“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[The Legendary Shark]

In 1991,

And... the twenty years of research since then?

No idea. I'm sure more recent studies could be found but, what's the point? Was science before 1991 all wrong and science after 1991 all right? (A very quick search yielded "Effects of homeopathic medications Eupatorium perfoliatum and Arsenicum album on parasitemia of Plasmodium berghei-infected mice" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491606001019) - although this was published in 2006 and may also be too old to be relevant.)

It's not my job or intent to defend homeopathy or convince anyone that it works or doesn't work. The examples I cited in my last post were merely an attempt to demonstrate that your assertion of homeopathy being repeatedly found wanting may need some revision.

Here is the science behind homeopathy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpC8BvHyorg&feature=related

Please- do not try and tell me this in in any way a real science.

Okay, I won't. Anyone can make a YouTube video and without closely examining his content, qualifications or methods I'm not in a position to pass any kind of judgement on Mr Benneth or his claims.

[Richmond Clements]

Was science before 1991 all wrong and science after 1991 all right?

I'm assuming here that you are again deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I said for some reason, but doing so does make debating the subject with you very difficult.

[House of Usher]

"Recently, chemists have made the surprising discovery that molecules form clusters that increase in size with dilution. These clusters measure several micro-metres in diameter. The increase in size occurs nonlinearly with dilution and it depends on history, flying in the face of classical chemistry. Indeed, there is as yet no explanation for the phenomenon. It may well be another reflection of the strangeness of water that depends on its quantum properties.

"In the mid-1990s, quantum physicists Del Giudice and Preparata and other colleagues in University of Milan, in Italy, argued that quantum coherent domains measuring 100nm in diameter could arise in pure water. They show how the collective vibrations of the water molecules in the coherent domain eventually become phase-locked to the fluctuations of the global electromagnetic field. In this way, long-lasting, stable oscillations could be maintained in the water.

"One way in which 'memory' might be stored in water is through the excitation of long-lasting coherent oscillations specific to the substances in the homeopathic remedy dissolved in water. Interaction of water molecules with other molecules changes the collective structure of water, which would in turn determine the specific coherent oscillations that will develop. If these become stabilised and maintained by phase coupling between the global field and the excited molecules, then, even when the dissolved substances are diluted away, the water may still carry the coherent oscillations that can 'seed' other volumes of water on dilution."

What this all amounts to is an untested hypothesis. Some quantum physicists have suggested a possible pathway/process/mechanism by which water could retain memory in the manner claimed by homeopaths. That doesn't mean to say it actually happens. I believe it was Einstein who explained theoretically the physics involved in time travel. It doesn't mean time travel is necessarily achievable though.

On a different note, even if it were possible for water to retain memory of previously diluted content that is no longer present in any detectable quantity (i.e. it is just water), that doesn't mean to say that such an infinite dilution is effective as medicine.

[The Legendary Shark]

Was science before 1991 all wrong and science after 1991 all right?

I'm assuming here that you are again deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I said for some reason, but doing so does make debating the subject with you very difficult.

No, no. I'm not having that.

You said "I'd agree with this if homeopathy (as that is what we're talking about) had not already been tested under scientific conditions- repeatedly- and found wanting every single time.
How many times must something be tested by science before the results of that testing are accepted?"

I cited three references where homeopathy has not been found wanting and you complained that I didn't cite anything after 1991 (even though a December 10, 1994 issue of the Lancet was also cited). You implied that homeopathy has never, ever been shown to have any positive effects whatsoever and I presented data that would seem to indicate the contrary. How is this deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what you said?

[The Legendary Shark]

What this all amounts to is an untested hypothesis...

There are many untested hypotheses in science. The Big Bang theory, black holes, the brain as the seat of memory. Science does not know as much as it pretends.

[House of Usher]

The brain as the seat of memory. Science does not know as much as it pretends.

On that one I'm fairly convinced by the well-documented case studies of brain injuried people suffering loss of memory. There's a good correlation between Alzheimer's and loss of memory too. I don't know much about astrophysics and cosmology. They're not in my field and I'm not very interested in them, so I tend not to worry about it too much.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I believe it was Einstein who explained theoretically the physics involved in time travel. It doesn't mean time travel is necessarily achievable though.

In the interest of balance, Stephen Hawking also described the Chronology Protection Conjecture, which describes the impossibility of Time Travel. That doesn't mean it's impossible though.

Science does not know as much as it pretends.

I take offense at this. Science does not pretend to know anything. The default scientific position on many subjects, homeopathy included, is 'We really just don't know'. The only people claiming to 'know' anything, while citing a scientific basis, are people with an agenda.

[M.I.K.]

I've used homeopathic remedies a few times over the years for minor ailments, (and major insomnia), in spite of being more than a bit sceptical of the whole "memory of water" thing. I reckoned there was no harm in giving them a go.

None of them worked.

So they're rubbish.

So there.

[Richmond Clements]

I cited three references where homeopathy has not been found wanting and you complained that I didn't cite anything after 1991

You cite a Dutch study from 1991. I can find no reports of this in anywhere but homeopathy sites, so really I can make no comment on it if there is no balanced reporting of it- and I can not find one that cites an actual source for this report (although of course there may be one out there).

Anyone can make a YouTube video and without closely examining his content, qualifications or methods I'm not in a position to pass any kind of judgement on Mr Benneth or his claims.

Mr Benneth is a homeopath. A quick google search would have told you that. So if he is what he claims to be, then it would be reasonable to think he is speaking from a position of knowledge on the subject, don't you think?

[The Legendary Shark]

Mr Benneth is a homeopath. A quick google search would have told you that. So if he is what he claims to be, then it would be reasonable to think he is speaking from a position of knowledge on the subject, don't you think?

Here is the science behind homeopathy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpC8BvHyorg&feature=related

Please- do not try and tell me this in in any way a real science.

If you get anywhere near a coherent position, please let me know   

Science does not know as much as it pretends.

I take offense at this. Science does not pretend to know anything. The default scientific position on many subjects, homeopathy included, is 'We really just don't know'. The only people claiming to 'know' anything, while citing a scientific basis, are people with an agenda.

Fair enough, I retract that and replace it with "Science does not know as much as laypeople tend to believe."

The brain as the seat of memory.

On that one I'm fairly convinced by the well-documented case studies of brain injuried people suffering loss of memory. There's a good correlation between Alzheimer's and loss of memory too. I don't know much about astrophysics and cosmology. They're not in my field and I'm not very interested in them, so I tend not to worry about it too much.

In Lashley's experiments (1929, 1950), rats were trained to run a maze. Tissue was removed from their cerebral cortices before re-introducing them to the maze, to see how their memory was affected. Increasingly, the amount of tissue removed degraded memory, but more remarkably, where the tissue was removed from made no difference.

(My statement "The brain as the seat of memory" was incorrect - I should have said "the unknown seat of memory in the brain." Apologies. There is also some suggestion that the heart may also store memories.)

[The Legendary Shark]

Anyway, UFOs...

[Peter Wolf]

Anyway, UFOs...

You are using an unlogical non-sequiterial fallacy i:e non-argumental that informally appeals to emotion instead of authority that obscures the logical argument while affirming the consequent as proof by verbosity along with connotation fallacies that alude to all UFOs being unidentified leading to equivocation.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Anyway, UFOs...

WHERE?

[The Legendary Shark]

You are using an unlogical non-sequiterial fallacy i:e non-argumental that informally appeals to emotion instead of authority that obscures the logical argument while affirming the consequent as proof by verbosity along with connotation fallacies that alude to all UFOs being unidentified leading to equivocation.

I knew you'd say that*... 

UAP, then?


*no I didn't.

[Richmond Clements]

If you get anywhere near a coherent position, please let me know

Fair enough- if you're determined to misunderstand (I assume on purpose) what I'm saying to this extent, then there's no point carrying on this conversation.