University of Toronto: Anti-vaccine Homeopathy Course Is Fine

The University of Toronto recently undertook an investigation of one of its courses, a bachelor-level health class that taught both anti-vaccination materials and the "science" of homeopathy. The investigation was undertaken because of complaints from professors and other scientific and medical experts. Surprisingly, the university concluded that the class was just fine. "Students taking (the course) ... are in their final year of study and are expected to approach controversial topics with a critical lens. The instructor reports that she provides these readings as the students have already seen the other side in previous courses." The course's syllabus is available for reading. It contains quotes like this: "There are broad concepts that bind various 'alternative' medical modalities together. Among these is the assertion that the human organism, which developed as an integrated unit in its formation, also functions as an integrated unit; that mind, body, and spirit are inextricably linked. Disorder or disturbance in any one of these areas can cause disease in another area."
Update: 07/13 14:14 GMT by S : Reader Gallenod points out that the University has now decided that the course will not be taught during the 2015-2016 academic year, or over the summer.

Comments

That's cool though

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we get to coddle the carebears and don't show American Sniper and hold their hands through life and tell them everything will be okay, we can all be a big group of happy, warm-fuzzy, ignorant adult children.

Re:That's cool though

[Njorthbiatr]

Indeed and it's not fine.

It's not being fair, that's being unfair. It's unfair to those who hold themselves to a higher standard of truth and realistic accuracy that someone with a handful of internet links can waltz in and be given the same platform. Why bother actually researching anything when you can just complain you're not being given an equal voice and have it handed to you because you poor little thing being left out in the cold by the big bad mean people.

But hey diversity is always a good thing right?

Dear University of Toronto, please remove your head out of your ass. Homeopathy should not be given any legitimate platform, nor should any other form of ridiculous pseudoscience. If you want students to have a critical lens, then teach them more rigor about the scientific method and drawing proper conclusions. Teach about flawed experiment designs, fabricated data, and the dangers of pay to publish journals.

Sometimes I don't even know why I bother.

Re: That's cool though

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely, and not only is it giving undue volume to a bunch of nutters, it's legitimizing a viewpoint that kills people. Desperate folks eschew actual medicine, some of which may actually save their lives. It gives false hope to the terminally ill and inflates huckster's wallets. This garbage is truly despicable.

Re:That's cool though

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it too optimistic to hope the class follows the following statement:

"You will encounter homeopathy and anti-vaccine in the real world, and here is how you deal with them appropriately: BUNK BUNK BUNK."

Re:That's cool though

[Geoffrey.landis]

Oranges may be natural medicine, but they're not homeopathy.

The theory of homeopathy is that you cure a disease with a drug that reproduces the symptoms of that disease (that's the prefix "homo" in homeopathy-- "same"). So, oranges would only be useful as a homeopathy remedy if eating oranges gives you the symptoms of scurvy. ...and then homeopathy takes that drug and dilutes it until not a single molecule originating in an orange is in the drug. The homeopathy cure for scurvy would be "take a drink of water from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that had one drop of orange juice in it.

Re:That's cool though

[dissy]

Shh! Please don't jinx me.

I'm currently in negotiations with the University of Toronto to secure funding and resources to start up my Unicorn and Care Bare Dissection class: Biology 666

Re:That's cool though

[sribe]

If you want students to have a critical lens, then teach them more rigor about the scientific method and drawing proper conclusions. Teach about flawed experiment designs, fabricated data, and the dangers of pay to publish journals.

Yes, and in this day and age, I really think homeopathy should be taught in in a class like that. But from the viewpoint you describe, so as to demonstrate that it is pure bunk.

Re:That's cool though

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Oranges may be natural medicine, but they're not homeopathy.

The theory of homeopathy is that you cure a disease with a drug that reproduces the symptoms of that disease (that's the prefix "homo" in homeopathy-- "same"). So, oranges would only be useful as a homeopathy remedy if eating oranges gives you the symptoms of scurvy. ...and then homeopathy takes that drug and dilutes it until not a single molecule originating in an orange is in the drug. The homeopathy cure for scurvy would be "take a drink of water from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that was filled from a glass of water that had one drop of orange juice in it.

Yes, well the key question here is: no pulp or extra pulp?

Sheesh, amateurs.

Re:That's cool though

[ilsaloving]

The fact that you include transgenderism to be the same as homeopathy, or a white women co-oping black culture, just shows how people like you are part of the problem.

You're an armchair 'expert' who doesn't actually know anything about topics you're discussing, but you think your point of view is valid regardless.

It's depressing that humanity's breadth of knowledge has increased to an unprecedented level, yet instead of educating themselves about the world they live in people prefer to just dig deeper holes to stick their heads in.

Re:That's cool though

[Anonymous Coward]

No, oranges don't cure scurvy, the prevent it. But anything with vitamin C will be equally effective in preventing scurvy as oranges are, since scurvy is a "disease" in the same way as starving or suffocating are diseases. i.e. your body not getting the basic substances it needs to function.

Re:That's cool though

[MiniMike]

Actually oranges are the first method listed for treatment of scurvy.

Re:That's cool though

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point (while hidden a bit because he didn't quote the relative section of the post, ie - "truth and realistic accuracy") is that, objectively and scientifically, a person cannot magically change their gender or race based on self-identification. Yet, many social sciences teach that self-identification should be the only factor and to suggest anything else is discrimination.

I suspect you're going to particularly hate this next part, but long-term studies suggest that gender reassignment surgery does not effectively treat "mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity" (src: Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden). AFAIK, the benefits are largely inconclusive. Homeopathy, in contrast, has largely been disproven, but it's easy to see possible parallels.

You seem to want to conflate cultural sensitivity and human knowledge. Real knowledge is cold, unkind, and enduring.

Re:That's cool though

[DNS-and-BIND]

All points of view are equally valid. Some are more diverse than others. Who are you to pick and choose which are right and wrong? Sounds like you're a cultural imperialist. What's your problem with diversity of opinion? Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.

Re:That's cool though

[XxtraLarGe]

I'm impressed that you're an expert on the things I know about. I know for instance, homeopathy is snake oil, Bruce Jenner is still a man even if he wants to get breast implants and dresses himself as a woman, and Rachel Dolezal is white, even if she wants to say she's black.

I'd like to mention as an addendum that as far as Jenner and Dolezal are concerned, I don't really care. I think people should be free to live their lives they way they want so long as they're not harming anyone else, even if I don't necessarily agree with what they're doing.

Re:That's cool though

[TheCarp]

> Yet, many social sciences teach that self-identification should be the only factor and to suggest anything else is discrimination.

I don't think that is an accurate characterization when there has been some evidence found for a biological role in some aspects of gender identification. In fact, a specific region of the brain in transsexuals has been found to be typical of their identified gender rather than the one their chromosomes would predict. Additionally its even been found female to male transsexuals experience "phantom limb syndrome" for the penis they never had.

So really, evidence points to, we are actually talking about people with what appears to be a congenital birth defect, in the one organ we are pretty shit at tampering with directly....the brain. So yah, I would say that expecting them to express the same gender identification as someone without their condition is about as discriminatory as asking a man in a wheelchair why his lazy ass can't walk up the stairs.

Re:That's cool though

[ilsaloving]

http://theconversation.com/no-...

Re:That's cool though

[ilsaloving]

Typical. You can't handle being called out on your ignorance, so you label me as a SJW so you can relax back in your armchair and disregard what I say with undeserved smugness.

But I can understand that point of view. It's pretty uncomfortable to think that one's attitudes cause pain, suffering, and death of others, choosing to be willfully ignorant is a convenient and powerful defense.

Re:That's cool though

[jedidiah]

It's also largely irrelevant if you are capable of passing. If you can convince the world to treat you as whatever, then what's the point of taking it any further? We're too hung up on plumbing and what that implies for gender roles. That's the real problem.

Re:That's cool though

[TheCarp]

> Why does it always come back to this? A reasonable person doesn't care how someone else expresses themself when it's not an impediment.

Um... I wish I knew but sadly, there is a significant portion of the population who don't seem to understand this concept and couple that with their own ignorance into some rather toxic opinions that get parroted quite a bit.

> For practical and scientific purposes, biological sex is still an important and largely immutable categorization.

Yes but those purposes have little to no real bearing on most situations and are largely irrelevant unless you are involved in medicine or sexual relations. Yet, some people seem to like bringing them up as if they are some sort of gospel that tells an entire story rather than simply an imperfect map.

Re:That's cool though

[tehcyder]

Is there an internet law which states that anyone using the term "SJW" automatically fails at everything?

Re:That's cool though

[david_thornley]

So what is "white" and "black"? Race is a social construct, and highly artificial if one can pass for the other. For example, it's customary to label a person showing some black ancestry as black, even if that person looks mostly white. There is no scientific or rational basis for this. Dolezal looked plausible as a black or as a white, suggesting that there's no objective line. Yet you somehow know who's to be labeled "white" or "black" in some ineffably inarguable way?

Similarly, Jenner has no change in her genotype, but gender is a whole lot more complicated than that. (Trying to figure out who's male and who's female can be difficult. Lots, if not all, of Olympic athletes are mutant freaks in some sense or other, and genotypes come in other forms than XX and XY. Outside athletics, it isn't nearly as important to classify by sex in some precise and objective manner.) If Jenner is more comfortable in a body as close to female as she can manage, I'm OK with it.

Re: That's cool though

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Sorry, were you trying to imply that homeopathy is based on physics? Because it very much isn't.

magic is the same as science?

[TimSSG]

University of Toronto believe magic is the same as science? Tim S.

Re:magic is the same as science?

[khasim]

Remember, it isn't "magic" if you say it's "quantum mechanics".

Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter
and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why
acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone
can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors.

No it does not.

And as part of the "course goals":

Understand the difference between Newtonian physics and Quantum physics and their corresponding impacts
on biology.

Bullshit.

Intelligently address the concerns of those afraid of alternative medicine or skeptical about its efficacy.

It's called the placebo effect.

Re: magic is the same as science?

[tom229]

Just to play devil's advocate here, declaring a problem solved because you've attributed it to the placebo effect isn't really good enough. The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand. We are often guilty of naming things we don't understand and then declaring them understood. Could the answers to the phenomenon of "mind over matter" be found in quantum mechanics? I don't know enough to comment.

Re:magic is the same as science?

[Flavianoep]

It's a sad truth that too much people fail to perceive the fallacy in this train of reasoning: if scientists cannot explain, then it's beyond science; and if it's beyond science, then this esoteric explanation must be right. Now just because some aspects of quantum mechanics are counterintuitive, some folks think they can invocate "Quantum Physics" as if it was some kind of god that justify their theories.

Re: magic is the same as science?

[MightyYar]

It is trivial to observe that the placebo effect occurs with a sugar pill or with a homeopathic remedy. If there is "quantum mechanics" involved, it is almost certainly not the mechanism described by homeopathy.

Re: magic is the same as science?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to play devil's advocate here, declaring a problem solved because you've attributed it to the placebo effect isn't really good enough. The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand.

For the sake of argument let's assume we don't understand the placebo effect (though that's really not true, but I'll play along).

We still have a known mechanism, called the placebo effect, by which people report to experiencing some health improvements in the absence of a physical mechanism. We also know of no plausible physical mechanism by which things like homeopathy can have an effect. And, in fact, when measured, their effects match exactly the effects of placebo.

So yes, we can absolutely say the problem of homeopathy is solved "because placebo", because studies have been done, there's absolutely no evidence at all that there's any difference (mechanism or effect) between homeopathy and placebo. Until someone comes up with a new physical mechanism that we can test, new studies specific to homeopathy will be pointless.

Now, you may want more study of the placebo effect, and that's probably reasonable.

Re:magic is the same as science?

[alvinrod]

It reminds me of the book Fashionable Nonsense by Sokal and Bricmont where a lot of the nonsensical philosophy they looked at incorporated advanced scientific and mathematical concepts that aren't well-understood by the common person. My guess is that the people who do this think it makes it harder to be called on their bullshit, but invariably the run into someone who's an expert in the field and points out that the emperor has no clothes.

It's rather disturbing that the university would keep this course. They might as well teach faith-based approaches to medicine that involve praying, which is always effective if the person was worthy of Bog's mercy, which is a better outcome than any of the other approaches.

Re: magic is the same as science?

[green1]

Actually, the placebo effect is something we DO understand, quite well in fact. Many studies have been done on it in quite some detail.

Re: magic is the same as science?

[alvinrod]

We don't need to understand why the placebo effect occurs, merely that any treatment should be more effective in order to be considered valid. Homeopathic approaches don't yield better results than a control group, which is why they aren't considered medically valid.

Mind over matter (or something very similar to our notion of it) may well exist, but if it cannot be reproduced in a controlled manner, it's useless are far as medicine goes.

Re: magic is the same as science?

[gsslay]

The placebo effect is merely a name for something we don't understand.

No. No it isn't. If this is the starting point for your argument then you are already wrong before you say another word.

Re: magic is the same as science?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no problem to be solved.......Science is under no obligation to investigate every nutty claim made by every nut. The burden of proof lies on those asserting the claim, not the other way around.

Also the placebo effect has been studied extensively and quite well understood. It is NOT a fancy way of saying "i dunno" in scientific circles.

Re: magic is the same as science?

[tchdab1]

Although my pseudo-understanding of quantum mechanics tells me that there's a chance it might be the mechanism behind homeopathy. And everything else.

Re:magic is the same as science?

[UnknownSoldier]

> It's called the placebo effect.

It could well be -- the placebo effect is ~ 50% effective. How the hell can you have something that effective when you have zero mg administered? The placebo effect is even stranger (From 13 Things that don't make sense)

1 The placebo effect
Don't try this at home. Several times a day, for several days, you induce pain in someone. You control the pain with morphine until the final day of the experiment, when you replace the morphine with saline solution. Guess what? The saline takes the pain away.

This is the placebo effect: somehow, sometimes, a whole lot of nothing can be very powerful. Except it's not quite nothing. When Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin in Italy carried out the above experiment, he added a final twist by adding naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of morphine, to the saline. The shocking result? The pain-relieving power of saline solution disappeared.

So what is going on? Doctors have known about the placebo effect for decades, and the naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical. But apart from that, we simply don't know.

Benedetti has since shown that a saline placebo can also reduce tremors and muscle stiffness in people with Parkinson's disease. He and his team measured the activity of neurons in the patients' brains as they administered the saline. They found that individual neurons in the subthalamic nucleus (a common target for surgical attempts to relieve Parkinson's symptoms) began to fire less often when the saline was given, and with fewer "bursts" of firing -- another feature associated with Parkinson's. The neuron activity decreased at the same time as the symptoms improved: the saline was definitely doing something.

We have a lot to learn about what is happening here, Benedetti says, but one thing is clear: the mind can affect the body's biochemistry. "The relationship between expectation and therapeutic outcome is a wonderful model to understand mind-body interaction," he says. Researchers now need to identify when and where placebo works. There may be diseases in which it has no effect. There may be a common mechanism in different illnesses. As yet, we just don't know.

Re:magic is the same as science?

[UnknownSoldier]

> It's called the placebo effect.

Not quite so fast ...

4 Belfast homeopathy results

MADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen's University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.

In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These "basophils" release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single histamine molecule - worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths' claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.

So how could it happen? Homeopaths prepare their remedies by dissolving things like charcoal, deadly nightshade or spider venom in ethanol, and then diluting this "mother tincture" in water again and again. No matter what the level of dilution, homeopaths claim, the original remedy leaves some kind of imprint on the water molecules. Thus, however dilute the solution becomes, it is still imbued with the properties of the remedy.

You can understand why Ennis remains skeptical. And it remains true that no homeopathic remedy has ever been shown to work in a large randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. But the Belfast study (Inflammation Research, vol 53, p 181) suggests that something is going on. "We are," Ennis says in her paper, "unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon." If the results turn out to be real, she says, the implications are profound: we may have to rewrite physics and chemistry.

Re:magic is the same as science?

[RespekMyAthorati]

Ennius' work took place 15 years ago. Since then, no one has been able to replicate it, and has since been discarded.

Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[CaptainPinko]

I have no problem with a course teaching about what anti-vaccine supporters claim if it helps doctors debunk it in person and helps them dismantle it in person. I hope this is what it is about.

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[Pubstar]

I got to this point into the course outline before I had to stop before I required assistance from mainstream medicine for toxic levels of stupidity.

We will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease and alternative medicine to provide a scientific hypothesis of how these modalities may work. Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors.

My fucking brain will never be the same.

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[RobinH]

I know so many people who just eat that shit up. Basically it tells (some) people what they want to hear: "here's a very simple trick you can use to win while everyone else loses."

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[khasim]

I see it as three different cases:

1. The health nut who is already healthy but attributes their health to this one weird secret that only a few, special, people know about. Because everyone else isn't as smart as they are.

2. Someone with a bad disease who wants some hope that they'll get better so they'll try anything.

3. Munchausen syndrome

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[pr0t0]

You have to wonder if we live in a time where any opposing viewpoint merits a "teach the controversy" approach. Can I claim anything, convince hoards of mouth-breathers desperate for something to cling to, and have it taught at a university, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

I'd also like to take a moment to quote Tim Minchin's awesome beat poem rant "Storm" which seems relevant:

"By definition", I begin
"Alternative Medicine", I continue
"Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call "alternative medicine"
That's been proved to work?
Medicine."

If you haven't seen or heard it, I highly recommend it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[jmac_the_man]

To be fair, there are college classes on things like "critical analysis of comic books" and Deflategate.

The barrier to entry for "There should be a class about this" is pretty low.

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[Flavianoep]

I've attended a Language & Literature course in Brazil, where people are more verbose--and the very words longer---, and my longer syllabus was 4 page long. So a 15 page syllabus is quite unusual.

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[james_gnz]

I have no problem with a course teaching about what anti-vaccine supporters claim if it helps doctors debunk it in person and helps them dismantle it in person. I hope this is what it is about.

Looking briefly at the links, I get the impression the course didn't present pro-vaccine views. I think it's a missed opportunity really. The idea of homeopathy is to use diluted poisons to cure illnesses which have symptoms that the undiluted poisons cause, and the idea of vaccines is to use weakened microbes to prevent illnesses that the unweakened microbes cause--there's actually some superficial similarity there. If I had to promote homeopathy, I'd want to play that up.

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[cyberchondriac]

1 sounds an awful lot like conspiracy theorists as well... they probably believe in homeopathy too.

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[narcc]

You know what they call "alternative medicine"
That's been proved to work?
Medicine."

What bothers me about that it's a complete misrepresentation. Criticism is meaningless when it drifts off in to some parody of the topic under discussion.

In this case, the author implies that "alternative medicine" is understood as "alternatives to medicine" instead of "alternative approaches to medicine". If he intends his talk to convince believers that they're mistaken, he's failed. They'll simply roll their eyes, convinced he doesn't understand the topic, as it appears the speaker doesn't understand the topic at all.

It's just as bad as the yahoos that go around defining homeopathy. I'm sure you can find a "That's not what homeopathy is, it's really ..." comment here already. It's simply not helpful. The believer will see that definition, realize it's not related to their beliefs, and ignore it.

Bad arguments are bad, regardless of who makes them or what their intentions happen to be. If you want to be rational, you can't go around shouting slogans and making bad arguments indistinguishable from some mad-libs version of the arguments of the opposing side. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[CaptainPinko]

You don't even need to teach the controversy. I remember learning about the Platonic model of the solar system in university. It was so that we'd be better prepared to understand the ancient texts we were going to read. At no one point did the professor even suggest that this was a possibility for reality. This topic (in general, I didn't read the syllabus) for instance would make for an excellent Social Science or even Anthropology class and I could see when students of medicine might want to take it as an elective or a part of a social policy/public medicine curriculum.

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[Coren22]

Homeopathy has an actual definition. If their beliefs don't match up with that, then they don't believe in homeopathy. Homeopathy is the dilution of a poison to levels where it is undetectable, which is then given as a "cure". This has been proven time and again to not have any more effect than placebo, so it is considered by all scientific approaches as bunk.

If you don't believe me, Wikipedia has a nice description with links to relevant citations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[Capt.Albatross]

It is highly ironic that you should link to Tennant's article, given that you are attempting to claim that there is a fallacy behind the author's words. A much more effective (and perhaps only) way for you to refute them (and which would also conform to Tennant's ideas of a correct response) would be to present some examples of "alternative approaches to medicine" that do work (and while you are about it, explain in what way they are "alternative" - a choice between chemo and radiation, for example, is not the sort of alternative being discussed here.)

Re:Against Vaccines or About Against Vaccines?

[tehcyder]

"One simple trick that doctors hate."

Yep, sounds legit.

From the "Course Goals"

[XARG]

"Question the priorities and approaches of mainstream western medicine through the lens of a more holistic approach to health."

"Understand the connection between body, mind, energy, and spirit and how the interplay between these impact health and disease."

"Intelligently address the concerns of those afraid of alternative medicine or skeptical about its efficacy. "

Wow, this sounds like a nice university...

Re:From the "Course Goals"

[nebosuke]

Don't worry too much. UoT had this course, MIT still has Stephanie Seneff

Re:From the "Course Goals"

[plcurechax]

Wow, this sounds like a nice university...

University of Toronto is an internationally regarded research university, the "Higher Education Ranking" by The Times (UK) ranks UoT at 20th in 2015 in "World University Ranking", and 16th in "World Reputation Ranking",

That's why the issue of the complaints, and the report are indeed newsworthy. It is not some obscure backwater university, but a school of medicine with a history of Nobel Laureates including Frederick Banting and J.J.R. Macleod who were the first Canadians to win a Nobel prize; for their isolation of insulin.

Re:From the "Course Goals"

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

"Question the priorities and approaches of mainstream western medicine through the lens of a more holistic approach to health."

There are actual ethical problems with the priorities of mainstream western medicine though. The profit motive drives companies to seek 'treatments' rather than 'cures'.

People say this all the time, but they get it wrong. The main reason why people work towards treatments is that they're much easier to do. It's relatively easy to treat, say, hemophilia; it's a lot harder to cure it (although we are making progress there). You might find a drug - from a plant, maybe - that happens to help people with bipolar disorder. Maybe you don't know much about how it works; we don't even really know much about why some diseases (especially mental disorders) happen. Until we do, we can't really cure them.

There's that word again: "lens"

[JaredOfEuropa]

If anything, medical students, and indeed everyone, should approach these controversial topics with a scientific "lens". Keep an open mind, certainly, but keep it open to alternative avenues of scientific exploration, and apply the same rigour as you would to your regular research.

Critical look at bullshit

[mwfischer]

This is a university. Not a career training institute. There maybe some controversial shit and this course is examining that phenomena. It's probably a good course. Now if the professor is dictating this and slapping down students for writing against the psychobabel doctrine then yeah that's a problem.

Besides, if alternative medicine worked, it would be called medicine.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[msobkow]

I don't think you quite grasp how many older medical practices with centuries of effective treatment are lumped together under "alternative" along with claptrap like homeopathy.

Just to name a few: Herbology, accupuncture, and the use of cannabis are considered "alternative" therapies. Every one of those has been in use for thousands of years longer than "modern" medicine, and are as effective as they've ever been, despite the naysaying of those who would rather shove prescription pills down your throat.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[Khashishi]

It's pretty clear from the syllabus that it's not a good course.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[green1]

Of course all those "alternative" therapies also share something in common with homeopathy, no scientific evidence that they actually work.

Accupuncture has been proven to be junk, Herbs and cannabis are much better, however not nearly as good as actual medicine. You are right however that they are exactly as effective as they've ever been. The same can not be said for modern medicine, which gets more effective every single day.

How long we've been doing something ("thousands of years") has never been an accurate proxy for how well something works.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[dbIII]

Others have posted the course summary, and it's clearly brain destroying bullshit itself - eg:

We will delve into a quantum physics understanding of disease and alternative medicine to provide a scientific hypothesis of how these modalities may work

As a line from some alien in Star Trek it's merely tacky, in a University it should ring alarm bells.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[Cinnamon Beige]

This is a university. Not a career training institute. There maybe some controversial shit and this course is examining that phenomena. It's probably a good course. Now if the professor is dictating this and slapping down students for writing against the psychobabel doctrine then yeah that's a problem.

Besides, if alternative medicine worked, it would be called medicine.

Actually, it wouldn't--this has a lot to do with history, and the bottom line is that the modern evidence-based school and the now-gone eclectic schools are the ones that where "But does it work?" actually get the most attention.

That said, most of alternative doesn't work, or works but not for the reasons they give, and a 'good' version of this course probably would be covering how to sort through and develop rigorous scientific tests. And possibly also raising the important question of "If the placebo effect works for this condition and has fewer noxious side effects than the non-placebo treatments, why not use it as a first-line treatment?"

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[Coren22]

http://borderlands.wikia.com/w...

Claptrap would be ashamed to be lumped in with the likes of homeopathy, herbology, accupuncture and the use of cannabis.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[Coren22]

Because giving poisons to people, no matter how diluted doesn't stack up vs a chalk pill.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[Cinnamon Beige]

Because giving poisons to people, no matter how diluted doesn't stack up vs a chalk pill.

I don't know how to break this to you, but let me introduce you to the concept of a median lethal dose. Notice that sugar is on the list (29.7g/kg)--that means that, if you for some reason want to try suicide by sugar, you can now calculate about how much you'll need to succeed.

Okay, now, let's move onto the theapeutic index, which is basically the difference between the amount of a medicine that's enough to cause the desired effects and the amount which will kill you (assuming lethality isn't what's wanted).

So, aside from the fact that everything is lethal in sufficient amounts, yeah, a chalk pill is preferable to a poison, no matter how diluted, if the chalk pill will do the job. Homeopathy's problem is that it's got a really bad assumption at its heart, and in fact the inverse is used a lot in modern medicine--there's a few poisons used regularly because, well, their effect is what you actually want in some situations. One of them, atropine, is even considered one of the most important medicines to have around because it's so useful.

How it was realized that with some poisons, non-lethal dosages were important as medicines was figured out in the first place I leave up to your imagination. Mine's mostly supplying a black comedy of somebody trying to poison a pesky annoyance and accidentally curing them...

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[msobkow]

Good lord, man! Where do you think most medicines came from? They're isolated from the herbs that were used before!

And accupuncture has been shown scientifically to trigger the release of a neurochemical that is over 10x as powerful as morphine that the brain produces on it's own.

As to cannabis, there are thousands upon thousands of people who've found relief by using it. The fact that no one is willing to fund research doesn't mean the research wouldn't show it's effective. The pharmacorps just aren't interested in funding research for something they can't patent and rake obscene profits from.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[Coren22]

It was a joke comparison between homeopathy and placebo. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[jedidiah]

The homeopathic method is not entirely ignored. It's just that medicines for which this actually work become part of standard medical practice and they no longer sit on the fringes.

There are a number of chemical weapons agents that fit into this category.

The entire field of chemotherapy is basically a variation on it.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[Cinnamon Beige]

It was a joke comparison between homeopathy and placebo. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

You managed to accurately describe actual medicines and homeopathy due to the critical issue of dosage: the difference between the two is that homeopaths would dilute the poison into the yoctomolar range and consider it all the more powerful for it, while people who had to pass chemistry would be wondering how that could possibly work.

Re:Critical look at bullshit

[green1]

and this here is a perfect example of why this stuff persists. As long as people want to believe, no amount of evidence is relevant. Anyone looking for actual proof, or consulting actual studies is labelled as a shill, and the lack of evidence that points to the desired result is labelled a coverup or conspiracy.

I can't convince you. So there's literally no point in my trying.

Teaching the science of homeopathy.

[mwvdlee]

Welcome students, to this course delving deep into all the science that is the foundation of homeopathy.
Let's start.
No questions?
You all get an A.
Class dismissed.

Re:Teaching the science of homeopathy.

[maligor]

Welcome students, to this course delving deep into all the science that is the foundation of homeopathy.
Let's start.
No questions?

I have a question:

Assuming I've understood the concept correctly, and it's about water remembering, wouldn't the water coming out of the tap have once in it's life been in a continuous body of water that has already come into contact with every single possible contaminant, and therefore should cure every disease known to man?

Re:Teaching the science of homeopathy.

[Coren22]

The tap water has also been supremely diluted, so it must be the strongest medicine in existence according to the homeopathic methodology.

Re:Quantum mechanics. Wow...

[Drethon]

From the syllabus

"We will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease and alternative medicine to provide a scientific hypothesis of how these modalities may work. Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors."

... and in chapter 2 we discuss the placebo effect and how correlation does not imply causation.

Theology

[cloud.pt]

It seems fine to me too.

Anyone undertaking these courses knows what they're signing up for (pseudo-science), and in all honesty, it goes to show how well respected, religion-aligned theology courses have had state approval (and actual educational value) throughout the times. After all, most "original universities" started out from a form of clergy information repository, and its faculty and alumni related one way or the other to religion.

It would be antithetical to not sanction an homeopathy course by denying the very own subjective origin of universities as a whole. Much the same some computer science has management courses because they matter to its target audience, having homeopathy in, say, a Bacteriology major feels much like a course that complements the objectivity in all other courses of such major. It certainly feels a lot more right than distance learning or scientology at least.

Re:Theology

[OverlordQ]

> Anyone undertaking these courses knows what they're signing up for

Unfortunately no, you'd probably be surprised the stupid things some doctors think. If it's outside their specialty, they can be horribly wrong.

Re:Theology

[james_gnz]

It would be antithetical to not sanction an homeopathy course by denying the very own subjective origin of universities as a whole.

That doesn't sound right to me. Would it be antithetical for a nation to not sanction bigotry if it historically had unenlightened views on women and/or blacks? I think it's better to recognise what's wrong with the past, and stop doing it.

Re:Theology

[cloud.pt]

You're right, but like all things in society, everything must fall in line gently, with universal approval or even consensus. And above all, with time. Some scientific facts are statistically proven to be wrong, yet most people will go against them, well, because they can. It's human nature to contest factual evidence, and it's also the reason much of today's given scientific facts came to be (general relativity anyone?). I much prefer an homeopathy course to be taught within collegiate standards, thus providing real doctors, who undertook such course, to advise consciously rather than based in hearsay. If all "knowledge" of homeopathy originates from really sloppy sources, you can be sure all statements arguing homeopathy effectiveness will come from those only interested in homeopathy's universal adoption. Let me put it like this: why do most American Presidency candidates must have some religious background, a wife, preferably children, so as to be favorable to their own parties and consequentially public opinion? Because: 1. U.S. voter (non-abstainers) pool is largely religious and 2. Because U.S. and party electorate value understanding of nature's uncertainty, spiritual existence, and to some degree, a creationist point of view. It is sad. But it is true. And I can live with that as long as religious views don't start WW3

Re:Theology

[cloud.pt]

"Anyone" was a misused generalization. I should have said "Most of those really interested in such courses". There are always the obvious trolls looking for easy credits. But I doubt that well represents student population in serious universities. I, for one, got tired of picking easy courses "just because I want this done" on my late college years, taking my choices more seriously. Some easy ones were actually useful though, and that's my external opinion on homeopathy - it's always nice to know about alternative ways of thinking. It supposedly has worked in Asian countries for millennia, to a higher degree most might think.

Re:Theology

[james_gnz]

You're right, but like all things in society, everything must fall in line gently, with universal approval or even consensus. And above all, with time.

Okay, but this is a different argument.

I much prefer an homeopathy course to be taught within collegiate standards, thus providing real doctors, who undertook such course, to advise consciously rather than based in hearsay.

I'd be fine with a course teaching how a range of popular quackery has been debunked, but I really don't think medical professionals need to be trained in all the specific details of administering some specific form of quackery to know how it's been debunked. The time would be better spent learning real medicine.

Re:At this point theology would be fine

[Megol]

Neither economy nor psychology are pseduo-sciences so your opinion isn't relevant.

There are wacky _parts_ of certain economy and psychology areas but that doesn't invalidate the general scientific approach of them both just like string theory doesn't invalidate physics. ;)

Re:Theology is better than those

[Dog-Cow]

No it's not. Theology doesn't study the natural world, and offers zero testable hypothesis. It's definitely useful knowledge, if one wishes to understand motivations of large groups of people, but it's no science.

From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

[Registered Coward v2]

Most MDs I know would agree with the basic premise behind the statement that the human organism, which developed as an integrated unit in its formation, also functions as an integrated unit; that mind, body, and spirit are inextricably linked. Where they draw the line is on pseudoscientific nonsense. They freely admit that we do not know everything about why and how teh human body reacts to certain things, but we do know when certain things simply do not work and fall into the realm of quackery. I am all for understanding the arguments the other side makes so you can refute them, just don't make the mistake of giving them some legitimacy because they are "taught at University."

Re:From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

[cloud.pt]

You make a good point, but at the same time I repeat what I said to james_gnz: if you only have sloppy sources of homeopathy knowledge, you end up targeting a largely biased group of people for such knowledge. These will sell homeopathy like snake oil, and you will have no counter argument with a factual approach against (and for) it. Having serious doctors get some free credits for understanding homeopathy's point of view, and within collegiate standards nonetheless, will provide serious opinions not based on hearsay, educating population about it exponentially.

Re:From the sublime to the ridiculous ...

[Registered Coward v2]

You make a good point, but at the same time I repeat what I said to james_gnz: if you only have sloppy sources of homeopathy knowledge, you end up targeting a largely biased group of people for such knowledge. These will sell homeopathy like snake oil, and you will have no counter argument with a factual approach against (and for) it. Having serious doctors get some free credits for understanding homeopathy's point of view, and within collegiate standards nonetheless, will provide serious opinions not based on hearsay, educating population about it exponentially.

It's sounds like we are in agreement here. Homeopathy is BS, as is things such as crystal therapy, etc. However, stress, a mind reaction to the environment, is known to cause physical effects. Understanding the otehrsides' BS is essential to discrediting it.

broad concepts that bind...

[nitehawk214]

And that concept is "bullshit". I find no problems with lumping homeopathy, chiropracty, healilng crystals, astrology and other magic cures together.

(prepared for a dozen posts that say chiropractors are not like that!)

Re: broad concepts that bind...

[tom229]

I'll bite. I woke up one morning with a very severe kink in my neck. It lasted several days until I finally went to a chiropractor. Two visits and the pain was gone. I don't have the authority or knowledge to determine if what they do should actually be considered medicine. But in my case, they provided a treatment that resulted in a relief from severe pain.

Re: broad concepts that bind...

[cyberchondriac]

If chiropractic limited itself to minor "adjustments" and such, it'd be okay, IMO. When I was 7 years old I twisted my neck and slipped a disc; the only guy open that late at night was a chiro, my mom took me to him, and he gave me a twist (scary!) The pain reduction was immediate, though not total.. it took a few days for the muscles to heal, as they'd spasm'd badly when I hurt myself.
But if they claim to heal all other kinds of issues, they're getting into quack territory. A pinched nerve in your spine can affect things like digestion, but I'd rather have a regular MD look at that.

Re:broad concepts that bind...

[green1]

Unfortunately the professional and regulatory bodies that deal with chiropractors have shown no interest or willingness to deal with the former group, causing everyone to assume that latter group is no different.

I can't take a profession seriously when it has such a large percentage of quacks and no willingness to address the issue.

Re: broad concepts that bind...

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I understand you are trying to be cute but getting your joints opened up and aligned does wonders for some people. I find that a good morning stretch (done right it takes 10-15 minutes) work wonders for similar things and from what I can tell isn't all that different from what a chiropractor might do for most people. Then again you have to know how to actually stretch which seems to be the often forgotten thing when most people work out. I seem to be the only person who stretches before and after a work out at the gym I go to.

Re: broad concepts that bind...

[nitehawk214]

Anecdotes are useless, I could counter that with one where I went to a chiropractor and it did not help at all. My anecdote is just as useless I am glad your pain is gone, though.

What I really want to know is; was the chiropractor also claiming to cure cancer and the common cold? Was the place decorated with healing crystals and connected to a magic healing spa that would cure gout? Those are the ones that piss me off.

The reason I am fine lumping them together with the "real" chiropractors is that the "real" chiropractors do nothing to show that the quacks are quacks.

Re:broad concepts that bind...

[nitehawk214]

The problem I have is that the "physical therapist chiropractors" seem to be totally fine with the quacks existing. I have never once heard of a chiropractor being against the quack ones. So in that case they are helping perpetuate it.

Maybe I am being unfair, but I think I am totally justified.

Re:Vaccines are great, but

[Dog-Cow]

There's a reason those diseases are exceedingly rare. You anonymous idiot.

ugh!

[freak0fnature]

My MIL keeps telling us to put sliced onions around the house to ward off disease....

Re:ugh!

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

"I was wearing an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time.." - Grandpa Simpson

Danger! Danger!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is dangerous stuff. I knew a guy, who forgot to take his homeopathic medicine. He died of an overdose!!

Balance between "science" and "support"

[hired killer]

It seems to me that in medicine, a lot of guesswork is involved at the patient/doctor interface. Additionally, there is a lot of need for trust between the physician and the snake oil vendors. I truly think there is plenty of snake oil in the chemistry industry regardless of the perception of due diligence. If this class presents a balanced view that makes some individuals in the medical industry more sensitive to the emotional well being and the the balance between chemistry and quality of life, I'm all for it.

My sister died after a second round of breast cancer. The first round was heavily chemical and sterile, and the second round was heavily homoeopathic and supportive. Even though she died as a result of the second round, I truly believe she felt better emotionally and spiritually during that course.

Re:At this point theology would be fine

[bluefoxlucid]

Economy and psychology have real, reproduceable results.

Nice!

[nospam007]

"... and are expected to approach controversial topics with a critical lens."

Wow! I guess they also have astrology and phrenology doctorates .

Well then!

[Ol Olsoc]

This will make employers rush to hire UoT grads.

Sham on you Canada.

I typo'ed that, but decided it was better with the bad spelling.

And how are you graded?

[tommeke100]

UoT says it's okay because "they are expected to approach controversial topics with a critical lens". So how exactly will they be graded on the course if they are indeed skeptical about the voodoo explained? If the examinator asks "How does dilution works?" Can you answer "well it doesn't because it's BS and proven to be so in Clinical Trials". Does that get you an A+ in the course?

Yet you turned down my proposed phrenology course?

[NotDrWho]

For shame, University of Toronto! Phrenology is every bit as scientifically proven as homeopathy!

This is an opportunity for Big Oil

[Applehu Akbar]

...To sell UT the phlogiston it will need for the coming winter.

According to the course description, it will use quantum mechanics to "explain" why homeopaths believe that a weaker solution of a medication has more of an effect than a stronger solution. No word on whether dillithium crystals will be involved.

Re:This is an opportunity for Big Oil

[dbIII]

Actually phlogiston was real science and led to the discovery of oxygen when oxidation of iron did not fit the phlogiston model - at which point the model was universally abandoned. However it is always easier to laugh at what you don't understand and those funny guys with test tubes than see it as a step towards understanding.

Re:Theology is better than those

[Applehu Akbar]

Ending in "ology" does not make it a science. Theology is really a component of the study of cultures.

Embarassing

[AikonMGB]

As a University of Toronto graduate and employee, I find this all rather embarrassing.

Summary misses a crucial point

[Buck Feta]

The instructor, Beth Landau-Halpern, is married to Rick Halpern, the dean of the campus where this course is taught.

Course Discontinued

[Gallenod]

Fortunately, wiser heads have finally prevailed:

    http://www.provost.utoronto.ca...

From the article:
=====
The UTSC Health Studies Program has indicated that the course in question will not be taught in the 2015-16 academic year, or over the summer term.

As Provost of this academic institution, I must at all times respect the diversity of opinions and views of academic colleagues and sessional instructors. However, I do note with respect that the Deans of the University’s Faculty of Medicine and Dalla Lana School of Public Health have released a statement commenting on the education of their students regarding vaccinations. It includes the following:

“As deans of two of the health sciences faculties at the University of Toronto, we teach our students that vaccines are safe, effective and vital to children’s health. Vaccines are one of history’s most important and significant achievements in public health and medicine. The best evidence that science can provide proves that the health benefits of vaccines far outweigh their potential side effects, and we instruct our students accordingly.”
=====

Re:Vaccines are great, but

[Ol Olsoc]

blindly proclaiming that anyone who doesn't get a foreign substance injected in to their bodies on a regular basis for diseases that are exceedingly rare is some religious nut job or brain dead hillbilly while ignoring the fact they they themselves are quite often uneducated about the facts surrounding vaccines.

This particular bit reminds me of the old Yogi Berra wisdom "No one goes to that place any more - it's too crowded"

The reason these diseases are rare, is because the goddamned vaccines work.

A goodly number of children died from the diseases these vaccines were created to control. They don't now, so they don't need vaccinated now, right?

Too bad there isn't a vaccine against complete lack of reason.

Re: Theology is better than those

[bronney]

Girlology 101 yo! *drops mic*

Re:Vaccines are great, but

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're talking about things like the flu, I'll agree with you that the majority of people probably don't need it though clearly it's not some rare disease. If you're talking about MMR and similar, the reason it's rare is because of the vaccine. Before it, Measles, Mumps and Rubella killed and maimed thousands of children with hundreds of thousands getting sick every year. These aren't minor diseases that when left unchecked only affect an unfortunate few but become epidemics which can leave a person horribly disabled.

Video or it didn't happen

[bazorg]

"Understand the connection between body, mind, energy, and spirit and how the interplay between these impact health and disease."

I hope that the University will publish the videos taken during the lectures and of the experiments conducted to show the connections between body, mind, energy and spirit. I think this transparency and level of disclosure will do a lot for the reputation of everyone involved.

Re:Vaccines are great, but

[Applehu Akbar]

People who oppose vaccines promote the idea of stimulating the immune system the natural way, by doing such things as eating dirt or having enemas of other people's feces (this is a real thing, and not just in California!) Vaccines are a precisely calibrated and targeted way of exposing a person to an immune-stimulating level of infection. Having this exposure be controlled and precise is what makes it "scientific" and evil in the eyes of anti-vaxxers.

In the same way, the precise and targeted nature of genetic engineering to modify DNA is what makes it "scientific" and evil. Better that we keep firing the Mr Magoo blind shotgun of hybridization in hopes of getting an improved-by-our-selection-criterion strain of a species.

Manufacturing controversy

[StormyWeatherL33T]

I have no problem with the quote from the course materials. I imagine that this article is simply worded to make the course seem more controversial than it is.... like most news items.

Re:Manufacturing controversy

[wonkey_monkey]

I imagine that this article is simply worded to make the course seem more controversial than it is

Ah, if only:

We will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease and alternative medicine to provide a scientific hypothesis of how these modalities may work. Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors.

In any case, the course will now not be taught this year (or hopefully ever):

http://www.provost.utoronto.ca...

Re:Vaccines are great, but

[Drethon]

There's a reason those diseases are exceedingly rare. You anonymous idiot.

But... but... closing the barn door first is just unnecessary work for something that hasn't been proven to be a problem yet!

Re:Theology is better than those

[Anonymous Coward]

All natural sciences have started from categorization of knowledge and a pursuit of ontology of some sort. In that sense, theology and other cultural studies can be approached scientifically as much as zoology or linguistics can be.

Re:Theology is better than those

[halivar]

Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a philosophy. Science and math were also, at one time, considered "philosophies", in that they, all three, relied on inductive proof techniques developed by the classical philosophers. With the development of the scientific method, however, science stands apart on a new basis of testable hypotheses. It is my understanding that math is considered by many to not be a science on this basis.

Theology is not a science

[sjbe]

Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a real science.

No it is not. The neutrality of one's viewpoint is irrelevant to whether it is a science or not. It concerns studying concepts that are by definition not falsifiable. Therefore it cannot be science. Theology is basically the earnest study of a work of fiction as if it were real. You can have a scientific study of the psychology of theology. You can study anthropology, history, sociology, etc as it relates to religion. But theology itself is not and cannot be a science. It makes no predictions about the natural world that can be tested and reproduced.

Re:Theology is not a science

[narcc]

You're confusing the study of beliefs with the beliefs themselves. You have a deep misunderstanding of the subject, which is probably why your reaction here is visceral and not rational.

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[danbob999]

Look up how they do the "dilutions", the concentration of the original ingredients asymptotes. It does not go to zero.

Yes it does. That's the whole point of the criticism. It is so diluted that the probability of having a single molecule is close to 0. Dilution doesn't split atoms or molecules. Either you have one or you don't.

College is a for enhancing careers

[sjbe]

This is a university. Not a career training institute.

In practical terms that is a distinction without a difference in today's world. I went to college to get a diploma that allows me to be considered for specific jobs. I happened to learn a lot of information relevant to those jobs along the way. Virtually all people who go to college today do so to enhance their employment prospects. All other considerations are secondary. Once upon a time college may have been for a more general education but that is no longer the case and hasn't been for some time now.

Re:Quantum Mechanics is bollocks

[MightyYar]

Describe the mechanism for "filtering of photons based on time of emission" and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Expected outcome

[dbIII]

With all the climate science deniers getting pushed by politics to the point where it's now mainstream to take them seriously of course we are going to get other such symptoms of blind hope being treated as far more important than reality.

No Problem

[tompaulco]

I have no problem with this as long as they teach the "science" of homeopathy.

Okay, okay ... aaand, you lost me.

[goodmanj]

I teach physics at a liberal arts college, I am totally on board with exposing students to cross-disciplinary ideas that go against accepted norms. So as I'm reading through the syllabus, I'm fine with things like this:

Alternative medicine ... has gained unprecedented popularity among patients ... The focus of the course is not on the shortcomings or limitations of conventional medicine, but on the ways in which various alternative ... modalities reflect a paradigm of health, disease, and healing that stand in contrast to the scientific, biomedicalized paradigm, the standard understanding in the West.

Sure, no problem, let's do a compare-and-contrast, it's popular enough that we need to be familiar with it whether we think it's baloney or not, and considerations of how states of mind affect states of health are real and useful. But then we hit page 2:

We will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease and alternative medicine to provide a scientific hypothesis of how these modalities may work. Quantum physics is a branch of physics that understands the interrelationship between matter and energy. This science offers clear explanations as to why homeopathic remedies with seemingly no chemical trace of the original substance are able to resolve chronic diseases, why acupuncture can offer patients enough pain relief to undergo surgery without anesthesia, why meditation alone can, in some instances, reduce the size of cancerous tumors.

No. The author has no idea what quantum physics is, and is using it as a magic wand made of pure bullshit. Uttering the phrase "quantum physics" is, of course, a pretty common and cliched way to sound impressive without knowing anything, but it demonstrates that the "honest intellectual inquiry" thing is just a disguise, and the professor is here to sell snake oil.

Get the hell out of my ivory tower.

Re:Okay, okay ... aaand, you lost me.

[sribe]

No. The author has no idea what quantum physics is, and is using it as a magic wand made of pure bullshit. Uttering the phrase "quantum physics" is, of course, a pretty common and cliched way to sound impressive without knowing anything, but it demonstrates that the "honest intellectual inquiry" thing is just a disguise, and the professor is here to sell snake oil.

Remember this movie? The same kind of crock of shit. I actually had friends who were shocked that I refused to watch it; apparently I was close-minded for deciding beforehand (based on reviews) that it was worthless. Just as you and I are close-minded for refusing to consider the possibility that the author of that tripe you quoted might be on to something real ;-)

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[cyberchondriac]

Dilution is dilution is dilution. Water does not "absorb" the "properties" of other compounds inside it's molecular bonds, that's called magic. If you really believe that silliness, then go water down your beer or vodka ,even using the "homeopathic technique", and see if you actually feel anything from that (other than placebo).. then see how quick you pour it down the drain and grab a proper bottle!
It's a way for scammers to stretch their supplies of actual medicine ridiculously thin to make obnoxiously huge profits. And people complain about the pharmaceutical industry! That said, holistic medicine is not homeopathy, though it's alluded to in the summary.

The "other side"?

[sirwired]

"The instructor reports that she provides these readings as the students have already seen the other side in previous courses."

"The other side"? When one side is the best modern science has to offer, and the other "side" is unadulterated bull$hit, further study is not necessary, except to the extent that it would be helpful for students to be familiar with said BS so they can swiftly disabuse patients of the idea that any of it is actually going to work.

When, in a course of scientific study, one side discards the precepts of science entirely, you cannot have a two-party discussion; you'll simply be talking past each other. When said non-scientific side co-opts the language of science to come up with nonsensical word salad purporting to explain their theories, well, a students grade in the course better not be dependent on accepting the bizzaro-land explanations for any of it.

Re:Quantum Mechanics is bollocks

[dbIII]

Describe the mechanism for "filtering of photons based on time of emission" and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you.

Greg Egan did that - but no Nobel Prize for him because he's set his fiction in a Riemannian universe where time is a little different:
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/ORTHOGONAL/ORTHOGONAL.html

Of course he got a bad review once from a steampunk fantasy guy for having "too much science" in his SF and his aliens being a bit too alien :)
Way offtopic maybe but cool books that make you look at the real stuff a bit differently.

Re:Theology is better than those

[Anonymous Coward]

Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a philosophy. Science and math were also, at one time, considered "philosophies", in that they, all three, relied on inductive proof techniques developed by the classical philosophers. With the development of the scientific method, however, science stands apart on a new basis of testable hypotheses. It is my understanding that math is considered by many to not be a science on this basis.

Induction is just one mere tool to be used. Putting everything that uses a specific tool is folly. Is carpentry the same as mining? They both use hammers. Is programming the same as dying cloth? They both manipulate electrons.

Theology is certainly not philosophy. Testability is the cornerstone of science. Rational theories are the cornerstone of philosophy. Theology is neither rational or presents theories, but interpretations of dogma.

Avogadro's Number... look it up

[sirwired]

Look up how they do the "dilutions", the concentration of the original ingredients asymptotes. It does not go to zero. Fools (including critics) don't actually check what is in there, preferring to misapply equations.

Concentrations are usually expressed as percentages because we usually deal in numbers of molecules so large, there's no point in expressing quantities like that. (A single drop of water contains approx. 100 quintillion molecules.)

But, homeopathy dilutes substances SO MUCH, that using math and Avogadro's Number we can calculate that a vial of said "remedy" containing all the water on planet earth is more likely to have zero vs. a single molecule of the substance.

While technically this probability is expressed as an asymptote, for practical purposes it's zero.

Your argument might make sense before we understood things like solutions being actual combinations of substances and not some kind of magic that changes the properties of ordinary water. But we DO understand how things work, so your argument makes no sense at all.

Re:Theology is better than those

[drinkypoo]

Theology is really a component of the study of cultures.

Right, so what about that isn't science?

Re:Tsk. Have a minimal grasp of the language!

[green1]

Saying vaccination = homeopathy just shows that you don't understand what homeopathy is.
Homeopathy is not showing the body something in smaller numbers, or a weakened state. Homeopathy, by actual definition, is showing the body NOTHING. the level of dilution used to make something meet the definition of homeopathy is so much that there should be no trace whatsoever of the original item in the dose being administered.
If in fact the active ingredient IS present in the dose being administered, the medication can not be considered homeopathic (by both definition, and actual law)

Re:Theology is better than those

[narcc]

I think you're confused, though I'm not sure where you've gone wrong. A little history of science, and a better understanding of induction might help you here.

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[green1]

If any active ingredients are found in a homeopathic medicine, it can not legally be called homeopathic, and will be in contravention of the law if sold as such. It will then actually have to go through safety and efficacy testing like normal medications, and as none have ever passed efficacy testing (as they aren't effective) can not legally be sold.

Faulty bullshit detection kit.

[TapeCutter]

Anyone undertaking these courses knows what they're signing up for (pseudo-science)

The people signing up for a course in homeopathy 'know' jack shit, they honestly cannot distinguish science from pseudoscience. These are the people that the education system failed to educate and now they are being misled at the university level. It may not be as violent as scientology but it is on the same level of intellectual immaturity and has no place in a modern university.

The problem with this kind of crap is two-fold, first it is downright dangerous to the patients health to encourage them to shun modern medicine, as many "alternative' practitioners explicitly and implicitly do. Secondly there is absolutely no doubt that evidence based meditation techniques such as mindfulness are good for your mental health but the utter nonsense surrounding such practices deters many of our best minds from investigating the subject. And where science fears to tread, superstition, mysticism, and the irrational behaviours they advocate will take hold.

As for the historical role of religion, it was once everything rolled into one, there was no such thing as science, law, and philosophy, these things were all under the umbrella of religion. Newton founded the chair of mathematics at cambridge, would you deny Newton's scientific credentials because he was first and foremost a respected theologian in his own lifetime? We've moved on, religion is dying all over the western world, but when people don't have a functioning bullshit detection kit they still 'know' jack shit and will behave irrationally and often against their own best interests.

Bullshit detection is the one skill that a modern education system should provide above all other skills, yet it consistently fails to do that for the majority of HS graduates. A good start to correcting this oversight would be to make Sagan's book compulsory reading for HS students, dissect and discuss the material with the same institutional enthusiasm shown for Shakespeare and Dickens.

Re:Faulty bullshit detection kit.

[cloud.pt]

I have to admit I laughed reading your comment (because I emphasized my "bullshit detector persona" with it). But that authoritarian mood gets us nowhere. I like to keep an open mind about everything. For fck sake, I know my sex drive is 100% towards women, yet I often force my mindset to "homo" so that I can understand (and mostly do accept) their point of view. It's a good exercise in humanity and I advise you to do the same (in all areas of human nature, not limited to sexuality or healing methodologies). On the other hand, such open-mindeness can confuse some people's goals in life. I know for a fact assertiveness, constructive criticism, dialogue and so on (keep inserting pacifist bullshit here) are NOT ALWAYS the best answer to questions in life, but in the long run, pondered decisions are usually the ones you don't look behind. You know that meme "The more you know"? It fits like a glove unless you have A.D.D. If you are easily distracted from your goals by taking other ppl's bullshit into account, maybe you should keep doing what you do :D

Re:Faulty bullshit detection kit.

[cloud.pt]

Oh and sorry for some typos, I usually have trouble translating fast text to english from my mother tongue. As a side note, I noticed I pretty much applied one of the BDK's premises to your own argument: the authority fallacy :D. Making a largely biased "anything" compulsory is authoritarian by design. Oh wait I did it again, any biased decision based on liking Sagan's skeptic points of view are invalid due to his own logic! ARGUMENTCEPTION. I'm taking a comic approach to this argument, don't take it too seriously. I'm not starting any sort of flame war and I deeply respect your opinion. It's why I replied.

Re:At this point theology would be fine

[alvinrod]

Many branches of science have produced theories that turned out not to work, but that doesn't make biology, chemistry, or physics non-scientific. One could probably state that those fields are less prone to turning out "bad science" than the soft sciences like sociology, economics, and politics, but that doesn't mean that they can't have the scientific method applied to them, although given that the problems some of these fields seek to tackle aren't easy to test in a controlled experimental design and you can see why the results aren't anywhere near as rigorous as physics.

One could argue that those economic theories that you've listed are testable and that a case study of the real world suggests that they don't work as described on a large scale. Most of the grand sweeping economic theories make assumptions about human behavior that aren't true or require people to act against their nature, but that doesn't exclude the areas of those fields where they have been able to scientifically validate their results.

Re:Theology is better than those

[halivar]

Induction is just one mere tool to be used. Putting everything that uses a specific tool is folly.

You may think it folly, but the historical fact is that up until about 200 years ago, the Venn diagram between mathematicians and theologians was pretty inclusive. Newton and Pascal wrote more prolifically on theology then they did math. When education was rare, and education in philosophy (and thus inductive logic) was rarer, the same people had to wear many hats, and their output in those disparate fields hewed pretty closely together.

Theology is certainly not philosophy. Testability is the cornerstone of science. Rational theories are the cornerstone of philosophy. Theology is neither rational or presents theories, but interpretations of dogma.

This is false. Rational theories are the cornerstone of philosophy; that much is correct. But the whole point of systematic theology is that for the prescribed axioms, the proofs are indeed rational. You do not agree with many or most of those fundamental presuppositions but that does not make the theology, in and of itself, irrational per se. Theology is absolutely a philosophy. Your beef is clearly with religion or spiritual faith (which, while relying on theology, is a belief system and not a philosophy).

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[Anonymous Coward]

It is so diluted that the probability of having a single molecule is close to 0.

Nope, they shake it up and take the top layer or dump it and take what sticks to the container. They do not take a random sample of the solution. You are wrong.

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[Jason Levine]

It's a way for scammers to stretch their supplies of actual medicine ridiculously thin to make obnoxiously huge profits

Or not use any at all. Seriously, since Homeopathy means diluting a substance down to a level where it would be undetectable, how would you be able to tell the difference between two vials of homeopathic "medicine" where vial A was properly diluted and vial B was just plain water that never held any such substance?

Homeopathic "medicine" providers could just sell tiny bottles of water and there would be no way to show they were scamming their customers. (Beyond the fact that homeopathy doesn't work, I mean.)

Re:Tsk. Have a minimal grasp of the language!

[james_gnz]

Vaccination = homeopathy. ... Homeopathy is the old "similia similibus curantur": that is what vaccination is. You're teaching one's immune system to deal with an unknown enemy by showing it the enemy (weakened or in smaller numbers).

Are you serious? I'm not sure because I posted essentially the same point as a joke. I can think of a couple of important differences. Vaccination is done prior to illness, so "showing the enemy (weakened)" allows the immune system to prepare before it arrives. Homoeopathy is done during the illness, when "showing the enemy" doesn't make sense any more. We can see it already anyway, because it's already here. Also, while vaccination does focus on "showing the enemy", homoeopathy is content to show something else that produces symptoms similar to those produced by "the enemy", even if the underlying cause is different, so there's no reason to suppose it would help, even if it was done in advance.

Re:Theology is better than those

[dave420]

That it's completely untestable? I think that might have something to do with it :)

Re:Quantum Mechanics is bollocks

[MightyYar]

Your theory does not explain why the interference pattern is destroyed when they start filtering the photons.

Re:Theology is better than those

[drinkypoo]

That it's completely untestable?

You can still work backwards; what was done, what happened. And then, you can also observe events. What is being done, what happens.

Show me the evidence

[sjbe]

You're confusing the study of beliefs with the beliefs themselves.

I'm afraid I'm not confused in the slightest. Theology is by definition "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world ". Since god(s) existence and relation to the world (if any) are by definition not known or falsifiable, any "study of their nature" is in essence a study of a work of fiction and most definitely not science. You can study other sciences as they relate to the effects of theology (including beliefs) but theology is not a science itself.

You have a deep misunderstanding of the subject, which is probably why your reaction here is visceral and not rational.

I described what a science is and what it isn't and how theology does not fit the definition of a science. If that isn't rational I'm afraid you do not understand the meaning of the word. If you understand the topic then by all means show me how theology fits the definition of a science. Show me what predictive value it has in describing the world. Show me testable and repeatable hypothesis theology has ever made that have been shown to be true by objective evidence.

Re:Show me the evidence

[tehcyder]

Although you probably wouldn't want to, you can be an atheist and study theology, just like any other intellectual pursuit. Theology is not limited to believers, otherwise (say) a Christian wouldn't be interested in Buddhism or Hinduism at all.

Re:Vaccines are great, but

[ThatsDrDangerToYou]

Actually, the "poop enema" thing is being used now in hospitals as a treatment for C. Difficile. (Father-in-law had this procedure.) Basically, when you have obliterated your GI with a series of antibiotics, the enema repopulates your nuked intestinal bacteria.

So yes, there is new stuff barely accepted by the establishment that is now becoming a "thing". Someday, I imagine, doctors may advocate that a patient exercise and create a decent diet for themselves, but that would be pretty outrageous. All healing must be delivered surgically or in pill form. That's the rule. Of course I am joking here, but in the current medical model(s), Big Med determines what is and what is not a valid treatment. If it is not insurance billable, it is not really considered seriously. Therefore, patients taking responsibility for their health tends not to be emphasized. "Just fix me doc! Write me a scrip and I will be on my way."

But yes, science!

Re:From the horses mouth

[BCGlorfindel]

I have no problem with a course teaching about what anti-vaccine supporters claim if it helps doctors debunk it in person and helps them dismantle it in person. I hope this is what it is about.

That was exactly my hope. I could see the legitimacy of inoculating students to all the half truths and outright lies that alternative fruitcakes are trying to pitch the public. It's even important to have our medical students versed in some of it just so they can be prepared to counter the fear mongers.

Regrettably, the course outline reveals otherwise. It goes as far to say the course will delve into a quantum physics’ understanding of disease. So it's a course teaching the very worst of the lies. The instructor is listed as Beth Landau-Halpern. Here's an undercover video CBC caught her and others in where she tells the parent that vaccines are causing allergies and other stupidity that is entirely counter to scientific evidence. She even has a blog post here confirming it was her and pleading that her advice was devoid of context, as if there is some context in which suggesting vaccines like that for MMR is really far worse for a child than a homeopathic placebo she was willing to sell...

This is as about as bad as it can get. We have the U of T willing to run a course taught by someone this loony, and then to review the course material and find it acceptable even! Of course, they are not going to be offering the course next year, and hopefully never again. But for it to get this far is a sign of some very, very deep rot in institutions that seriously needs to be cleaned up.

Re:W00t!

[Grishnakh]

This isn't the first time, by far.

Just look at some of the wackiness in Asia: in China and Vietnam, they think rhinoceros tusks cure all kinds of ailments, and this is what's created the demand for poachers who have poached them nearly to extinction.

In South Korea, people actually believe that leaving a fan on in their bedroom at night will "chop up" all the oxygen and suffocate them.

Homeopathy was invented in Germany.

Futurama said it best

[pak9rabid]

Idiot:I have a degree in homeopathic medicine!
Announcer Bot:You have a degree in balogna! (sprays the idiot with water)

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[danbob999]

Do they have any evidence that the active molecule sticks to the container or is more present in the top layer? I mean, anymore than the water? Of course they don't.

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[sribe]

Or not use any at all. Seriously, since Homeopathy means diluting a substance down to a level where it would be undetectable, how would you be able to tell the difference between two vials of homeopathic "medicine" where vial A was properly diluted and vial B was just plain water that never held any such substance?

You measure the residual quantum vibrations left behind in A, duh ;-)

Homeopathy has always been 100% bunk

[sirwired]

Homeopathy has always been 100% bunk. Pure placebo effect. Nothing so prosaic as oil and water not mixing creating a useful result; it's simply pure, unadulterated, B.S.

Now, at the time it was developed, during what we call "pre-scientific medicine", there simply weren't any non-BS explanations available, so perhaps it was a forgivable error. But there's certainly no excuse for it now.

As a side-note, one of the first homeopathic "cures" was for malaria. At the time, there actually WAS, a well-known and useful cure for malaria, cinchona bark extract (a.k.a. Quinine.) However it tastes nasty and has side-effects, so people took the homeopathic remedy for it instead. Those people were untreated for the illness and many of them died from it where quinine would have saved them.

Homeopathy: Proudly killing patients since Day 1.

Re:Yet you turned down my proposed phrenology cour

[MiniMike]

Based on what I've seen in this article, they would have to add this after or as a part of a course on Proctology.

Re:Interesting arguments

[kanweg]

"I find these anti homeopathy arguments interesting, this idea that nothing of value can exists which has not been done better by the medical profession and how it must lack any workability."

Strawman.

"It's not like medicin is money motivated in the least, much like government employees are not a cut above all and never lie, for any motivation."

Pot kettle black. Where does this homeopathy stuff comes from? Answer: (Big) Companies selling essentially water for marked up prices, praying on easily deluded souls. At least pharmaceutical companies have to come up with something that works at least some of the time for some.

Bert

Re:Theology is better than those

[halivar]

No, I do not believe I am confused. Charles Sanders Peirce, the father of modern scientific inquiry, believed that the tri-part mathematics of logic (induction, deduction, and abduction) applied equally to philosophy, mathematics, the social and natural sciences, and squishy meta-physics. This is as late as the 1870's. Today science stresses the deductive property of falsifiability as essential to science (and sets it apart from philosophy and mathematics, which are therefore not true sciences), but that is a relatively recent concept, as I said above.

Re:Quantum Mechanics is bollocks

[JamesSharman]

I can filter photons based on time of emission, it's a process I like to call "Blinking". Can I have Nobel Prize now plx?

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[cyberchondriac]

They could.. maybe some do.. some of them actually believe in it though Technically, if they do include a tiny minute amount of the actual medicine, they can't be charged for outright fraud since they're labeling honestly.

Remaining ignorant is not smart

[miltonw]

There is a movement today to advocate strict suppression of all ideas that don't agree with the consensus or "approved" view of things. No matter how wrong those "alternative" ideas may be, that truly is the path to disaster.

The correct path is to teach everyone logic and scientific thought so that people can effectively determine the truth for themselves.

Instead, we seem to treat students as if they were all idiots who must be "protected" from "wrong information". You can't do that without creating obedient sheep. You may be one of those who think obedient sheep would be a good thing, until someone else, with completely wacky ideas, starts leading your sheep off into the hinterlands.

Instead of trying to suppress all the information we think is wrong, we should teach people how to think and how to evaluate information. That really is the only way to effectively protect them.

Re:Theology is better than those

[narcc]

Charles Sanders Peirce, the father of modern scientific inquiry

You can't be serious. Who fed you that nonsense?

Re:Quantum Mechanics is bollocks

[MightyYar]

And when you "blink", you still get an interference pattern. Unless you "filter" the one that hits the first detector - then the pattern goes away. So no prize for you just yet.

Re:Theology is better than those

[bledri]

Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a real science.

No, that's called "religious studies" and it's a social science. Theology is the art of drinking Kool-aid and calling it fine wine. Religious studies is the cataloging of all the flavors of Kool-aid that theologians drink.

Re:Theology is better than those

[bledri]

Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a philosophy. Science and math were also, at one time, considered "philosophies", in that they, all three, relied on inductive proof techniques developed by the classical philosophers. With the development of the scientific method, however, science stands apart on a new basis of testable hypotheses. It is my understanding that math is considered by many to not be a science on this basis.

Theology can't be taught from a neutral viewpoint because it only exists in the context of the religion that the theologian believes. Theology can include philosophy but it is invariably tainted by the specific religion that the theologian embraces. Theologians have contributed to philosophy because they try to square arbitrary canon with reality and have created some interesting arguments in the process.

Forgive me if I do not trust the sources.

[sirwired]

Forgive me if I do not trust the sources in the linked comment, both of which come from a Homeopathy Journal; the very idea of a scientific journal dedicated to something that is about the exact opposite of science is hilarious. You might as well have referenced Jenny McCarthy as an authority on vaccines.

(As a side-note, I do find it very fascinating that a Homeopathy journal is publishing an article stating that one of the primary "mechanisms of action" of homeopathy, that dilution makes a drug (or... errr... anti-drug) into a strong remedy, does not, in fact, actually happen in practice.)

Re:Theology is better than those

[halivar]

Theology can't be taught from a neutral viewpoint because it only exists in the context of the religion that the theologian believes. Theology can include philosophy but it is invariably tainted by the specific religion that the theologian embraces.

All philosophies depend on presuppositions. If the presuppositions are wrong, then everything that comes from those premises cannot be reasonable sustained. But that's the point. Science takes this a step further by adding the deductive property of falsifiability to test the presuppositions for truth.

Homeopathic A&E :)

[nickweller]

Hilarious sketch from the fourth episode of series three of 'That Mitchell and Webb Look.'

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Sadly, well not really but it was damn funny, I did see placebo drunk while in college.

Some freshmen were hooping it up a few doors down so I took a peek in to see what was happening, don't want to miss out on a good party. They tell me how drunk they are and that they can't believe the grocery store sold them a bottle of margarita or daiquiri mix without checking their ID. I then pointed out that it is non alcoholic and they begin arguing until one looks at the bottle and realizes that I wasn't lying to them. They then instantly sober up and realize that they weren't being stupid because of alcohol but instead were just stupid.

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[green1]

Some are outright scams, in fact it's easy to spot them, they use the legal loophole of labeling their product as homeopathic so that they don't have to prove that it works. If it isn't homeopathic, it has to actually prove that it works.

Transsexuality

[Tenebrousedge]

I could explain that gender is mostly a social construct, or a mental one (as opposed to biological sex, which has some fuzzy boundaries but is otherwise more clearly defined). I could explain transsexualism in terms of foreign hand syndrome, where your brain is telling you that your body is wrong and the difference between your mind and body is a continual torment. I could tell you about years of secret anguish and desperate struggles against one's self, as often as not leading to suicide.

But I'm pretty sure you have an unshakable faith in a baseless opinion. I'd wish some dire situation on you for your close-mindedness, but I can't actually think of a worse curse than being willfully ignorant and without compassion.

Re:At this point theology would be fine

[jedidiah]

There are plenty of us that don't take either economics or psychology very seriously for precisely the reasons that have already been outlined.

Empiricism

[Tenebrousedge]

No, natural sciences have started from observation. Science is empirical, and theology is without empirical evidence. It relies on received knowledge and rationalism. There is no observational test which can be used to determine the existence of any given god or religious belief, therefore science can not be used to evaluate theological truths.

This is not to say that theological truths are better or worse than empirical ones, but for me personally, I will consider anything that contradicts empirical evidence to be wrong. I don't have a sound basis for telling other people how to determine truth, and empiricism is not without its flaws: things are only true to the degree to which they can be observed, which always leaves some sort of error factor. There are a number of moral and social phenomena which are either intractable or undecidable by empiricism. Religion does happen to be one of those areas.

Science is not the categorization of knowledge, it is the search for truth, specifically empirical truth. A little knowledge of epistemology would go a long way towards settling disputes about science versus religion.

Empirical Evidence

[Tenebrousedge]

Yes, we have moved to verification. That's kinda the point. Science is empirical, religion is not. If you want the religious perspective on social issues, you use received knowledge (religious texts) or rationalism (logic). You do not conduct an experiment to measure God's opinion on the matter.

Science does not deal in absolute truth. It deals in empirical truth, in other words, things that match observations. Empirical truth is limited therefore to what can be observed, and more typically what can be measured.

I do not know of an objective basis for privileging empiricism over rationalism over religion. However, for me personally, if it can't be observed I'm not going to assign a truth value to it, and if it doesn't match observation, it's wrong. It is unquestionably the case however that religion is not under any condition a science, and cannot be evaluated scientifically. Frankly, I cannot imagine the confusion of ideas that led you to espouse that, but if this is an apology for your unscientific beliefs, rest assured that they have a different basis and scope than your scientific ones, and as you say, there's no reason from a philosophical perspective to prefer either system.

Re:Empirical Evidence

[Tenebrousedge]

Go ahead, school me.

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[green1]

"science is hard" is not a valid argument against it.

Re:Theology is better than those

[KGIII]

Dr. of Philosophical Math is considered the highest degree one can get in mathematics. My Ph.D is in Applied Mathematics so, really, what do I know? ;)

Re:Vaccines are great, but

[Ol Olsoc]

There used to be. And then the romans ran out of lions. Look how that turned out for us.

I had to re-read my own post to get your remark. Well played, well played indeed.

Unclear

[tehcyder]

What sort of degree course is this being taught on?

If it's something like sociology or philosophy, looking at the (il)logic behind some popular beliefs, that's OK as encouraging critical thinking If it's part of a medical degree, it's absurd.

Re:National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

[tehcyder]

do separate the medicinal benefits of certain substances from the concept of one poison fights another.

The former is not homeopathy.

Re:Quantum Mechanics is bollocks

[tehcyder]

Sounds like a gay porno - bollocks all the way down.

Re:Theology is better than those

[tehcyder]

Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a real science.

Only if you define literary criticism or history or economics as real sciences.

Re:Theology is better than those

[tehcyder]

Theology is really a component of the study of cultures.

Right, so what about that isn't science?

That makes theology similar to sociology, anthropology or history, so somewhere between soft science and the humanities.

Re:Theology is better than those

[tehcyder]

Theology, when taught from a neutral viewpoint, is a real science.

No, that's called "religious studies" and it's a social science. Theology is the art of drinking Kool-aid and calling it fine wine. Religious studies is the cataloging of all the flavors of Kool-aid that theologians drink.

No, you can (at least in the UK) do a theology degree that involves studying comparative religions, not just training to be a priest. Otherwise mainstream universities wouldn't do theology courses, they would just be left to church colleges (if such exist).

Re:Homeopathy Dilutions are not Dilutions

[cyberchondriac]

That's a testament to the power of placebo, at any rate. That's pretty funny.

Re:Theology is better than those

[david_thornley]

Theology can be taught from a neutral viewpoint. It's entirely possible to know something of the theology of religions you don't actually believe in and teach it to other nonbelievers. I've found some knowledge of Christian theology useful in arguing with Christians, many of whom know less of their own theology than I do. (I am an intellectually quarrelsome type, and interested in religions for some reason or other.)

Theology not qualified by a religion would be part of the study of religious thinking, and would be more anthropology than philosophy.

Re:Theology is better than those

[david_thornley]

Theology, in some cases, is the art of drinking wine and calling it blood.

Re:Theology is better than those

[david_thornley]

It's possible to study history like an observational science, something like astronomy. Economics is an observational science, although thoroughly immature. Literary criticism is much harder to cast as a science, since it mostly depends on subjective evaluations. One could scientifically study the process of literary criticism. Theology, at best, is more like mathematics, accepting certain assumptions and seeing where they go.

Re:Tsk. Have a minimal grasp of the language!

[james_gnz]

I'm talking about what the word was intended to mean, not about the modern sense it may have.

From Wikipedia:

"homeopathy" ... comes from the Greek: [one Greek term], "-like" and [another Greek term], "suffering"

I think this matches what I take homoeopathy to be about, i.e. administering something that causes the same symptoms as the disease. (I'm just assuming it's accurate, I'll accept correction from a better reference.)

People are vaccinated against rabies after being bitten, because presumable they may be already infected.

Okay, I stand corrected.

"Homeo" means "same" and vaccination embodies the idea of using the disease itself to prevent more serious consequences.

Yes, but vaccination works on the principle of administering a weakened form of the cause before the disease spreads, whereas the principles of homoeopathy fail to focus on the the cause of the illness, or on using treatment as a prevention rather than a cure.

Indeed, I agree this view of homeopathy is prevalent. It might work in some cases (e.g. eliciting a desired response to the symptoms), but it would also be a misnomer: that is what I would call allopathy.

Going by the above definition, "like suffering", I think the term is accurate. But really, I don't think it matters. We still "dial" or "ring" people on our phones, even though our phones no longer have either dials or bells. The meaning of words change, and I think the term "homoeopathy" (or "homeopathy" in the USA) has a well established meaning beyond the sum of its parts, so to speak.

Besides, placebos also work now and then.

Okay, I accept that, but I think the discussion was about healing properties beyond the placebo effect.

My whole point is fighting quacks is not a mere case of fighting concepts. Some people jump out of the chair like trained monkeys after hearing words like "homeopathy", "piracy" etc. I'd like people to be more mindful of their own thinking process.

I think that's a fair call, but I don't think homoeopathy was a good choice for making that point.