Why homeopathy works

RE: Why homeopathy works

Bob Russell — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 12:28:15 GMT

Very interesting statement within the letter written by Neil Howie BVetMed, FRAgS, FBIAC, MRCVS on Veterinary Times (Feb 8th 2016).

To paraphrase, VMD informed Dr Howie that he could not be involved in the use of (homeopathic) products as they were unlicenced medicines.

The explanation came back as soon as the remedies were portrayed as having a therapeutic benefit, the vet made them medicines.

I would like to see this on paper from the VMD but it seems to know veterinary homeopathy on the head!

RE: Why homeopathy works

Nhombokisheni — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 11:27:42 GMT

Evidence homeopathy does not work.......second last paragraph

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/31/bangladesh-tree-man-abul-banjadar-surgery

How far is the campaign Arlo

RE: Why homeopathy works

Niall Taylor — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:45:57 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]But we are - albeit one with an internal skeleton, a filtration system, a thick surface barrier to keep invaders out, a highly focused defensive system, excellent internal communication pipeworks, and pretty good A/V equipment!

True, it smells a bit if not washed frequently but generally lasts quite a few years![/quote]

If only I could find out how to switch on the automatic upgrade option it would be near-perfect!

Niall

RE: Why homeopathy works

Mark Hedberg — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:06:20 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Good. How do we know we're not just brains in vats?

[/quote]

But we are - albeit one with an internal skeleton, a filtration system, a thick surface barrier to keep invaders out, a highly focused defensive system, excellent internal communication pipeworks, and pretty good A/V equipment!

True, it smells a bit if not washed frequently but generally lasts quite a few years!

RE: Why homeopathy works

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:03:59 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

David has a slightly slanted take on this - clearly no one is a BVA member and reads the Vet Record

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/177/7/181.abstract

[/quote]

Oh my! I'll have to give it a read then. The title is definitely brave, let's see if it can be honoured by the rest of the article

RE: Why homeopathy works

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:48:04 GMT

When we're discussing moral questions, I tend to be a black/white sort of person - and to my way of thinking, denying an animal conventional treatment and instead substituting magic is morally wrong - end of.

Wynne

RE: Why homeopathy works

Julian Earl — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:35:51 GMT

David, didn't read or didn't understand? neither I was responding to Arlo's confusion at my earlier post and trying to clarify my position. My reply proved to be pertinent to your post, but was not a reaction to it . Iwould argue that I am not demonising anyone, unless you consider my use of the word deception implies that? No my real question is why people who have successfully passed through a five-years course of f science0based information apparently reject that scientific basis and reasoning to accept homoeopathy? I fail to grasp why that happens. I am unsure whether EBM is purely a belief-system Okay we rely on statistics and analysis of results but to me faith implies acceptance of something vague/ and something with no physical proof of existence - like witchcraft for example! Homoeopathy and science is based on logic and reasoning is it not? defies both of those. No-one has offered an explanation as to why it shouldwork, a billionth dose of something noxious cures the full dose effects? Really? No it is not like vaccination because we can scientifically show a physical response to vaccination, called antibodies I believe? dDoes that answer you David?

RE: Why homeopathy works

Michael Woodhouse — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:54:21 GMT

David has a slightly slanted take on this - clearly no one is a BVA member and reads the Vet Record

http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/177/7/181.abstract

RE: Why homeopathy works

Francisco Gomez — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:32:20 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Why exactly you're demonising the very concept you introduced yourself...?[/quote]

No no, I'm simply pointing out that objectivity is held up as this golden target for 'science'. I'm asking you why it's so desirable? Does objectivity help you do medicine? If so, by how much in each consultation today?

[/quote]

The nature of your question implies a subjective response! I'd say that objectivitly helps me greatly every day. I believe that by dettaching myself from the patient, my client gains an insight. I.e. I believe my dog had lost weight when really, had put some on. Or I think my cat is fine, when there is an obvious cardiovascular compromise. I don't think these examples are only helped by experience or knowledge, but by the objectivitly that I bring to the meeting with the client. I often see my colleagues asking advise about their own pets, when they wouldn't ask if the pet weren't theirs, this itself is not a lack of confidence, but a search for a more objective mind.

Niall Taylor and Arlo Guthrie I believe David Mills is referring to the fact (please correct me if you must!) that current accepted studies rely on probability (statistical probability), which it might be grounds to strip those from the word rational. I.e. Increasing the odds of getting an ace from a pack of cards shouldn't necessarily grant you that a treatment would work, and the common accepted EBM studies do rely on odds. I, however, believe that the difference with homeopathic remedies is that, at least, there a 'rationale' of why we use them, beyond personal preference or simply the word of others.

RE: Why homeopathy works

Nhombokisheni — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:10:58 GMT

David, "In which case, the homeopath's response is easy and logically sound. Of course your trials don't show it) works, because you're looking at/measuring the wrong things. On our conpetion of knowledge, it does work. (And who says your EBM is so great?)"

What is your conception of knowledge AND most importantly attach conclusive evidence deriving from that conception which convinces you that it works.......

Secondly you talk of the added effect of long term doctor/patient relationship.....I see its place in human medicine.........how do you achieve that in animals?????

I think it would help me, and possibly others, if you could thrash out the issues I raised about the principles of homeopathy....like cures like and potentisation........

Finally ask yourself why so many are up in arms against the claims made by homeopathy......is it just a huge misunderstanding or a genuine lack of evidence.....credible evidence.....in both instances only they that believe can preach the gospel......so preach and we maybe saved!!!!

RE: Why homeopathy works

Niall Taylor — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:06:51 GMT

Just to be clear, the philosophy of science is nothing to do with confidence intervals or evidence-based medicine. Confidence intervals are just one of the tools employed by scientists and there is nothing magical about 5%, physicists for example demand much higher levels of confidence for their experiments. And medicine (and by extension EBM) is a technology, an application of science. Medicine is no more science than building a bridge is - both use science, but that does not make them science.

One of the best definition of science is simply that if something is going to claim scientific credentials then those credentials must be able to be tested by science. 'Put up or shut up' in other words. Science isn't even about finding answers, it is far more concerned with asking questions.

Homeopaths though want it both ways. On the one hand they are constantly telling us that homeopathy does work by scientific principles yet when the paucity of their evidence is pointed out to them instead of doing the scientific thing and upping their ante and doing better tests they instead accuse critics of prejudice and bigotry while at the same time doing a volte face and claiming homeopathy can't be tested by science afterall. They really want to have their cake and eat it, but that isn't how science works.

Philosophers with a post-modern bent will argue science is just 'another way of knowing' and that all healing (and other) modalities are equal but different. While this makes for interesting debate it is meaningless in practical terms in the real world. We know how much of the universe works, we know that if a culture believes it is possible for humans to fly unaided while it might be polite of us not to directly contradict or otherwise disrespect members of that particular culture, we certainly wouldn't take politeness so far as to step out of a high window on their say-so.

The problem with homeopathy is homeopaths want all the kudos and credibility science brings but they will not accept the scientific process and the discipline that comes with it. It is homeopaths who are attempting to prove homeopathy by science, not scientists. If they were content to present themselves as practitioners of a mystical, unexplainable and untestable philosophy we would be having a very different and much less heated debate right now.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"][quote user="David Mills"]If you're interested in this, the OUP Very Short Intro into philosophy of science is great. As is the Stanford University online document on Scientific Objectivity.[/quote]

Yes I am. Very. Off to read both.[/quote]

Can I suggest you also have a look at "Why Truth Matters" by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom. A useful antidote to all things post-modernist and culturally relative.

Well, that's your Christmas reading sorted !

Niall

RE: Why homeopathy works

David Mills — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:46:59 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Why exactly you're demonising the very concept you introduced yourself...?[/quote]

RE: Why homeopathy works

David Mills — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:44:33 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Well, if you're talking about subjectivity to that degree, of course everything that ever existed is entirely subjective. Am I actually sitting here at my desk, typing away on my computer, or is that just my subjective interpretation of my situation; my wife will tell you I'm actually a banana, swinging in a hammock, eyeing up an apple on some distant planet.[/quote]

Good. How do we know we're not just brains in vats? We don't. Epistemology's greatest (and possibly oldest) problem.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]But EBM has been proven,[/quote]

It has only been 'proven' within the confines of its terms of enquiry. As a 'way' of doing medicine, it hasn't. Yes, there are examples of successful RCTs, but these have their own problems (search for Worral's work on this). We are still brought round the circle - yes we can point to evidence, but a priori, why is this reliable, or something to be used as justification?

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] If I argued that homeopathy doesn't work because we don't understand how it works, then you'd be right. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that homeopathy doesn't work, because trials have shown it doesn't work.[/quote]

In which case, the homeopath's response is easy and logically sound. Of course your trials don't show it works, because you're looking at/measuring the wrong things. On our conpetion of knowledge, it does work. (And who says your EBM is so great?)

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]And actually, although homeopathists would have us believe otherwise, actually we do understand the mechanism. Dilute till its not there. Full stop.[/quote]

No, we understand it from within the confines of science. Same point, really.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Unsurprisingly, and as has been observed with homeopathy, if you give both groups a placebo, they'll perform the same.[/quote]

Not quite true. It depends on the 'placebo'. Many groups get better if their doctor is more involved with their care, they like them, respect them etc etc. This placebo term is thrown around but it has many levels.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Yes I am. Very. Off to read both.[/quote]

Jolly good.

Another one is a philosophical paper by Goldenberg - EBM: iconoclast or creed? Think it's available open access, or can forward a copy on to those interested.

RE: Why homeopathy works

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:05:46 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]Science is a theory of knowledge marked out by its reliance on experimentation. It cannot exclude human subjectivity because it is based on an opinion that this is what science is, does, and is therefore self-justifying. We set the terms of enquiry, what counts as science and what doesn't, what is t be measure, and what it means. Science isn't the pursuit by the disinterested of 'natural' facts about the world waiting to be discovered. It is a way of formulating knowledge about the world. Just as the Anicent Greeks, Egyptians, Romans tried to make sense of the world. It may well be gobbledegook.[/quote]

[quote user="David Mills"]You're misunderstanding my argument, guv. 'Objectivity' isn't binary, it's relative. How do you define objectivity? You cannot remove the human from any scientific endeavour. There will be a subjective element. In things such as medical science, this is going to be high. [/quote]

Well, if you're talking about subjectivity to that degree, of course everything that ever existed is entirely subjective. Am I actually sitting here at my desk, typing away on my computer, or is that just my subjective interpretation of my situation; my wife will tell you I'm actually a banana, swinging in a hammock, eyeing up an apple on some distant planet.

[quote user="David Mills"]No I'm saying the EBVM approach has never been proven to work better than a non-EBVM approach.[/quote]

But EBM has been proven, and continues to be proven to work better than non-EBM a million times every day. Antibiotics, vaccination, pain relief, surgical techniques ... all things brought to us as a direct consequence of scientific endeavour; trials; evidence. Unarguably more effective than the medical practices in use before EBM came along.

[quote user="David Mills"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]And what is wrong with: "we don't need to know how something works, just that it does". Tell you what, if they came up with a cure for my daughter, I wouldn't give a damn if they had no idea how it works. I only care that it does. [/quote]

Well, good for you, but in accepting this you cannot then attack homeopathy on the grounds that it doesn't work. If mechanism doesn't matter then homeopathy cannot be defeated by EBVM.[/quote]

That's a non-sequitur. If I argued that homeopathy doesn't work because we don't understand how it works, then you'd be right. But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that homeopathy doesn't work, because trials have shown it doesn't work.

And actually, although homeopathists would have us believe otherwise, actually we do understand the mechanism. Dilute till its not there. Full stop.

[quote user="David Mills"] Homeopathy claims scientific method cannot assess its efficacy because homeopathy does not fit into 'scientific' models of disease and therapy.[/quote]

A common and fallacious argument put forward by proponents of homeopathy. Of course subjectivity affects everything about the world as we see it, to some degree or other. But in a practical, real world sense, the question is very simple.

In medicine, the objective is to offer a cure, or improvement in unwanted symptoms. By that criteria (what other criteria could there be?), homeopathy is as easy to assess as any other form of treatment. Give one set of patients a placebo, and another the medication you want to test (or, in the case of homeopathy, another placebo), and see which performs better.

Unsurprisingly, and as has been observed with homeopathy, if you give both groups a placebo, they'll perform the same.

[quote user="David Mills"]If you're interested in this, the OUP Very Short Intro into philosophy of science is great. As is the Stanford University online document on Scientific Objectivity.[/quote]

Yes I am. Very. Off to read both.

RE: Why homeopathy works

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:52:53 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

the implication that only scientific medicine is rational medicine. It plays on cultural values of science for its own triumphing.[/quote]

Call me obtuse, but that is what I defend. I don't think you can have it any other way.

[quote][quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Let's just say that good science requires objectivity[/quote]

Does it? Why? What is objectivity and why is it so great and so sought after? [/quote]

Why exactly you're demonising the very concept you introduced yourself...?

[quote][quote user="Francisco Gomez"]The 5% significance might as well be arbitrary, but you could always argue to your client that certain product has the effect we expect (and within the rules we have written, and telling the owner so!) with a degree of confidence.[/quote]

A common misconception about EBVM.

[/quote]

I'd agree that my post appears confusing here. What I'm trying to say here is that democracy might not be perfect, but each time we tried something different it did't work. Are we really playing poker here? ;-)

RE: Why homeopathy works

Nhombokisheni — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:40:59 GMT

David, very interesting philosophical views....you may not support homeopathy....but you have just advanced the fundamental reason why centuries of trying to get it scrutinised have yielded zilch..."study the stars by looking at the ground"

The question is very simple....does homeopathy work in veterinary medical practice...yes/no? Forget all this philosophical arguments.....just answer the question and back it with evidence that can stand up to scrutiny. Every day you hold an electrical cable that is "live" without fear...WHY...because those who made it have shown its safe to do so as long as all the rules to its use are observed....no one is forcing homeopathy people to prove using the same methodologies developed for rational medicine......give us proof using your methods...not this business of saying "it works, I saw it with my own eyes"

Surely they must have a way of measuring efficacy/effectiveness......how can you claim that A treats disease B yet you have no suitable rigorous method of proving it? Let's not bury the simple quest of the petition in epistemological debate. I wouldn't dream of "sketching" the two.....but it's clear how our side decides something works (and anyone can follow the method to test the claims) .....WHY can't homeopathy do the same......show clearly how their claims are generated??? That is all I ask....

Lastly it has never been denied that human factors affect the outcome of research.....this is why methodology is part of the publication...to allow peers to review the outcomes.....to allow you to judge if the result is of any value to your enterprise.

"Science is a theory of knowledge marked out by its reliance on experimentation. It cannot exclude human subjectivity because it is based on an opinion that this is what science is, does, and is therefore self-justifying. We set the terms of enquiry, what counts as science and what doesn't, what is t be measure, and what it means. Science isn't the pursuit by the disinterested of 'natural' facts about the world waiting to be discovered. It is a way of formulating knowledge about the world. Just as the Anicent Greeks, Egyptians, Romans tried to make sense of the world.".......and what is homeopathy if I may ask.......

RE: Why homeopathy works

Julian Earl — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:28:33 GMT

Sorry Arlo, It was me being a bit obscure perhaps. I was trying to answer why people use it/believe it works, and the Einstein portion reflects the limitless stupidity that people can have. I think it ironic that we a rebeing accused of a witch-hunt by attacking homoeopathy when No-one is suggesting putting homoeopaths on trial though, Buthomoeopathy has no more rational basis than the belief in witchcraft once had. It begs the question of, regardless of the lack of evidence for homoeopathy, why some resist the positive evidence for real medicine that science has indeed given us.e.g. as I indicated we know why and how penicillin works or doesn't work, and how/why NSAIDs work etcbut that is apparently not good enough for some. Why not? Does that clarify my point Arlo? HTH. happy Christmas by the way to all my readers!

RE: Why homeopathy works

David Mills — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:47:38 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Is it the name or the content that makes you feel uncomfortable?[/quote]

It's the implication that only scientific medicine is rational medicine. It plays on cultural values of science for its own triumphing.

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Let's just say that good science requires objectivity[/quote]

Does it? Why? What is objectivity and why is it so great and so sought after?

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]The 5% significance might as well be arbitrary, but you could always argue to your client that certain product has the effect we expect (and within the rules we have written, and telling the owner so!) with a degree of confidence.[/quote]

The crux is it doesn't. It frequentist stats - used by the medical sciences - the p value only tells us the chances of obtaining the same results if the null hypothesis was true. Nothing more. It doesn't tell us which of the alternative hypotheses to believe. A common misconception about EBVM.

We all believe in science, to certain degrees. We use 'evidence' to justify this belief. Is this justification entailed by the evidence or is it simply a subjective judgement made internally? If the latter, what hope of 'objectivity'?

RE: Why homeopathy works

David Mills — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:42:15 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Science is about the search for understanding, achieved by methodological study. By definition, that surely excludes human subjectivity (or at least strives to exclude it).[/quote]

Science is a theory of knowledge marked out by its reliance on experimentation. It cannot exclude human subjectivity because it is based on an opinion that this is what science is, does, and is therefore self-justifying. We set the terms of enquiry, what counts as science and what doesn't, what is t be measure, and what it means. Science isn't the pursuit by the disinterested of 'natural' facts about the world waiting to be discovered. It is a way of formulating knowledge about the world. Just as the Anicent Greeks, Egyptians, Romans tried to make sense of the world. It may well be gobbledegook.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I don't understand the vice-versa. Surely good science does entail objectivity.[/quote]

You're misunderstanding my argument, guv. 'Objectivity' isn't binary, it's relative. How do you define objectivity? You cannot remove the human from any scientific endeavour. There will be a subjective element. In things such as medical science, this is going to be high.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Again, am I being thick here? You're arguing that it's never been proven that tested medicines are better than untested ones? Is that something we need to prove? Why?[/quote]

No I'm saying the EBVM approach has never been proven to work better than a non-EBVM approach. EBM came about as a democratising, 'paradigm shift' in medicine, sweeping aside eminence-based, hierarchical medicine and putting in its place clinical epidemiology, which took the power away from the professors and experts and placed it firmly in external, "objective" evidence. It is one of the great ironies of EBM that it has never subjected itself to an RCT of whether in fact an EBVM approach works better. When you drill down, it is a subjective opinion, littered with anecdote of EBM trolleys on wards - exactly the thing EBM was trying to get rid of! Yes, it sounds attractive, empowering, rational - but it should be easy to prove so, no? So why hasn't EBM done it?

Well, good for you, but in accepting this you cannot then attack homeopathy on the grounds that it doesn't work. If mechanism doesn't matter then homeopathy cannot be defeated by EBVM.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Is this not over-complicating matters? What people want to know is 'does this work'. Latest meta-analysis of 225 trials concluded no. Not to mention Shang et al before.[/quote]

No, you're misunderstanding again. Homeopathy claims scientific method cannot assess its efficacy because homeopathy does not fit into 'scientific' models of disease and therapy. It's like trying to understand the solar system by looking at the ground. Science is one way of understanding the world. You cannot assess homeopathy because it oes not fit into science's terms of enquiries. Of course meta-analysis of homeopathic remedies will show no significance because its comparing apples to pears. They may share some features but the two cannot be sketched onto one another. You cannot defeat homeopathy by pointing to science. Its illogical. It's a logical fallacy.[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

But wouldn't the owners of your patients demand better odds than that?

I know I would.

[/quote]

But again, you're being blinkered. You're looking through the eyes of science. The argument is more fundamental than that.

Is there something in EBVM that, epistemologically, makes it more likely to be correct other than the circular scientific argument?

If you're interested in this, the OUP Very Short Intro into philosophy of science is great. As is the Stanford University online document on Scientific Objectivity.

RE: Why homeopathy works

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 17:26:38 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]The questions are how objective is science, and whether objectivity in science is a good thing.[/quote]

Science is about the search for understanding, achieved by methodological study. By definition, that surely excludes human subjectivity (or at least strives to exclude it).

[quote user="David Mills"]Science is not objective per se; in fact, it is very subjective.[/quote] Well, your use of the word 'very' is subjective, anyway!

Surely it depends. (Just trying to explain my thinking here, not teach you anything!) Science strives to be objective. Some tests are relatively easy to remove subjectivity from (does a piece of filament emit electromagnetic radiation when a current is applied?), whilst others (does this anti-inflammatory reduce pain) are much more prone to subjectivity.

[quote user="David Mills"]Well, objectivity does not entail good science, or vice-versa.[/quote]

I don't understand the vice-versa. Surely good science does entail objectivity.

[quote user="David Mills"]Certainly, where EBVM is concerned, it has never been shown to 'work' better than a non-EBVM approach[/quote]

Again, am I being thick here? You're arguing that it's never been proven that tested medicines are better than untested ones? Is that something we need to prove? Why?

[quote user="David Mills"]proponents from the days of Sackett have rejoiced in saying "we don't need to know how something works, just that it does" (RCTs are not interested in showing how something works, just that it does). [/quote]

And what is wrong with: "we don't need to know how something works, just that it does". Tell you what, if they came up with a cure for my daughter, I wouldn't give a damn if they had no idea how it works. I only care that it does.

[quote user="David Mills"]The homeopathy response is perfectly logical - we cannot show it works because science's terms of enquiry are completely wrong for our 'medicine' - from Kuhn onwards, bodies of scientific theories are 'incommensurable' - that is you cannot judge one way of doing things on the terms of a completely different movement.[/quote]

Is this not over-complicating matters? What people want to know is 'does this work'. Latest meta-analysis of 225 trials concluded no. Not to mention Shang et al before.

[quote user="David Mills"]Good scientists recognise this, and work from a pragmatic, fallibilist perspective - one should always have doubt. [/quote]

This is an interesting point. Homeopathy proponents argue 'it works'. Full stop. Scientists only ever argue (because they think like that): "We can't find any evidence it works" or "further work is needed".

It's similar to Dawkins saying he's 99% sure that there is no God. As a scientist, he's not prepared to commit to the last 1%.

Even I (and I am staunchly anti-homeopathy) am prepared to accept the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that a dilution of placenta (Welsh) is a treatment for anything.

But wouldn't the owners of your patients demand better odds than that?

I know I would.

And is that not a reason in itself to sign our petition, which, after all, does not call for a ban but for owners to make better informed decisions (and allows for the fact that if a dilution of placenta (Welsh) is ever found to be effective, the information can be updated.

RE: Why homeopathy works

Francisco Gomez — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:23:58 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

Science is not objective per se; in fact, it is very subjective. It decides the terms of enquiry, and sets levels for significance - these are articulated, at their inception, by opinion (subjective) - statistical significance is completely arbitrarily set at 5%. Whilst there are methods to reduce bias, these are imperfect and their effects are not widely proven to work.

[/quote]

Fair enough. The difference here is that the campaign that Arlo defends is to continue to inform our client of what they're getting.

Is it not objective because it is us who write the rules? I'm sorry, but what would be the point to even pay for a consultant (homeopathic or not) if there aren't rules there to follow?

The 5% significance might as well be arbitrary, but you could always argue to your client that certain product has the effect we expect (and within the rules we have written, and telling the owner so!) with a degree of confidence. What it seems wrong, in my opinion, is to suggest that certain product works because I believe it does and we stop there.

[quote user="David Mills"]

objectivity does not entail good science [/quote]

Are you seriously expect this sentence to be given a free pass?

Let's just say that good science requires objectivity

[quote] There is a strong movement in medical science to embrace the patient narrative and involvement in disease (from feminist and phenomenological philosophy) with some indication that this improves outcomes more than the drugs (or other interventions).[/quote]

Maybe in human medicine, animals won't be biased that way.

[quote]

Setting oneself up as the 'only right way' - "rational medicine" - is to embrace an element of scientism that makes me uncomfortable.

[/quote]

Is it the name or the content that makes you feel uncomfortable?

RE: Why homeopathy works

David Mills — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:16:06 GMT

[quote user="Julian Earl"]I am against fraud, I am against deception and irrationality. [/quote]

It's easy to demonise someone who believes differently, isn't it? Makes us feel quite righteously good about ourselves. Do you really believe homeopaths don't believe?

[quote user="Julian Earl"] I am against so many years of scientific advance being ignored when it haschieved so much.[/quote]

Who says it is being ignored? Do you have anything beyond anecdote to say this is so?

[quote user="Julian Earl"]

I am against it if it is causing increased suffering through the avoidance of proven effective treatments.

[/quote]

Was it that you didn't read or didn't understand my post?

RE: Why homeopathy works

Julian Earl — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:45:28 GMT

So against it? I am against fraud, I am against deception and irrationality. I am against so many years of scientific advance being ignored when it haschieved so much. I am against it if it is causing increased suffering through the avoidance of proven effective treatments. If penicillin works we know why, and we know the risks with penicillin.

RE: Why homeopathy works

David Mills — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:28:34 GMT

I think what Mr Stevens may have been getting at is that science is often held up as a shining light of objective rationality, when in practice it is not. This goes right down to philosophy of science, and what science 'is'. The questions are how objective is science, and whether objectivity in science is a good thing.

Is objectivity good for veterinary science? Well, objectivity does not entail good science, or vice-versa. Indeed, much of veterinary medicine is subjective, from diagnosis through to judging the effects of therapy. This is not necessarily a bad thing. There is a strong movement in medical science to embrace the patient narrative and involvement in disease (from feminist and phenomenological philosophy) with some indication that this improves outcomes more than the drugs (or other interventions).

Certainly, where EBVM is concerned, it has never been shown to 'work' better than a non-EBVM approach (what a non-EBVM approach is is contentious given EBVM's inclusion of virtually everything) - no RCTs have been conducted on EBVM vs non-EBVM. Indeed, EBVM has a whiff of homeopathy about it - proponents from the days of Sackett have rejoiced in saying "we don't need to know how something works, just that it does" (RCTs are not interested in showing how something works, just that it does).

The homeopathy response is perfectly logical - we cannot show it works because science's terms of enquiry are completely wrong for our 'medicine' - from Kuhn onwards, bodies of scientific theories are 'incommensurable' - that is you cannot judge one way of doing things on the terms of a completely different movement. Equally, without external evidence that EBVM 'works', it can suffer the justified same attacks as homeopathy- it works because either someone tells us it does or we believe it does. EBVM and science in general is not proven.

Good scientists recognise this, and work from a pragmatic, fallibilist perspective - one should always have doubt.

The ethics of homeopathy are similarly subjective. It is a personal (and owner) decision where to draw the line.

Banning something or saying something is wrong, totally, requires a large body of proof. I myself don't believe in homeopathy, but that does not mean I support this campaign. Setting oneself up as the 'only right way' - "rational medicine" - is to embrace an element of scientism that makes me uncomfortable.

RE: Why homeopathy works

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:21:03 GMT

100% agreement with Nhombokisheni

Wynne