEFORE mine, because they clearly NOW feel that "Three independent systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials on homeopathy reported that its effects seem to be MORE than placebo."

I have..otherwise I wouldn't have said such a thing..and the details are none of your god damn business... don't you think if I wanted to share those details with you I would have..duh!

_________Example by analogy____________

An intelligent person is FREE to do as s/he pleases...
Though, only to a certain extend -- due to various social obligations!

By the same token, the choices we make are always subject to our conscious or subconscious preferrences -- as much as our choices may appear to be random, yet they NEVER ARE.* * *

Just because one isn't aware of those subconscious preferrences, doesn't mean the choice -- planned or not -- is completely random!

God doesn't play dice, and neiether are people -- though it may appear as though they do...

I think its foolish to set these two approaches (pharmaceuticals and, say, homeopathy) together as if we had to choose between one of two choices.

Classical homeopathy is generally defined as a system of medical treatment based on the use of minute quantities of remedies that in larger doses produce effects similar to those of the disease being treated. Hahnemann believed that very small doses of a medication could have very powerful healing effects because their potency could be affected by vigorous and methodical shaking (succussion). Hahnemann referred to this alleged increase in potency by vigorous shaking as dynamization. Hahnemann thought succussion could release "immaterial and spiritual powers," thereby making substances more active. "Tapping on a leather pad or the heel of the hand was alleged to double the dilution" (ibid.).

homeopathic "laws"

Homeopaths refer to "the Law of Infinitesimals" and the "Law of Similars" as grounds for using minute substances and for believing that like heals like, but these are not natural laws of science. If they are laws at all, they are metaphysical laws, i.e., beliefs about the nature of reality that would be impossible to test by empirical means. Hahnemann's ideas did originate in experience. That he drew metaphysical conclusions from empirical events does not, however, make his ideas empirically testable. The law of infinitesimals seems to have been partly derived from his notion that any remedy would cause the patient to get worse before getting better and that one could minimize this negative effect by significantly reducing the size of the dose. Most critics of homeopathy balk at this "law" because it leads to remedies that have been so diluted as to have nary a single molecule of the substance one starts with.

Hahnemann came upon his Law of Similars (like cures like) in 1790 while translating William Cullen's Materia Medica into German (Loudon 1997: 94). He began experimenting on himself with various substances, starting with cinchona.

Perhaps if you were to have a personal experience where one of these "mistakes made along the way" involved you and your health you would have a different perspective.

When big pharma benefits at my risk, it isn't so lame anymore.

free will...to do what one wants.. to be spontaneous...to make multiple choices...
if we didnt have those choices/free will ,we would all be predetermined people with no surprises kinda like worker ants...thus i do believe free will does breed randomness

* * * THAT'S A TYPICAL CONFUSION OF TERMS * * *

I'm not confused about ID. I can see what is demonstrably true. I mean it's hard to know whether or not to believe the scientists who say that they are being forced to study/present science in a certain way. I am sure the cases presented in the film are true. But, is it a problem everywhere or just a few select cases of being silenced?

Expelled makes some outrageous claims. But what really happened to the people they claim were persecuted for their views? And what is the real story about evolution and Intelligent Design?
In practically every scene, Expelled insults the science of evolution and the scientists who study it, accepting the long-ago-debunked criticisms and conspiracy theories of the intelligent design proponents as valid. On the contrary, evolution is well accepted in the scientific community, where it is considered the organizing principle of biology and central as well to the field of geology. The notion that scientists have formed an atheistic cabal to keep intelligent design from its day in the sun is ludicrous.




Intelligent design has not produced any research to suppress. When prominent ID proponent Michael Behe was asked about his research, and why "you don't do those tests?" he responded, "I myself would prefer to spend time in what I would consider to be more fruitful endeavors." If even proponents of ID do not think it is a fruitful enterprise, why should the scientific community take any interest in it?




Intelligent design is scientifically unproductive, and this perhaps explains why scientists like Guillermo Gonzalez and Michael Behe publish far fewer papers after they become attracted to intelligent design. Ultimately, intelligent design's lack of success in science departments is the fault of the flawed and unscientific nature of intelligent design itself, not the result of bias in the scientific community.
The issue is not the suppression of ID, but the lack of warrant for its scientific claims. And ultimately, ID has an uphill struggle to demonstrate that it is, indeed, science. The fundamental problem with intelligent design as science is that intelligent design claims cannot be tested. Scientific testing requires that there be some set of phenomena which are incompatible with your idea. No observation could possibly be incompatible with a claim that an "intelligent agent" (whom everyone recognizes as God) acted to, say, introduce information into a system. Untestable claims are not scientific claims. Regardless of their attractiveness as religious ideas (although many people of faith strongly reject intelligent design) intelligent design has not passed muster as science.

Flunked - Expelled Debunked by PrometheusWithLight

Really? "Theist" means "God" ? Are you sure about that????

"A" often means simply 'not'. Atypical, acyclic, asymmetric, see.

So an "atheist" is a person who is "not a theist". Being "not a theist" does not require a person to hold a positive disbelief in a God.

I think the prefix you might have been look for is "contra", not "a".

As far as your notion of 'agnostic', too bad JR isn't around to tell you all about the historical agnostic position on 'know-ability'.