Hugh Reilly wrote:

...

From: James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> Reply-To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org To: tlug-lxSQFCZeNF4 at public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [TLUG]: Waaaay offtopic Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:13:01 -0500

...

One person I'd never believe is a naturopathic "doctor". Naturopathy is based on a bogus belief that a tiny amount of something that causes the same symptoms as a disease will cure or prevent it. The problem is, that the doses generally prescribed are physically impossible. For example a common dilution of the "medicine" is 10X or divided with water or alcohol 10:1, 10 times. The problem with this amount of dilution, is that the number of molecules gets in the way. In order to consume one molecule of the substance, you'd have to drink several thousand gallons of water. They also have another dilution of 100C, which is 100:1 100 times, which is even more impossible.

You're mistaking naturopathy for homeopathy.

Quite so. My mistake. Plus, your world-view is

getting in the way. The truth is, there are "mysteries" which science as-we-know-it cannot explain. The fact that science ("official" science, anyway) cannot explain homeopathy has no influence whatsoever on the thousands of people worldwide who benefit from its practice. Science is not yet finished explaining the world to us; it's evolving, and so are we. Keeping an open mind is good survival instinct.

Bottom line, is much of that so called "medicine" cannot show any benefit in comparitive tests. As for not knowing all about the world, the only way to change that is to study. If someone has an idea, they should try to show some supporting evidence. I don't know if you recall something called "Essiac". It was supposed to be a cancer cure, developed by a woman, who lived up near Huntsville. She appeared almost 30 years ago, with her claims. She wanted the provincial government to pay her a large amount of money for her cure, before she'd allow any tests or provide any info on it. She had nothing to show it was effective, other than her own claims. The government turned her down, but a private company paid her. Last I heard they were suing her for fraud. With a scientific approach, a claim and any supporting data is examined by others. Sometimes this process fails, but overall, it results in the advancement of knowledge. If someone has a claim, the onus is on them to prove their claims, not on someone else to prove them wrong. -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml