You would have noticed that I said the basic premise, which is, as you even quoted "like cures like". That is an oversimplification of what vaccination does, but it pretty well sums it up.
Homeopathy claims that "like cures like" is a generally applicable principle in medicine. For vaccinations, one could argue that the priniciple is true in a small number of cases. But it, at most, only weakly supports over-arching principle that "like cures like". And when one considers that there is no evidence to support the "like cures like" hypothesis for treating or preventing cancer, the common cold, or a variety of other maladies, the overall evidence for homeopathic principles is incredibly weak.
But the theories and mechanisms proposed by homeopathy have not been shown to be correct.
"Like cures like" is not a generally proven principle. Immunization works because it causes one's immune system to produce antibodies which are effective against certain infections, not because of some nebulous homeopathic explanation. That immunization is kinda-sorta a "like cures like" thing is not strong evidence is favor of homeopathic ideas.
Actually, there is something else they have in common: Absolute certainty, which is something real skeptics don't have.
Most "real skeptics" claim that there is no evidence for [insert claim here]. As far as I know, that's all Randi has ever said. If you have a relevant quote that shows otherwise, please share with us. It shouldn't be too difficult if what you're claiming is true.
What was the last time you heard Randi and Co admit to not being sure about their findings or that their investigation was inconclusive?
Randi, for the most part, does two things: testing peoples' claims of extraordinary ability, and debunking folks who claim extraordinary ability on a large stage. Neither of these scientific tasks lends itself to the type of ambiguous statistical data that medical trials and the like often lead to. And there may be cases where Randi has said "I don't know how this person does this" that I'm not aware of.
Ask a scientist if psychokinesis is real, and he will say, "I don't know" or "I haven't seen any evidence". Ask a pop skeptic and it's "Absolutely not! It's "woo"."
You're stating that "pop skeptics" generally make claims without evidence. So where's your evidence that this characterization is fair? Shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standard?
Your posts mostly consist of unsubstantiated allegations about the character of groups of people and, for what it's worth, that's not been my experince with scientists and skeptics. But I'm not going to make the same kind of sweeping generalizations that you're making.
When has Randi ever said you can determine the veracity of a claim based on how it "sounds"? I don't know where you're getting this from.
You seem to be angry that Randi isn't conducting double-blind medical trials. But there is more to science than just that. Randi has done a great job in exposing poor science methodology, particularly in the psi research field.
If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign the contract. Monsato has no obligation to only grant one type of license that you deem "not evil".
There have been plenty of tests from outside of Monsato that show the GM food is safe. There aren't more because scientists don't see any plausible reason why GM food should be all that different health-wise.
Not yummy enough for Monsanto staffers to eat, of course. Their staff cafeterias are 100% GMO free. They have an idea of what's in the crap they sell.
Not according to Monsato. You're trusting the word of a caterer because they said something you'd like to believe is true.
Some scientists decided that the situation is unconsciable and tried to do their own, publicly available, peer-reviewed studies on Monsanto's products. Most of them didn't have the strong backing of people up high in their government. So Monsanto destroyed them. A quick internet search will find info about the people destroyed professionally, personally, and even literally.
Can you at least provide some names? I have no idea what your talking about and don't want to Google random terms hoping I discover what you mean.
Is there? It seems like Monsanto really doesn't care one way or the other; as far as they're concerned, the seed police return a positive hit, it's time to mobilize the lawyer brigade and litigate someone out of existence.
Can you give me a reference on a farmer who was sued for inadvertently using Monsato seeds? I know of a couple purposefully used Monsato seeds with a license, but none where the use was accidental.
It's "not really fair" because some Android phones are cheaper? Is this a serious argument?
Also, you do know that the iPhone 3GS is "given away" with a phone plan, right? Should those be removed from comparison as well? Further, how do you know that the "majority" of Android phones come with $0 price tag, which, as we all know, isn't actually free? Samsung is doing rather well, and most of their phones aren't exactly cheap.
Notice that the time-stamp of the response is the same as the time-stamp of when the story came live. Notice the lack of an asterisk, meaning he isn't a subscriber. Notice how quickly it went to +5, and the jabs at Google (much less pronounced than normal, however).
He (and bonch, and a few others) are either shills or fanboys who are waaay too invested.
What was Obama thinking when he started two wars and signed a massive give-away to the pharmacutical industry while cutting taxes for the wealthiest? Sheesh!
So...what you're saying is it's not fair to treat different groups of people differently? Agreed. Gays should definitely be allowed to marry.
But seriously, Google chose to act when a racist picture showed up at the top of their results. They chose not to act when people on the internet made a new definition of a word. There is a difference between these two scenarios.
Mocking a politician is not the same as harassing vulnerable kids. The former is an important part of a functioning democracy, the later is just being a dick.
There is a difference between being mean to a public figure (especially a politician) and harassing just-some-kid. Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum deserves some ridicule for his absurd, and offensive, speech.
And no, we shouldn't ignore the anti-bullying message just because someone who supports it is an ass.
Those who are self-declared atheists choose to believe that life, the universe, and everything came into existence by unintelligent means. That is a belief system, and it is shared by people who identify with atheism.
That isn't a belief system, it's a single belief. Further, to quote the esteemed Wikipedia: "A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these." There are belief systems outside of religion, and there is cetainly more to religion than having a belief system.
Furthermore, some atheists also congregate with other atheists, and it is inevitable that culture sharing will occur and that they will come to also share a set of common moral values...
But the vast majority of atheists don't attend atheists conventions or any sort of atheist church. Atheism is not defined by any paticular culture or moral values -- atheists derive these from thought/philosophy/reasoning wholly aside from the concept of a lack of religious belief.
"Atheism is a religion in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby."
Slashdot Mirror
You would have noticed that I said the basic premise, which is, as you even quoted "like cures like". That is an oversimplification of what vaccination does, but it pretty well sums it up.
Homeopathy claims that "like cures like" is a generally applicable principle in medicine. For vaccinations, one could argue that the priniciple is true in a small number of cases. But it, at most, only weakly supports over-arching principle that "like cures like". And when one considers that there is no evidence to support the "like cures like" hypothesis for treating or preventing cancer, the common cold, or a variety of other maladies, the overall evidence for homeopathic principles is incredibly weak.
But the theories and mechanisms proposed by homeopathy have not been shown to be correct.
"Like cures like" is not a generally proven principle. Immunization works because it causes one's immune system to produce antibodies which are effective against certain infections, not because of some nebulous homeopathic explanation. That immunization is kinda-sorta a "like cures like" thing is not strong evidence is favor of homeopathic ideas.
Actually, there is something else they have in common: Absolute certainty, which is something real skeptics don't have.
Most "real skeptics" claim that there is no evidence for [insert claim here]. As far as I know, that's all Randi has ever said. If you have a relevant quote that shows otherwise, please share with us. It shouldn't be too difficult if what you're claiming is true.
What was the last time you heard Randi and Co admit to not being sure about their findings or that their investigation was inconclusive?
Randi, for the most part, does two things: testing peoples' claims of extraordinary ability, and debunking folks who claim extraordinary ability on a large stage. Neither of these scientific tasks lends itself to the type of ambiguous statistical data that medical trials and the like often lead to. And there may be cases where Randi has said "I don't know how this person does this" that I'm not aware of.
Ask a scientist if psychokinesis is real, and he will say, "I don't know" or "I haven't seen any evidence". Ask a pop skeptic and it's "Absolutely not! It's "woo"."
You're stating that "pop skeptics" generally make claims without evidence. So where's your evidence that this characterization is fair? Shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standard?
Your posts mostly consist of unsubstantiated allegations about the character of groups of people and, for what it's worth, that's not been my experince with scientists and skeptics. But I'm not going to make the same kind of sweeping generalizations that you're making.
When has Randi ever said you can determine the veracity of a claim based on how it "sounds"? I don't know where you're getting this from.
You seem to be angry that Randi isn't conducting double-blind medical trials. But there is more to science than just that. Randi has done a great job in exposing poor science methodology, particularly in the psi research field.
If you don't like the terms of the contract, don't sign the contract. Monsato has no obligation to only grant one type of license that you deem "not evil".
Not yummy enough for Monsanto staffers to eat, of course. Their staff cafeterias are 100% GMO free. They have an idea of what's in the crap they sell.
Not according to Monsato. You're trusting the word of a caterer because they said something you'd like to believe is true.
Some scientists decided that the situation is unconsciable and tried to do their own, publicly available, peer-reviewed studies on Monsanto's products. Most of them didn't have the strong backing of people up high in their government. So Monsanto destroyed them. A quick internet search will find info about the people destroyed professionally, personally, and even literally.
Can you at least provide some names? I have no idea what your talking about and don't want to Google random terms hoping I discover what you mean.
Do you have a reference for that? I've never heard of anything like that happening.
Is there? It seems like Monsanto really doesn't care one way or the other; as far as they're concerned, the seed police return a positive hit, it's time to mobilize the lawyer brigade and litigate someone out of existence.
Can you give me a reference on a farmer who was sued for inadvertently using Monsato seeds? I know of a couple purposefully used Monsato seeds with a license, but none where the use was accidental.
My kid would be dead if we had done the flu vaccines in him.
Probably not.
It's "not really fair" because some Android phones are cheaper? Is this a serious argument?
Also, you do know that the iPhone 3GS is "given away" with a phone plan, right? Should those be removed from comparison as well? Further, how do you know that the "majority" of Android phones come with $0 price tag, which, as we all know, isn't actually free? Samsung is doing rather well, and most of their phones aren't exactly cheap.
Wow thanks. I can totally see how this has something to do with the topic at hand.
Hi off-topic troll!
Ask relevant scientists about global warming. Then ask relevant scientists about wifi causing health issues. You'll notice a difference.
A 1,000 comment story involving global warming will pop up before too long. Let's leave this argument alone until then?
Notice that the time-stamp of the response is the same as the time-stamp of when the story came live. Notice the lack of an asterisk, meaning he isn't a subscriber. Notice how quickly it went to +5, and the jabs at Google (much less pronounced than normal, however).
He (and bonch, and a few others) are either shills or fanboys who are waaay too invested.
What was Obama thinking when he started two wars and signed a massive give-away to the pharmacutical industry while cutting taxes for the wealthiest? Sheesh!
So...what you're saying is it's not fair to treat different groups of people differently? Agreed. Gays should definitely be allowed to marry.
But seriously, Google chose to act when a racist picture showed up at the top of their results. They chose not to act when people on the internet made a new definition of a word. There is a difference between these two scenarios.
Mocking a politician is not the same as harassing vulnerable kids. The former is an important part of a functioning democracy, the later is just being a dick.
Okay. Erm...good for you? Would you like a cookie?
There is a difference between being mean to a public figure (especially a politician) and harassing just-some-kid. Rick "man-on-dog" Santorum deserves some ridicule for his absurd, and offensive, speech.
And no, we shouldn't ignore the anti-bullying message just because someone who supports it is an ass.
A small but loud minority of Feminists claim that a man of 40 who dates a college student is a equivalent to a child rapist.
Feminism is a gigantic tent. Most feminists are quite reasonable. Some are insane.
(But to you point: most everyone agrees that there is an age after which one can consent to sex. Not everyone agrees where that line is).
Thank you for your wisdom, Oh Great Arbiter of Humor. How shall I make amends for laughing that "painfully un-funny" strip?
Those who are self-declared atheists choose to believe that life, the universe, and everything came into existence by unintelligent means. That is a belief system, and it is shared by people who identify with atheism.
That isn't a belief system, it's a single belief. Further, to quote the esteemed Wikipedia: "A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these." There are belief systems outside of religion, and there is cetainly more to religion than having a belief system.
Furthermore, some atheists also congregate with other atheists, and it is inevitable that culture sharing will occur and that they will come to also share a set of common moral values...
But the vast majority of atheists don't attend atheists conventions or any sort of atheist church. Atheism is not defined by any paticular culture or moral values -- atheists derive these from thought/philosophy/reasoning wholly aside from the concept of a lack of religious belief.
"Atheism is a religion in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby."
But there has to be a line somewhere.
What if someone brought a small projector and was displaying 2-girls-one-cup on a wall?
Sounds like you're employing the No true Scotsman fallacy.
[citation needed]
All justices have mentioned foreign laws in their opinions, and none have ever stated that they want European laws to apply to the US.
Oops. This was meant the Anonymous Coward who begins with "CO2 is less then 2% of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."