Re: Homeopathy claims go on labels

Toby Kelsey wrote:
Peter H.M.Brooks wrote:

It doesn't, however, make it certain that it is all false. It is, at first sight, distressing that horse*** that appeals to space cadets should be given any shrift at all. However, it would be wrong, scientifically, to declare it false without clear scientific evidence.

If the proposed mechanism isn't plausible and there is no theory-independent or
pre-theory observations of a real effect, that is a sign that the proponents
aren't being scientific or rational, and can legitimately colour your attitude
toward any claims.
>
Irrational and unscientific people can be right. Not always, of course, or even often, but it can't be ruled out as a possibility. Believing that they are always wrong is as bad as believing that authorities are always right (the falsity of arguments from authority).


Reality is not a god that takes its cue from our view of it to behave. If humans had a theory that willow bark might be good for pain because the willow tree looked like a weeping woman, and then discovered that it indeed was good for pain, then they'd feel (with some justification) that their theory had been vindicated. It hadn't, of course, but, though you could have said that their hypothesis was horse*** (with considerable justification) you couldn't go on, scientifically, to say that willow bark didn't cure pain simply because a bull*** theory said that it did.

Homeothapy is different in that you are not testing natural materials but
tinctures which have been constructed according to a non-credible mechanism.
We know water isn't a cure-all so there is a strong a-priori likelihood they
don't work. You might still investigate the claims but without a plausible
mechanism it has a low scientific priority.
>
Priority is another matter. I'm also against homoeopathy and I think it a waste of time and money to investigate it, but that's just my prejudice and it is important that I see it as such.

If people are being exposed to lethal danger, as they are when encouraged to take homoeopathic 'remedies' for malaria, then we have an urgent moral imperative to prevent this if possible. Investigating the matter scientifically, so as to show that it is bogus crap might reduce the risk of people being so exposed. So this is a matter that might increase the priority of a proper investigation.

I also think that people who peddle quack remedies for lethal diseases ought to be prosecuted for a murderous conspiracy as well, but that's a legal matter, not a scientific one.


.