I could ask you the same thing. I never claimed to be an expert on snake oil remedies. IMO, anything that is not scientifically proven to work is "alternative medicine". You're the expert here, right? Give us some examples of "alternative" medicines that work but are not scientifically proven.
Go back up a bit. OK, so why does homeopathy seem to irk the skeptic community the most out of all alternative medicines? That's not what this thread is about. Can't you read?
Because some of us worked in the medical field and know that treating like with like is superstitious nonsense.
You still don't understand what I'm asking. I'm going to recommend some homeopathic remedies for you to help you comprehend what this thread is about.
It couldn't possibly be that your premise is flawed, that skeptics are not more irked by homeopathic remedies then other types of alternative medicine.
You obviously have no sympathy for the plight of the deranged engineer in today's space age a-go-go society.
I showed you my premise is not flawed. Did you miss it? A lot of posters on this thread have demonstrated they don't read very well.
does it? I haven't seen evidence for that. can you identify which alternative therapies you are taking into account when making this statement?
See here. Homeopathy is the only "snake oil" alternative therapy? Some of you guys talk like all are.
doesn't answer my question. what are you including? chinese herbal remedies? ayurvedic? flower threrapy? these are some examples - there are literally hundreds of so called "therapies" that have no scientific basis - although interestingly enough a lot of traditional therapies do use herbal remedies that include some of the compounds used in modern treatments (old village mouldy bread remedies for countering infected wounds - penicillin derived from moulds, as one example) If you are talking about what scpetics believe, you need to be a bit more exact in what you are talking about. I hardly regard chiro as an alternative therapy. chiropracty is a university level course (a longer course than physiotherapy) and requires sound knowledge of anatamy and physiology. I have never referred to homeopathy as a snake oil therapy. my understanding is that it does share some principles with immunisation, but I don't think there have been enough independent studies on its effectiveness generally for it to be considered as a valid alternative to mainstream treatments in many cases. from what I have seen, a lot of homeopaths rely more on trial and error than the medical professions generally do.
BECAUSE IT'S JUST (*)(*)(*)(*)ING WATER. You're paying money for something you can get out of your tap at home.
And maybe it isn't water. Maybe it works for some people. Maybe it doesn't work for others. But I am not going to listen to some stupid doctor saying that drugs are better when someone might get great results using something that that idiot doctor doesn't approve of.
You would rather have some scam artist sell you very expensive water to "cure" what ails you than take the advice of a highly educated skilled professional? OK.
It doesn't. All of the medical frauds "irk" me. What irks me the most though is when total nitwits think my tax dollars should pay for their bull(*)(*)(*)(*).
Yes it does. You asked "does it?" and I showed you evidence that it does. Any so-called "snake oil" therapy. Of all of them, why does Homeopathy seem to irk the skeptics the most? *sigh* I have. No need to make they more complicated than it is.
That's not the question. You Homeopathy haters sure don't read very well. I can recommend a homeopathic remedy for that.
It might not irk you more than the others, but are you saying homeopathy doesn't irk skeptics in general more than other snake-oil therapies?
I'm not convinced. Your evidence is circumstantial. It's not direct evidence that skeptics are more or less irked by homeopathy. How do you quantify levels of irk? Are the number of articles on blogs the only measure of irk? Okay then. Skeptic + Homeopathy returns: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=17&....,cf.osb&fp=a271f0478f23d1e9&biw=1138&bih=503 865,000 results. Skeptic + acupuncture returns http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=11&....,cf.osb&fp=a271f0478f23d1e9&biw=1138&bih=503 811,000 results. Skeptic + Naturopathic returns http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-....,cf.osb&fp=a271f0478f23d1e9&biw=1138&bih=503 1,470,000 results My equally valid study shows that skeptics are almost twice as irked by naturopathy as they are homeopathy, and almost equally irked by acupuncture. Your question still begs the question, "are skeptics more irked by homeopathy?"
I don't think Googling for the number of results is a great indicator, but isn't comparing Homeopathy with Naturopathy like comparing apples and oranges? Homeopathy is a type of medicine where Naturopathy is like a natural MD who prescribes remedies that include things like Homeopathics. Then your answer should be skeptics aren't more irked by Homeopathy compared to any other "snake oil" remedy. Not sure why this is so difficult for the Homeopathy haters.