My basic, simple, stance on homeopathy is that it has been tested, extensively, double-blind, and it has ALWAYS failed. I offered the JREF million-dollar prize via the Royal Academy and the BBC, waiving the usual requirement for a preliminary test; the million would have been awarded immediately if the results had been positive. The protocol exactly followed Benveniste's original design, except that the double-blind factor was brought in. The homeopathic community accepted every facet of the experimental design, and agreed that a positive result should ensue. It didn't: the results were all within chance expectation. I stand prepared to repeat that process upon request.
I don't give a damn about the hypothetical musings offered to explain how homeopathy might work; since it doesn't, that's all moot. Those thoughts might be better applied to looking into evidence for Santa Claus: gifts under the Xmas tree, stories in books, movies, and TV, and masses of anecdotal accounts don't stand up to simple examination of the facts. Fat guys in red suits can't get down chimneys carrying a huge sack of toys.
For over a year now, I've been trying to get the homepathic community to enter into another set of tests, and they've offered all sorts of alibis and obfuscations. If it didn't involve the well-being of innocent victims out there who tend to turn to quackery because it's attractive, I would not be so disturbed.
The British royal family has depended upon homeopathy - even have a Royal Homeopath! - and yet they turn to real medicine when illness presents itself to them. And have you noticed the present condition of the House of Windsor...?
I rest my case.
I forgot to mention: Should the Manchester group move ahead with this hare-brained idea, conjurors from all over the world will descend on them to use the multitude of possible methods for defeating their security. Merely searching a participant is not enough. There is no easily-available means for assuring that signals cannot be exchanged -- just as in the classic picture of telepathy, "thoughts" can be "shared." This is an old and tested conjurors' scenario...
I see no real advantage whatsoever in the proposed Manchester telepathy protocol -- except for the woo-woo fringe, who would enjoy two angles: first, as already demonstrated, it would attract much media attention: "Real science, with complicated computer involvement, is now being used!", and second, it provides the fuzzy "interpretation" variable that is so adored by scientists seeking continued funding: "Results were only suggestive, but obviously more funding is called for."
Testing for telepathy ability is a straightforward, logical, simple, matter. It doesn't require the bells-and-whistles that the Manchester protocol would provide. It's always the same story: make a simple process into a complex task, and to the layman it looks more like science...
Slashdot Mirror
My basic, simple, stance on homeopathy is that it has been tested, extensively, double-blind, and it has ALWAYS failed. I offered the JREF million-dollar prize via the Royal Academy and the BBC, waiving the usual requirement for a preliminary test; the million would have been awarded immediately if the results had been positive. The protocol exactly followed Benveniste's original design, except that the double-blind factor was brought in. The homeopathic community accepted every facet of the experimental design, and agreed that a positive result should ensue. It didn't: the results were all within chance expectation. I stand prepared to repeat that process upon request. I don't give a damn about the hypothetical musings offered to explain how homeopathy might work; since it doesn't, that's all moot. Those thoughts might be better applied to looking into evidence for Santa Claus: gifts under the Xmas tree, stories in books, movies, and TV, and masses of anecdotal accounts don't stand up to simple examination of the facts. Fat guys in red suits can't get down chimneys carrying a huge sack of toys. For over a year now, I've been trying to get the homepathic community to enter into another set of tests, and they've offered all sorts of alibis and obfuscations. If it didn't involve the well-being of innocent victims out there who tend to turn to quackery because it's attractive, I would not be so disturbed. The British royal family has depended upon homeopathy - even have a Royal Homeopath! - and yet they turn to real medicine when illness presents itself to them. And have you noticed the present condition of the House of Windsor...? I rest my case.
I forgot to mention: Should the Manchester group move ahead with this hare-brained idea, conjurors from all over the world will descend on them to use the multitude of possible methods for defeating their security. Merely searching a participant is not enough. There is no easily-available means for assuring that signals cannot be exchanged -- just as in the classic picture of telepathy, "thoughts" can be "shared." This is an old and tested conjurors' scenario...
I see no real advantage whatsoever in the proposed Manchester telepathy protocol -- except for the woo-woo fringe, who would enjoy two angles: first, as already demonstrated, it would attract much media attention: "Real science, with complicated computer involvement, is now being used!", and second, it provides the fuzzy "interpretation" variable that is so adored by scientists seeking continued funding: "Results were only suggestive, but obviously more funding is called for." Testing for telepathy ability is a straightforward, logical, simple, matter. It doesn't require the bells-and-whistles that the Manchester protocol would provide. It's always the same story: make a simple process into a complex task, and to the layman it looks more like science...