Homeopathy is "also quite dangerous" is painting with rather a broad stroke it seems to me.
Like everything it depends. If one is saying...I will take this homeopathic remedy vs say a known cancer drug that is efficacious then I would agree. That indeed is unwise and will result in early death.
If one is saying I will give my kid some Arnica ointment for swelling vs say using some anti-inflammatory like ibuprophen to ease the swelling then I couldn't agree less.
As for the Article... "The reviewers sum up their report by saying that homeopathy should not be used to treat any health conditions that are chronic or that have the potential to become serious."
This also has a rather broad stroke approach. There are many who suffer from chronic things for which there are not really any great treatments or for which the treatments themselves have many side effects and long term problems. I see no problem with people seeking out alternate therapies which ultimately may not help, but do not have other life impactful consequences.
I think we can agree that for things with effective treatments it is folly attempt to substitute things which don't work for things that do work. For the bulk of medical conditions, this means standard evidence based therapy and medications. -- Calling someone "hater" can actually be an apt description of someone with no argument, but pure bile in their discourse.
Good thing it wasn't something that people think is also harmless... Tylenol. We had a girl die from that while I was on rotation in the transplant wing. Cry for help... bottle of tylenol. Horrific death waiting for a liver transplant that didn't come.
? So are you saying that homeopathy is simply water and sugar?
I thought homeopathy was: "the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease." Quinine in a detectable dose that is large enough causes malarial like symptoms. That is the very definition of homeopathy.
Ah.... it is called a homeopathic remedy and sold in homeopathic places and in studies is called homeopathic Arnica. Quinine also is homeopathic and comes from the bark of a tree. Not sure whether being an herbal remedy makes Arnica not homeopathic.
The arnica in tablet form is known as a diluted homeopathic.. Web MD even states: "However, some oral supplements contain highly diluted arnica. These are considered homeopathic treatments."
We have used something called Whole Baby Salve for each of our infants. It has been amazing in treating scalded skin from diaper rash to mastitis and other burn like symptoms.
I was amazed that weeping scalded skin could be completely normal by the next day with zero sign of injury.
The biggest proof for me was when my son fell onto an electric burner. His forearm skin melted and became spagetti like as we pulled his branded and charred arm off of the burner. for 2 weeks we kept his arm most and redressed it 2-3 times daily with this whole baby salve. By the end of 2 weeks there was barely any injury noticeable. His arm had only faint deep discoloration, but by about 2 months out we could not see any damage. His arm to this day shows no sign of the concentric curcular brand he got, the melted skin depressions, or scarring and discoloration. It looks every bit like his other arm.
Why does it work? I dunno. But it does and I would trust putting it on any damaged skin.
Of course anyone can have their anecdotes like mine so take it with a grain of salt, but if you know someone who needs a baby gift, this is something nice. It has stead us well for 3 babies.
Arnica is something I have used in treating broken ribs. I have had broken ribs 4 times and each time it takes about 5-6 weeks for the pain to completely subside. It takes about 3 weeks for the bruising from the bleeding to go away. I used Arnica after a heavy board bound up and spun back out of my table saw, knocking me to the ground, and caving in my ribs. My anectote is that, in this instance, I used topical Arnica Cream and Arnica tablets. This one bled the most and yet the bruising went away after about a week. By 2 weeks I could no longer feel the pain, when I moved or breathed. It was quite astonishing. Far cheaper than the 8k the hospital charged for the ER and CT to make sure my organs weren't leaking.
"Sesquiterpene lactones in arnica have anti-inflammatory properties and inhibit binding of transcription factors AP-1 and NF-B to DNA (14). Using a tincture prepared from arnica flowers, this led to suppressed collagenase-1 (MMP1) and interstitial collagenase-13 (MMP13) mRNA levels in human articular chondrocytes in vitro (14). MMP13 and MMP1 enzymes are thought to play a significant role in cartilage and joint destruction and inflammation seen in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Both arnica tinctures and sesquiterpene lactones were found to suppress NF-B activation and IL-12 production in dendritic cells at high concentrations, but can also have immunostimulatory effects when diluted (2). Another study found that sesquiterpene lactones inhibit platelet function by interacting with platelet sulfhydryl groups, probably associated with reduced phospholipase A2 activity (12). In addition to sesquiterpene lactones, the allergenic potential of arnica may be partly due to other allergens such as polyacetylenes (15)."
I have also read a double blind research paper from an Orthopedic group in South Africa which showed great benefit in using Arnica in post surgery of ankle patients.
I think Arnica is a homeopathic remedy which would also make me skeptical of anyone claiming it is "Completely Useless in Treating medical Conditions" Perhaps they are referring to other homeopathics which they think are useless, but it seems there may be a few which are "Useful".
Back when I was in public health school we read about the history of quinine which was thought to work because of the drug inducing a malaria-like set of symptoms. Thus the theory that "like cures like". It was the original drug that got people thinking of homeopathy as a viable and valid way of treating people. 400 years later it seems to still be working. So it is a homeopathic remedy which actually kills malarial parasites as well, by interfering with parasite reproduction somehow.
Maybe coincidental and maybe nothing to do with homeopathy as it is today, but the original post with the statement "completely useless at treating medical conditions." would seem to be invalid by just this one instance which was the first instance of homeopathy.
Could just use a chromecast dongle or and Apple TV for Netflix. I do this all the time when travelling. Don't have to tie up my machine and I can watch something in the background while I work.
Anyhow too much advertising to be worth my time anymore. That is part of why I have cut the cord now, way to much of life wasted on unwanted advertising...and less and less meaningful content. Now Netflix has become similar to what the reason my cousins switched from the networks to cable for. Less ads and more content. And I don't mind paying for that.
Not really here to argue. Just to relate the experience as I know it. You have more information on the particulars. Fine. I know my cousins and many other's were lured to cable for its ad free stations and were willing to pay for them.... Like HBO for instance. That is what drew them to paying for service.... as you say... a pay movie distribution service. Without cable they could still pull in 20+ stations over the air if they wanted and yet they paid for services with fewer to no ads.
So given this experience it is how I understood things to be.
But now that I am older and have had my own various cable services.... I have found them awash in ads... maybe even to a greater degree than Network TV
"Nobody remembers what never was." I remember visiting my cousins in LA who had cable. We watched many hours of programming with no ads at the time in the late 70's. The big appeal for them is not having to watch ads which was a big draw of cable at the time. I think HBO was one of the many channels available and I don't remember ads in the sense that Network TV had ads. It was a revelation to me at the time. I thought this is a cool way to have TV content delivered. Pay up front and not have pesky ads interrupting ones movie. Fantastic.
At my cousins there were many other local stations over CATV that carried content uninterrupted as well. Later when MTV started, I don't remember many ads there either. Just Music Video after Music video. That is in stark contrast to most of the fare on Cable TV these days.
"I have no idea what you mean by "Network", but since cable is one medium for distribution of network programming, it's hard to say that cable is not "network"-- and it was from the very beginning."
Network TV is quite common vernacular and simply means the major networks like ABC, NBC, CBS. Obviously everything can technically be called a Network, but, at one time, most people understood what one was talking about when anyone said Network TV vs. Cable TV... or Network vs. Cable. Even if you google Network TV vs. Cable TV lots of links pop up talking about the differences between these services even today.
Anyone remember the original premise of cable TV. No Advertising. Just shows and announcements about what was coming up? Once hooked though... a scattered ad or 2 barely was noticeable until Cable is the same as Network and nobody remembers the ad-free days.
Funny this comes up now when the dems don't have power. Oh well... likely their sponsors don't really like net neutrality either, but they can toss a bone to the electorate who cares and say... see we did something.
Perhaps he might think of a better way to spend his time if he thinks nobody should publish his name. How are the people to know what government officials are doing/saying/thinking if a newspaper or anyone else can't attach a name to a piece about them?
"And it isn't a scientific hypothesis, so any definition of proof per scientific terminology is moot."
Science and scientific method is never moot when one is studying any issue in my view. The truth is there to discover if a good enough method to crack the enigma is there. A scientific hypothesis is merely a question put under scrutiny. The hypothesis in this case is that more guns equals fewer deaths. I would have to disagree that this is moot as a scientific question. Anything can be put under scientific scrutiny with scientific methodology. That is how most studies including those related to guns and violence are conducted. But I would further say that up until now there hasn't seemed to be an easy way to answer the questions surrounding this complicated issue. There are so many variables to control for. People use statistics to illustrate their points, but these points are largely moot at this stage without better designed ways of looking at this complex issue. Certainly using a data set with 2 points and no controls is not a way to find out much of anything most of the time.
I find it especially interesting that republicans removed funding for the CDC's research into guns and violence. I suppose if we remain in the dark regarding these questions and keep the issue from scientific scrutiny, we can continue to debate blindly ad nauseum.
For now we are stuck with people finding spurious correlations from data sets to disagree with each other on. It seems plain that most people on both sides of the political argument are not really interested in anything but fodder for their political ambitions. Truth is not really what they are seeking.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
"I'm merely pointing out that this is more akin to a debate scenario" Ah, I understand better where you are coming from.
"You can't just say, well it's statistical data so you're probably wrong and then dismiss the claim." That isn't what I was trying to do. I never meant to say that statistical data is likely wrong and therefore can be dismissed. What I was saying that proof usually has something more concrete than merely someone picking out a data set and then applying graphs that would seem to indicate what they believe is right. Trying to make a one factor correlation when things are much more complex multifactorial and interrelated things seems to me to likely to end up with false conclusions. I read recently that Statistics are like a Drunk seeking a lamppost for support rather than illumination. I found this to be a rather fitting synopsis.
My disputing the OP’s proof lies in the fact that it may likely be a misuse of statistics and therefore invalid. To support my supposition perhaps I was not very clear. It is the OP's position it would seem that more guns = fewer murders based upon the data set chosen. The OP further uses a statistical chart to make the point. So then, the central question becomes does this correlation actually exist or is it some brand of false causality.
From the Wiki: When a statistical test shows a correlation between A and B, there are usually six possibilities:
A causes B. B causes A. A and B both partly cause each other. A and B are both caused by a third factor, C. B is caused by C which is correlated to A. The observed correlation was due purely to chance.
Merely because one can find an apparent correlation in a random data set does not mean that the data set is a proof that the one thing leads to another. Since the supposed proof of the OP is based upon a simple 2 factor correlation then the fact that there are other options in interpretation means that the Proof is not really a Proof, but merely an interpretation which may or may not be valid. Certainly there can be no conclusion drawn from spurious correlation other than to point to the fact that further and more specific studies or data would need to be done regarding the question.
As an example of why this actually needs to further illumination I found these other ridiculous spurious correlations to illustrate my point. http://www.tylervigen.com/
Things can be shown on charts which have no bearing on reality.
Semantics? That is simply a way of defining what is being discussed.
"Someone says more guns less deaths. Another asks for proof. First person provides proof. It's then on the second person to disprove them." The question is whether the first person's proof is worthy of questioning important. What exactly is proof in this case? Is the first person's proof actually a proof or something entirely different. If it is not proof, does anyone need to disprove such a thing? Can there truly be a proof in this case? Has anyone designed a well run study on this subject with tight controls or are they just manipulating wide open date with lots of different uses to make their own point politically.?
What happens when a purported truth might be or might not true? What is the proof? Do More Guns = Less deaths? Is the result of less deaths equivalent to more guns? Are fewer deaths related to more guns or related to something else? Are more guns related to other factors which could lead to fewer deaths? Are more guns and less death entirely unrelated?
Given the data that we currently have it seems that such an assertion of proof may be less about proof and more about backing up a point of view. Questioning assertions is a perfectly valid way of defining what we are talking about. Being flippant about the idea of what "Proof" is a distraction.
One can make the same argument that more gun laws equals less violence. However this also uses the same shoddy understanding of data that saying more guns equals less violence uses.
I think this analysis potentially may suffer from the Misuse of Statistical Data to produce a result that supports a belief. The idea that there is a correlation seems to be conflated. It is not certain whether this might be false causality or not. Anyhow... someone with greater statistical savvy might be able to tackle this better than can I.
As far a proof....Proof is a a very intriguing concept. One of my science professors told me once there can be no Proof of anything in science. Only the failure to disprove. That has always stuck with me whenever I hear someone says something is PROVEN.
But are the guns the reason the crime rate is low? Also... does everyone carry their guns around with them all of the time? Was there high crime before that has diminished since they passed the law?
I am not certain that data shows anything in the case you put forth. We have a tiny town where most people own guns that has a low crime rate continues to have a low crime rate after a law requiring people to have a gun in their house is passed. Somehow I fail to find that any real correlation is to be made in this case.
Additionally, this law was passed to counter the law banning firearms in another town Morton, IL. From what I read... the burglary rate went down there after the law, but one would be hard pressed to say the crime rate was affected because of the firearms ban any more than the crime was affected in Kennesaw, GA by their mandate of having firearms.
So in Kennesaw you had a population of around 5k with minimal crime and high gun ownership when the law was passed. Today we have a population of 35k with minimal crime rate. Even though the law is in effect not everyone has a gun since there is not really any enforcement and as the police chief noted, most of the new people in town are unaware of the law.
Without some sort of relevant long term statistics, I would say your example doesn't quite indicate what you would wish it to. Additionally, using an isolated town where there wasn't much crime to begin with is not a recipe for showing that guns reduce crime. We would need a larger experiment such as requiring everyone in say LA or Chicago to be packing all the time. I would expect the results might be different there from what people imagine, but I could be wrong I suppose.
Hmmm.... where on the planet exactly does increasing the numbers of people carrying weapons make for a safer society? Seems like most of the places where there are large numbers of people carrying weapons are more dangerous and tend to be like the wild west where towns made you check your guns so they would have less gun related casualties.
Not saying one way or the other that guns are safe or not, but I think your statement about what is reality might need further clarification.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny I got aTroll Moderation for this. Doesn't take much be considered a Troll Apparently. The standards have slackened!
hehehehehehe.
So there are definitional issue really. What homeopathy has become is not the same as what it was originally about.
Interesting.
Homeopathy is "also quite dangerous" is painting with rather a broad stroke it seems to me.
Like everything it depends. ...I will take this homeopathic remedy vs say a known cancer drug that is efficacious then I would agree.
If one is saying
That indeed is unwise and will result in early death.
If one is saying I will give my kid some Arnica ointment for swelling vs say using some anti-inflammatory like ibuprophen to ease the swelling then I couldn't agree less.
As for the Article...
"The reviewers sum up their report by saying that homeopathy should not be used to treat any health conditions that are chronic or that have the potential to become serious."
This also has a rather broad stroke approach. There are many who suffer from chronic things for which there are not really any great treatments or for which the treatments themselves have many side effects and long term problems. I see no problem with people seeking out alternate therapies which ultimately may not help, but do not have other life impactful consequences.
I think we can agree that for things with effective treatments it is folly attempt to substitute things which don't work for things that do work. For the bulk of medical conditions, this means standard evidence based therapy and medications.
--
Calling someone "hater" can actually be an apt description of someone with no argument, but pure bile in their discourse.
Quinine additionally has been an effective treatment for Malaria when not much else helped at all.
Good thing it wasn't something that people think is also harmless... Tylenol.
We had a girl die from that while I was on rotation in the transplant wing.
Cry for help... bottle of tylenol.
Horrific death waiting for a liver transplant that didn't come.
?
So are you saying that homeopathy is simply water and sugar?
I thought homeopathy was:
"the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease."
Quinine in a detectable dose that is large enough causes malarial like symptoms. That is the very definition of homeopathy.
Ah.... it is called a homeopathic remedy and sold in homeopathic places and in studies is called homeopathic Arnica.
Quinine also is homeopathic and comes from the bark of a tree. Not sure whether being an herbal remedy makes Arnica not homeopathic.
The arnica in tablet form is known as a diluted homeopathic..
Web MD even states: "However, some oral supplements contain highly diluted arnica. These are considered homeopathic treatments."
Perhaps I am confused.
We have used something called Whole Baby Salve for each of our infants.
It has been amazing in treating scalded skin from diaper rash to mastitis and other burn like symptoms.
I was amazed that weeping scalded skin could be completely normal by the next day with zero sign of injury.
The biggest proof for me was when my son fell onto an electric burner.
His forearm skin melted and became spagetti like as we pulled his branded and charred arm off of the burner.
for 2 weeks we kept his arm most and redressed it 2-3 times daily with this whole baby salve.
By the end of 2 weeks there was barely any injury noticeable. His arm had only faint deep discoloration, but by about 2 months out we could not see any damage.
His arm to this day shows no sign of the concentric curcular brand he got, the melted skin depressions, or scarring and discoloration. It looks every bit like his other arm.
Why does it work? I dunno.
But it does and I would trust putting it on any damaged skin.
http://www.thelittleseedling.c...
Of course anyone can have their anecdotes like mine so take it with a grain of salt, but if you know someone who needs a baby gift, this is something nice. It has stead us well for 3 babies.
Arnica is something I have used in treating broken ribs. I have had broken ribs 4 times and each time it takes about 5-6 weeks for the pain to completely subside. It takes about 3 weeks for the bruising from the bleeding to go away.
I used Arnica after a heavy board bound up and spun back out of my table saw, knocking me to the ground, and caving in my ribs. My anectote is that, in this instance, I used topical Arnica Cream and Arnica tablets. This one bled the most and yet the bruising went away after about a week. By 2 weeks I could no longer feel the pain, when I moved or breathed. It was quite astonishing. Far cheaper than the 8k the hospital charged for the ER and CT to make sure my organs weren't leaking.
Sloane Kettering has this nice link.
http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-ca...
"Sesquiterpene lactones in arnica have anti-inflammatory properties and inhibit binding of transcription factors AP-1 and NF-B to DNA (14). Using a tincture prepared from arnica flowers, this led to suppressed collagenase-1 (MMP1) and interstitial collagenase-13 (MMP13) mRNA levels in human articular chondrocytes in vitro (14). MMP13 and MMP1 enzymes are thought to play a significant role in cartilage and joint destruction and inflammation seen in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Both arnica tinctures and sesquiterpene lactones were found to suppress NF-B activation and IL-12 production in dendritic cells at high concentrations, but can also have immunostimulatory effects when diluted (2). Another study found that sesquiterpene lactones inhibit platelet function by interacting with platelet sulfhydryl groups, probably associated with reduced phospholipase A2 activity (12). In addition to sesquiterpene lactones, the allergenic potential of arnica may be partly due to other allergens such as polyacetylenes (15)."
I have also read a double blind research paper from an Orthopedic group in South Africa which showed great benefit in using Arnica in post surgery of ankle patients.
I think Arnica is a homeopathic remedy which would also make me skeptical of anyone claiming it is "Completely Useless in Treating medical Conditions"
Perhaps they are referring to other homeopathics which they think are useless, but it seems there may be a few which are "Useful".
Back when I was in public health school we read about the history of quinine which was thought to work because of the drug inducing a malaria-like set of symptoms. Thus the theory that "like cures like".
It was the original drug that got people thinking of homeopathy as a viable and valid way of treating people. 400 years later it seems to still be working.
So it is a homeopathic remedy which actually kills malarial parasites as well, by interfering with parasite reproduction somehow.
Maybe coincidental and maybe nothing to do with homeopathy as it is today, but the original post with the statement "completely useless at treating medical conditions." would seem to be invalid by just this one instance which was the first instance of homeopathy.
Could just use a chromecast dongle or and Apple TV for Netflix. I do this all the time when travelling. Don't have to tie up my machine and I can watch something in the background while I work.
Anyhow too much advertising to be worth my time anymore.
That is part of why I have cut the cord now, way to much of life wasted on unwanted advertising...and less and less meaningful content.
Now Netflix has become similar to what the reason my cousins switched from the networks to cable for. Less ads and more content. And I don't mind paying for that.
Not really here to argue. Just to relate the experience as I know it. You have more information on the particulars. Fine.
I know my cousins and many other's were lured to cable for its ad free stations and were willing to pay for them.... Like HBO for instance. That is what drew them to paying for service.... as you say... a pay movie distribution service. Without cable they could still pull in 20+ stations over the air if they wanted and yet they paid for services with fewer to no ads.
So given this experience it is how I understood things to be.
But now that I am older and have had my own various cable services.... I have found them awash in ads ... maybe even to a greater degree than Network TV
"Nobody remembers what never was."
I remember visiting my cousins in LA who had cable. We watched many hours of programming with no ads at the time in the late 70's. The big appeal for them is not having to watch ads which was a big draw of cable at the time. I think HBO was one of the many channels available and I don't remember ads in the sense that Network TV had ads. It was a revelation to me at the time. I thought this is a cool way to have TV content delivered. Pay up front and not have pesky ads interrupting ones movie. Fantastic.
At my cousins there were many other local stations over CATV that carried content uninterrupted as well. Later when MTV started, I don't remember many ads there either. Just Music Video after Music video.
That is in stark contrast to most of the fare on Cable TV these days.
"I have no idea what you mean by "Network", but since cable is one medium for distribution of network programming, it's hard to say that cable is not "network"-- and it was from the very beginning."
Network TV is quite common vernacular and simply means the major networks like ABC, NBC, CBS. Obviously everything can technically be called a Network, but, at one time, most people understood what one was talking about when anyone said Network TV vs. Cable TV... or Network vs. Cable. Even if you google Network TV vs. Cable TV lots of links pop up talking about the differences between these services even today.
Anyone remember the original premise of cable TV. No Advertising.
Just shows and announcements about what was coming up?
Once hooked though... a scattered ad or 2 barely was noticeable until Cable is the same as Network and nobody remembers the ad-free days.
Funny this comes up now when the dems don't have power.
Oh well... likely their sponsors don't really like net neutrality either, but they can toss a bone to the electorate who cares and say... see we did something.
mod up .... made me snort
Perhaps he might think of a better way to spend his time if he thinks nobody should publish his name.
How are the people to know what government officials are doing/saying/thinking if a newspaper or anyone else can't attach a name to a piece about them?
"And it isn't a scientific hypothesis, so any definition of proof per scientific terminology is moot."
Science and scientific method is never moot when one is studying any issue in my view. The truth is there to discover if a good enough method to crack the enigma is there.
A scientific hypothesis is merely a question put under scrutiny. The hypothesis in this case is that more guns equals fewer deaths. I would have to disagree that this is moot as a scientific question. Anything can be put under scientific scrutiny with scientific methodology. That is how most studies including those related to guns and violence are conducted.
But I would further say that up until now there hasn't seemed to be an easy way to answer the questions surrounding this complicated issue. There are so many variables to control for. People use statistics to illustrate their points, but these points are largely moot at this stage without better designed ways of looking at this complex issue. Certainly using a data set with 2 points and no controls is not a way to find out much of anything most of the time.
I find it especially interesting that republicans removed funding for the CDC's research into guns and violence. I suppose if we remain in the dark regarding these questions and keep the issue from scientific scrutiny, we can continue to debate blindly ad nauseum.
For now we are stuck with people finding spurious correlations from data sets to disagree with each other on. It seems plain that most people on both sides of the political argument are not really interested in anything but fodder for their political ambitions. Truth is not really what they are seeking.
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
George Orwell
"I'm merely pointing out that this is more akin to a debate scenario"
Ah, I understand better where you are coming from.
"You can't just say, well it's statistical data so you're probably wrong and then dismiss the claim."
That isn't what I was trying to do. I never meant to say that statistical data is likely wrong and therefore can be dismissed. What I was saying that proof usually has something more concrete than merely someone picking out a data set and then applying graphs that would seem to indicate what they believe is right. Trying to make a one factor correlation when things are much more complex multifactorial and interrelated things seems to me to likely to end up with false conclusions. I read recently that Statistics are like a Drunk seeking a lamppost for support rather than illumination. I found this to be a rather fitting synopsis.
My disputing the OP’s proof lies in the fact that it may likely be a misuse of statistics and therefore invalid. To support my supposition perhaps I was not very clear. It is the OP's position it would seem that more guns = fewer murders based upon the data set chosen. The OP further uses a statistical chart to make the point. So then, the central question becomes does this correlation actually exist or is it some brand of false causality.
From the Wiki:
When a statistical test shows a correlation between A and B, there are usually six possibilities:
A causes B.
B causes A.
A and B both partly cause each other.
A and B are both caused by a third factor, C.
B is caused by C which is correlated to A.
The observed correlation was due purely to chance.
Merely because one can find an apparent correlation in a random data set does not mean that the data set is a proof that the one thing leads to another. Since the supposed proof of the OP is based upon a simple 2 factor correlation then the fact that there are other options in interpretation means that the Proof is not really a Proof, but merely an interpretation which may or may not be valid. Certainly there can be no conclusion drawn from spurious correlation other than to point to the fact that further and more specific studies or data would need to be done regarding the question.
As an example of why this actually needs to further illumination I found these other ridiculous spurious correlations to illustrate my point.
http://www.tylervigen.com/
Things can be shown on charts which have no bearing on reality.
Semantics?
That is simply a way of defining what is being discussed.
"Someone says more guns less deaths. Another asks for proof. First person provides proof. It's then on the second person to disprove them."
The question is whether the first person's proof is worthy of questioning important. What exactly is proof in this case?
Is the first person's proof actually a proof or something entirely different.
If it is not proof, does anyone need to disprove such a thing?
Can there truly be a proof in this case? Has anyone designed a well run study on this subject with tight controls or are they just manipulating wide open date with lots of different uses to make their own point politically.?
What happens when a purported truth might be or might not true?
What is the proof?
Do More Guns = Less deaths?
Is the result of less deaths equivalent to more guns?
Are fewer deaths related to more guns or related to something else?
Are more guns related to other factors which could lead to fewer deaths?
Are more guns and less death entirely unrelated?
Given the data that we currently have it seems that such an assertion of proof may be less about proof and more about backing up a point of view.
Questioning assertions is a perfectly valid way of defining what we are talking about.
Being flippant about the idea of what "Proof" is a distraction.
One can make the same argument that more gun laws equals less violence.
However this also uses the same shoddy understanding of data that saying more guns equals less violence uses.
Interesting.
I think this analysis potentially may suffer from the Misuse of Statistical Data to produce a result that supports a belief. ... someone with greater statistical savvy might be able to tackle this better than can I.
The idea that there is a correlation seems to be conflated. It is not certain whether this might be false causality or not.
Anyhow
As far a proof....Proof is a a very intriguing concept.
One of my science professors told me once there can be no Proof of anything in science. Only the failure to disprove.
That has always stuck with me whenever I hear someone says something is PROVEN.
But are the guns the reason the crime rate is low?
Also... does everyone carry their guns around with them all of the time?
Was there high crime before that has diminished since they passed the law?
I am not certain that data shows anything in the case you put forth.
We have a tiny town where most people own guns that has a low crime rate continues to have a low crime rate after a law requiring people to have a gun in their house is passed.
Somehow I fail to find that any real correlation is to be made in this case.
Additionally, this law was passed to counter the law banning firearms in another town Morton, IL.
From what I read... the burglary rate went down there after the law, but one would be hard pressed to say the crime rate was affected because of the firearms ban any more than the crime was affected in Kennesaw, GA by their mandate of having firearms.
So in Kennesaw you had a population of around 5k with minimal crime and high gun ownership when the law was passed. Today we have a population of 35k with minimal crime rate. Even though the law is in effect not everyone has a gun since there is not really any enforcement and as the police chief noted, most of the new people in town are unaware of the law.
Without some sort of relevant long term statistics, I would say your example doesn't quite indicate what you would wish it to. Additionally, using an isolated town where there wasn't much crime to begin with is not a recipe for showing that guns reduce crime.
We would need a larger experiment such as requiring everyone in say LA or Chicago to be packing all the time. I would expect the results might be different there from what people imagine, but I could be wrong I suppose.
Hmmm.... where on the planet exactly does increasing the numbers of people carrying weapons make for a safer society? Seems like most of the places where there are large numbers of people carrying weapons are more dangerous and tend to be like the wild west where towns made you check your guns so they would have less gun related casualties.
Not saying one way or the other that guns are safe or not, but I think your statement about what is reality might need further clarification.