He had to grade about 100 people in one day, so I guess he didn't want to spend too much time on each individual student. I'm also not sure whether he actually personally implemented his version, or whether it was one of his assistants.
He was a pretty good prof, otherwise.
This was a pretty important assignment back when I was studying computer science. It added to the final mark mark for that particular class. The task was to write a reasonably complex application in Prolog or some functional programming language, I can't remember which it was. I think the goal was to pair males and females based on their preferences, and find the optimal solution. Of course, I screwed up royally, and nothing worked five minutes before I had to demonstrate my solution.
So in the final five minutes, I changed my code so it would avoid the parts which put it into an infinite loop, and instead simply output a random result. My goal was to tell the prof that it had worked a few minutes earlier, and that I didn't know what had gone wrong, and could I please have another week?
So I demonstrated my app, it gave its random output, and I was about to start with my "damn, it used to work properly" spiel when he said (and this is actually true, even though it sounds unbelievable):
"That's great! The result is correct, and your app is also quite a bit quicker than my own implementation of the problem. Congratulations, I think you're the only one so far who managed to get the correct result so far."
I was so taken aback that I probably just stared at him for a few seconds. Then, I stupidly said "So... You want to see my code?" but he was like "No, the result is correct, and your implementation is very fast, so I don't need to see the code. Good job. Send in the next guy."
I'm using the video tag on some sites. It's easy to support Firefox, Chrome and Safari, and if you're using IE, I don't really care about you. Of course, your point still stands; my strategy would be untenable for a commercial company.
I know this is anecdotal and there are counterexamples, but I'm a programmer, most of my friends are computer geeks, and even among those people, nobody uses Linux exclusively. All of them have at least a Mac or a Windows PC in addition to their Linux boxes. I'd love to see id make a Linux version, but I doubt there's any realistic monetary reason for doing so.
I disagree. I think later works absolutely can diminish the value of earlier works. The Matrix was a great movie, but the two sequels destroyed that world. By doing so, they have made the first part a worse movie.
If they are that good - they should be writing their own stuff
[Eoin Colfer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoin_Colfer) actually does write "his own stuff". And I actually really like him as an author. He writes interesting, witty books. They could have picked worse people to write a Hitchhiker's Guide. However, Colfer writes books for children and young adults, while I would say that Adams' books are aimed at adults. Also, the humor is very different. Adams' humour is both wry and very inventive. His books gain much of their humour from his description of bizarre details. Colfer writes very differently. His humor tends to be more banal. Where Adams has the melancholic robot, Colfer has a farting troll.
So yeah. I haven't read Colfer's Hitchhiker's Guide, obviously, but I would say that if you expect a book along the lines of what Adams was capable of, you're probably not going to get it. If you'll accept a Colfer book set in Adams' universe, you might end up liking it.
The job of a public university is to serve the public. (Hence, you know, the name.) It's not in the interest of the public to hire a foreign worker
However, as far as I can tell, the universities don't tell companies to hire foreigners, they merely point out that it makes financial sense to do so. I'm pretty sure most corporations have figure that out all on their own, so giving this information to everyone else is, in fact, a public service.
Where I live, immigrants work both in highly qualified jobs, as well as in unqualified jobs. Both are good, because we don't have enough highly trained people, and nobody here wants to work as a toilet cleaner:-)
Highly qualified immigrants are mainly from the US, Germany and Italy, I think.
My company is, in fact, hiring software engineers (although I'm reluctant to post information on/.), and so are many companies over here. I'm pretty sure you would easily find a job if you truly are a well-qualified programmer.
That, indeed, would be a radical idea. Educating students is but one of the things a university does. Research is just as important, and to lie for your students would be to disqualify your own academic value.
As more articles approach a reasonably good state, more changes will have to be reverted because they decrease the quality of the article. It's not a bad thing, it's a positive sign.
With the way the recession is currently in the US, it makes no sense for the US govt. to not only allow, but, in some cases expedite bringing foreigners in (or letting them in willy nilly across the border illegally) to fill jobs that our own citizens are in desperate need of...
That makes little sense, but I approve. In fact, as somebody who lives in Europe, I encourage every smart, qualified worker who doesn't feel welcome in the US to come over here. We'll get out of these economic problems by having smart people do innovative things. It doesn't really matter where they were born, but it does matter where they work.
I don't see that a state funded school should be allowed by the taxpayers of that state to promote the hiring of foreign people over US citizens either...that's not what my tax dollars should be going for...
So you're saying that universities should promote political opinions instead of the truth?
There are atheists who do not merely believe that no creator is the most likely possibility but firmly believe they KNOW the answer to the question for a fact.
That is correct, but your logic goes in the wrong direction. While some atheists do indubitably believe what you say, it is not the definition of the word "atheist." People who believe that gods don't exist are atheists, but atheists are not people who believe gods don't exist. Atheists are people who don't believe that gods exist.
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Note that it doesn't say that atheism requires some kind of faith in the absence of gods, or that being an atheist requires you to "know" that gods don't exist.
The only definitions that make sense for classification of everyone is use atheist to refer to a firm conclusion that there is no creator, religious to refer to a firm conclusion that there is a creator, and agnostic to refer to anyone who has not reached a firm conclusion either way. These are terms of belief/faith not action.
See above. Atheism is the absence of belief in god, not belief in the absence of god.
I am confident that if you give this serious consideration you will realize that I am right.
Obviously, I believe the same about you, or I wouldn't spend the time arguing it with you:-)
even if said stories clearly contradict all relevant evidence we have.
If you find yourself with spare time and nothing to do, I'd be interested to see this evidence you supposedly have (via e-mail, of course).
Well, I was mostly thinking about the origin of the American Indians. What the Book of Mormon says is consistent with what people knew when Smith wrote it, but new evidence seems to contradict it. But as I said, it doesn't matter very much. A lot of what's in the New and Old Testament is inconsistent with evidence, too, and since religion is based on faith, inconsistencies can be seen as a test of faith. Hence, all inconsistencies can be seen as evidence that the religion is correct, because your faith wouldn't have to be tested if it weren't correct:-)
At any rate, I wanted to thank you for discussing this with me. I found the discussion very interesting, and I realize that some of the things I have said were insulting to religion in general, and yours in particular. I want to thank you for responding even-tempered and peacefully.
No. That's like saying that scientists have "faith" in the big bang. It's not faith, it's just the most likely explanation given the evidence.
Agnostism is lacking faith in either view because there is no evidence either way.
Agnosticism is noncommittal.
Perhaps we must make an example. If I were to told an atheist and an agnostic that there was a tiny invisible elephant hiding under his bed, the atheist would answer "I'm pretty sure such a thing is impossible, I have no evidence that it is true, so I will assume that it is not true," while the agnostic will say "Since the elephant is tiny and invisible, I can't be sure you're lying, so I will say that you could be right or could be wrong, so I won't take a stance."
Agnosticism basically implies that two possibilities have roughly the same probability if they are unknowable, while atheism accepts that even unknowable things have probabilities assigned to them.
Atheists are guilty of the commonly seen human flaw, the drive to pick a side or take a stance. In truth, there is no particular reason to take a stance.
I strongly disagree with this. In fact, atheists have a hard time organizing. They would really rather not take a stance. I haven't believed in god for a long time, but I've never considered myself to be an atheist until very recently. Atheism is the absence of faith; it seems strange and pointless to form a group of people whose common feature is that they don't believe in something. It's like forming a group of people who don't wear green shoes. Why should anyone identify with this group? I also feel that lack of religion is the natural state of a human, which makes it doubly weird to form groups around it.
Why did I change my mind? Because I feel that more and more religious people are starting to use the political process to enforce their views on society. This anti-intellectual, anti-scientific view is dangerous to society and to our future. This problem has caused me to identify more strongly with atheists. The acts of religious people have made it important for me to identify with a group that contradicts these people. In other words, what I have in common with other Atheists isn't so much the absence of religion, as it is the love of reason and the goal to stop religious people from destroying our society.
And this is also the answer to your other implied question, namely why I feel that there is a reason to take a stance.
I'm not just saying their interpretation is different from mine (it is), I'm saying that the Catholic Church's current doctrines only vaguely resemble the teachings found in the New Testament.
Well, okay, I would agree with this.
I would also agree that worshipping Mary is probably not something the original writers of the gospels intended to happen.
And just for the record, I don't really consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be more insane than other churches (although in my opinion, they're slightly more annoying than more mainstream religions due to their proselytizing). If you already believe that two of every kind of animal fit on a ship, that a flood killed off pretty much the whole world at one point, that a person was born who was the son of god, that this person then was nailed to a cross, died, came back, and flew to heaven, also believing in Joseph Smith's stories isn't much of a stretch, even if said stories clearly contradict all relevant evidence we have.
Likewise, the fact that you have a good life does not mean that religion granted you this.
So it's a complete coincidence that my dad is the only member of his family that didn't wander away from religion, and yet he's the only member of his family whose life isn't woefully screwed up (in terms of finances, relationships, and health)?
I don't know. Maybe there is a causal connection. Maybe going to church provides a social network to your dad which helps him stay out of trouble. Maybe it's coincidence. I'm pretty sure, however, that it's not because god helps him. Your dad making his own choices, and I guess he should get the credit for these choices and not have to share them with god:-)
"Coincidence" ceases to be meaningful when it's repeatable and long-term.
If that were an argument, I would tell you that the people in my family who are religious tend to be unable to lead proper lives. A relative of mine who is very religious is also mentally ill and still lives with his parents, unable to provide for himself. Another one can't get over the death of his wife and has basically stopped living, he simply waits for his own death so he can see her again (or so he believes). See, I'm not saying that religion has caused their problems. They would very likely have had problems even if they did not believe in god; maybe their problems actually caused them to start strongly believing in god, I don't know. What I am saying is that it's a bad idea to look at one's friends, and conclude based on this limited data whether religion is good or bad for a person.
Furthermore, if I can pray and get answers, many times over several years, who are you to tell me I didn't actually get any answers? Just because you don't believe it's possible doesn't mean it isn't possible.
That is entirely correct. I'm not saying it's impossible that god exists, merely that it's much more likely that the things you're experiencing have different, less divine causes.
If you actually believed that sending me money would help you, you would very likely notice the same advantages you get from sending the church money. Humans are extremely bad at objectively perceiving the world.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you to convert to my religion, I'm just trying to say that there is evidence, if you bother to look for it, but most of it is stuff you have to experience yourself.
Yes, there is evidence, but it's not the kind of evidence that is useful for objectively judging whether something works. What you're seeing is the same type of evidence that people see when they prefer regular Coke to Coke Zero even though they can't actually perceive any difference in a blind test. Humans are masters at deceiving themselves.
Even if religion does turn out to be some giant placebo, I won't regret anything - I'd rather be happy than live the woefully messed up lives I see my dad's siblings leading.
And that is another thing humans do: They always see causation when there is no objective evidence for it:-)
You would be the same person if you didn't go to church. In fact, you could spend the time going into the woods with your kids instead, or going fishing with your family, or playing a board game at home, and you would probably feel even happier than you do now.
I'm referring to the gospel as taught by the New Testament, and not to the (I'll put this nicely) convoluted mess of insanity that the Catholic Church has made of it. (No offense to any Catholics out there.)
I'm not entirely sure I understand this. The New Testament was put together by the Catholic Church. Are you saying you have a different New Testament? I'm not trying to mock you, I'm honestly curious where the differences between your New Testament and the Catholic Church's are. Or are you saying that the Church's current interpretation of the New Testament is different from yours?
(Full disclosure: I was raised in a catholic family, and I agree with you that the Catholic Church is insane. However, I suspect I would find what you believe even more insane:-)
Yes, when I said that homeopathy doesn't work, I did not mean "it has no effect", I actually meant "it doesn't have an effect that goes above the effect of a placebo."
Considering that the placebo effect appears to be responsible for both lesser curations and 'miracle healings', to not only disregard the accumulated experience of that art, but to scoff at it, seems not a very noble intellectual endavour at all.
So you're telling me that I should feel respect for something that has the same healing effect of a sugar pill (and actually is a sugar pill)?
If there is some (circumstantial) "evidence" that homeopathy works (and for homeopathy, there is "evidence" as a ton of people take it and claim that it helps them), it should be tested.
It really doesn't matter why people think it works; I mean, if somebody gave you an aspirin and told you it worked because angels from the heavens take your pain away once you eat it, that wouldn't mean that the aspirin wouldn't work.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny. See you there.
I think in my case, it was more along the lines of within the 0.001% :-)
That's probably what happened :-)
He had to grade about 100 people in one day, so I guess he didn't want to spend too much time on each individual student. I'm also not sure whether he actually personally implemented his version, or whether it was one of his assistants.
He was a pretty good prof, otherwise.
This was a pretty important assignment back when I was studying computer science. It added to the final mark mark for that particular class. The task was to write a reasonably complex application in Prolog or some functional programming language, I can't remember which it was. I think the goal was to pair males and females based on their preferences, and find the optimal solution. Of course, I screwed up royally, and nothing worked five minutes before I had to demonstrate my solution.
So in the final five minutes, I changed my code so it would avoid the parts which put it into an infinite loop, and instead simply output a random result. My goal was to tell the prof that it had worked a few minutes earlier, and that I didn't know what had gone wrong, and could I please have another week?
So I demonstrated my app, it gave its random output, and I was about to start with my "damn, it used to work properly" spiel when he said (and this is actually true, even though it sounds unbelievable):
"That's great! The result is correct, and your app is also quite a bit quicker than my own implementation of the problem. Congratulations, I think you're the only one so far who managed to get the correct result so far."
I was so taken aback that I probably just stared at him for a few seconds. Then, I stupidly said "So... You want to see my code?" but he was like "No, the result is correct, and your implementation is very fast, so I don't need to see the code. Good job. Send in the next guy."
And so I did.
I'm using the video tag on some sites. It's easy to support Firefox, Chrome and Safari, and if you're using IE, I don't really care about you. Of course, your point still stands; my strategy would be untenable for a commercial company.
I know this is anecdotal and there are counterexamples, but I'm a programmer, most of my friends are computer geeks, and even among those people, nobody uses Linux exclusively. All of them have at least a Mac or a Windows PC in addition to their Linux boxes. I'd love to see id make a Linux version, but I doubt there's any realistic monetary reason for doing so.
I disagree. I think later works absolutely can diminish the value of earlier works. The Matrix was a great movie, but the two sequels destroyed that world. By doing so, they have made the first part a worse movie.
So you'd say Harry Potter is comedy, too?
If they are that good - they should be writing their own stuff
[Eoin Colfer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoin_Colfer) actually does write "his own stuff". And I actually really like him as an author. He writes interesting, witty books. They could have picked worse people to write a Hitchhiker's Guide. However, Colfer writes books for children and young adults, while I would say that Adams' books are aimed at adults. Also, the humor is very different. Adams' humour is both wry and very inventive. His books gain much of their humour from his description of bizarre details. Colfer writes very differently. His humor tends to be more banal. Where Adams has the melancholic robot, Colfer has a farting troll.
So yeah. I haven't read Colfer's Hitchhiker's Guide, obviously, but I would say that if you expect a book along the lines of what Adams was capable of, you're probably not going to get it. If you'll accept a Colfer book set in Adams' universe, you might end up liking it.
The movie felt like something that was almost, but not quite there.
Like telling a joke, but forgetting the punch line. Coincidentally, this is what they did to most of the jokes in the movie.
The job of a public university is to serve the public. (Hence, you know, the name.) It's not in the interest of the public to hire a foreign worker
However, as far as I can tell, the universities don't tell companies to hire foreigners, they merely point out that it makes financial sense to do so. I'm pretty sure most corporations have figure that out all on their own, so giving this information to everyone else is, in fact, a public service.
Where I live, immigrants work both in highly qualified jobs, as well as in unqualified jobs. Both are good, because we don't have enough highly trained people, and nobody here wants to work as a toilet cleaner :-)
Highly qualified immigrants are mainly from the US, Germany and Italy, I think.
My company is, in fact, hiring software engineers (although I'm reluctant to post information on /.), and so are many companies over here. I'm pretty sure you would easily find a job if you truly are a well-qualified programmer.
That, indeed, would be a radical idea. Educating students is but one of the things a university does. Research is just as important, and to lie for your students would be to disqualify your own academic value.
As more articles approach a reasonably good state, more changes will have to be reverted because they decrease the quality of the article. It's not a bad thing, it's a positive sign.
With the way the recession is currently in the US, it makes no sense for the US govt. to not only allow, but, in some cases expedite bringing foreigners in (or letting them in willy nilly across the border illegally) to fill jobs that our own citizens are in desperate need of...
That makes little sense, but I approve. In fact, as somebody who lives in Europe, I encourage every smart, qualified worker who doesn't feel welcome in the US to come over here. We'll get out of these economic problems by having smart people do innovative things. It doesn't really matter where they were born, but it does matter where they work.
I don't see that a state funded school should be allowed by the taxpayers of that state to promote the hiring of foreign people over US citizens either...that's not what my tax dollars should be going for...
So you're saying that universities should promote political opinions instead of the truth?
You say:
There are atheists who do not merely believe that no creator is the most likely possibility but firmly believe they KNOW the answer to the question for a fact.
That is correct, but your logic goes in the wrong direction. While some atheists do indubitably believe what you say, it is not the definition of the word "atheist." People who believe that gods don't exist are atheists, but atheists are not people who believe gods don't exist. Atheists are people who don't believe that gods exist.
Wikipedia puts it this way:
Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
Note that it doesn't say that atheism requires some kind of faith in the absence of gods, or that being an atheist requires you to "know" that gods don't exist.
The only definitions that make sense for classification of everyone is use atheist to refer to a firm conclusion that there is no creator, religious to refer to a firm conclusion that there is a creator, and agnostic to refer to anyone who has not reached a firm conclusion either way. These are terms of belief/faith not action.
See above. Atheism is the absence of belief in god, not belief in the absence of god.
I am confident that if you give this serious consideration you will realize that I am right.
Obviously, I believe the same about you, or I wouldn't spend the time arguing it with you :-)
even if said stories clearly contradict all relevant evidence we have.
If you find yourself with spare time and nothing to do, I'd be interested to see this evidence you supposedly have (via e-mail, of course).
Well, I was mostly thinking about the origin of the American Indians. What the Book of Mormon says is consistent with what people knew when Smith wrote it, but new evidence seems to contradict it. But as I said, it doesn't matter very much. A lot of what's in the New and Old Testament is inconsistent with evidence, too, and since religion is based on faith, inconsistencies can be seen as a test of faith. Hence, all inconsistencies can be seen as evidence that the religion is correct, because your faith wouldn't have to be tested if it weren't correct :-)
At any rate, I wanted to thank you for discussing this with me. I found the discussion very interesting, and I realize that some of the things I have said were insulting to religion in general, and yours in particular. I want to thank you for responding even-tempered and peacefully.
Atheism is having faith that there is no creator
No. That's like saying that scientists have "faith" in the big bang. It's not faith, it's just the most likely explanation given the evidence.
Agnostism is lacking faith in either view because there is no evidence either way.
Agnosticism is noncommittal.
Perhaps we must make an example. If I were to told an atheist and an agnostic that there was a tiny invisible elephant hiding under his bed, the atheist would answer "I'm pretty sure such a thing is impossible, I have no evidence that it is true, so I will assume that it is not true," while the agnostic will say "Since the elephant is tiny and invisible, I can't be sure you're lying, so I will say that you could be right or could be wrong, so I won't take a stance."
Agnosticism basically implies that two possibilities have roughly the same probability if they are unknowable, while atheism accepts that even unknowable things have probabilities assigned to them.
Atheists are guilty of the commonly seen human flaw, the drive to pick a side or take a stance. In truth, there is no particular reason to take a stance.
I strongly disagree with this. In fact, atheists have a hard time organizing. They would really rather not take a stance. I haven't believed in god for a long time, but I've never considered myself to be an atheist until very recently. Atheism is the absence of faith; it seems strange and pointless to form a group of people whose common feature is that they don't believe in something. It's like forming a group of people who don't wear green shoes. Why should anyone identify with this group? I also feel that lack of religion is the natural state of a human, which makes it doubly weird to form groups around it.
Why did I change my mind? Because I feel that more and more religious people are starting to use the political process to enforce their views on society. This anti-intellectual, anti-scientific view is dangerous to society and to our future. This problem has caused me to identify more strongly with atheists. The acts of religious people have made it important for me to identify with a group that contradicts these people. In other words, what I have in common with other Atheists isn't so much the absence of religion, as it is the love of reason and the goal to stop religious people from destroying our society.
And this is also the answer to your other implied question, namely why I feel that there is a reason to take a stance.
I'm not just saying their interpretation is different from mine (it is), I'm saying that the Catholic Church's current doctrines only vaguely resemble the teachings found in the New Testament.
Well, okay, I would agree with this.
I would also agree that worshipping Mary is probably not something the original writers of the gospels intended to happen.
And just for the record, I don't really consider the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be more insane than other churches (although in my opinion, they're slightly more annoying than more mainstream religions due to their proselytizing). If you already believe that two of every kind of animal fit on a ship, that a flood killed off pretty much the whole world at one point, that a person was born who was the son of god, that this person then was nailed to a cross, died, came back, and flew to heaven, also believing in Joseph Smith's stories isn't much of a stretch, even if said stories clearly contradict all relevant evidence we have.
Likewise, the fact that you have a good life does not mean that religion granted you this.
So it's a complete coincidence that my dad is the only member of his family that didn't wander away from religion, and yet he's the only member of his family whose life isn't woefully screwed up (in terms of finances, relationships, and health)?
I don't know. Maybe there is a causal connection. Maybe going to church provides a social network to your dad which helps him stay out of trouble. Maybe it's coincidence. I'm pretty sure, however, that it's not because god helps him. Your dad making his own choices, and I guess he should get the credit for these choices and not have to share them with god :-)
"Coincidence" ceases to be meaningful when it's repeatable and long-term.
If that were an argument, I would tell you that the people in my family who are religious tend to be unable to lead proper lives. A relative of mine who is very religious is also mentally ill and still lives with his parents, unable to provide for himself. Another one can't get over the death of his wife and has basically stopped living, he simply waits for his own death so he can see her again (or so he believes). See, I'm not saying that religion has caused their problems. They would very likely have had problems even if they did not believe in god; maybe their problems actually caused them to start strongly believing in god, I don't know. What I am saying is that it's a bad idea to look at one's friends, and conclude based on this limited data whether religion is good or bad for a person.
Furthermore, if I can pray and get answers, many times over several years, who are you to tell me I didn't actually get any answers? Just because you don't believe it's possible doesn't mean it isn't possible.
That is entirely correct. I'm not saying it's impossible that god exists, merely that it's much more likely that the things you're experiencing have different, less divine causes.
If you actually believed that sending me money would help you, you would very likely notice the same advantages you get from sending the church money. Humans are extremely bad at objectively perceiving the world.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you to convert to my religion, I'm just trying to say that there is evidence, if you bother to look for it, but most of it is stuff you have to experience yourself.
Yes, there is evidence, but it's not the kind of evidence that is useful for objectively judging whether something works. What you're seeing is the same type of evidence that people see when they prefer regular Coke to Coke Zero even though they can't actually perceive any difference in a blind test. Humans are masters at deceiving themselves.
Even if religion does turn out to be some giant placebo, I won't regret anything - I'd rather be happy than live the woefully messed up lives I see my dad's siblings leading.
And that is another thing humans do: They always see causation when there is no objective evidence for it :-)
You would be the same person if you didn't go to church. In fact, you could spend the time going into the woods with your kids instead, or going fishing with your family, or playing a board game at home, and you would probably feel even happier than you do now.
I'm referring to the gospel as taught by the New Testament, and not to the (I'll put this nicely) convoluted mess of insanity that the Catholic Church has made of it. (No offense to any Catholics out there.)
I'm not entirely sure I understand this. The New Testament was put together by the Catholic Church. Are you saying you have a different New Testament? I'm not trying to mock you, I'm honestly curious where the differences between your New Testament and the Catholic Church's are. Or are you saying that the Church's current interpretation of the New Testament is different from yours?
(Full disclosure: I was raised in a catholic family, and I agree with you that the Catholic Church is insane. However, I suspect I would find what you believe even more insane :-)
Yes, when I said that homeopathy doesn't work, I did not mean "it has no effect", I actually meant "it doesn't have an effect that goes above the effect of a placebo."
Considering that the placebo effect appears to be responsible for both lesser curations and 'miracle healings', to not only disregard the accumulated experience of that art, but to scoff at it, seems not a very noble intellectual endavour at all.
So you're telling me that I should feel respect for something that has the same healing effect of a sugar pill (and actually is a sugar pill)?
Not sure I get your point.
If there is some (circumstantial) "evidence" that homeopathy works (and for homeopathy, there is "evidence" as a ton of people take it and claim that it helps them), it should be tested.
It really doesn't matter why people think it works; I mean, if somebody gave you an aspirin and told you it worked because angels from the heavens take your pain away once you eat it, that wouldn't mean that the aspirin wouldn't work.