Why does Homeopathy seem to irk skeptics the most?

Daggdag: "It was not so long ago that the catholic church arrested people as heretics for the practice of medicine."

Really? When was that? I've never heard of the Catholic church arresting people for practicing medicine. Since it wasn't so long ago, perhaps you can find a case on YouTube.

 

Homeopathic is a different thing than herbal medicine.

 

Addressing this argument that skeptics make about if it's true water retains memory of stuff it comes in contact with, water would retain the memory of all sorts of nasty stuff, like sewage water, etc.

I know it should be obvious of the point the skeptics are trying to make, but humor me with what point they are trying to make.

 

If it doesn't pass a double blind study, it doesn't count.

Unless it's mind over matter, in which case, the placebo effect does nicely for so many maladies.

 

When it is pointed out to homeopaths that the dilutions typically used in homeopathy mean that you'd have to drink all the atoms in the solar system to get a single molecule of active ingredient, they frequently respond with the hypothesis that water has some kind of 'memory' and can retain an 'imprint' of what's been in it.

This raises the question of how the water knows to remember the ingredient added by the homeopath but forgets everything else that's been in it.

It's a fair point but not that important, IMO. Even if water did have a memory and did manage to remember just the homeopathic ingredient and forget all the sewage or whatever, it still doesn't explain how that ingredient has a curative effect. Quacks love phrases like 'it stimulates the body's natural healing mechanism' but they can never explain how their quack therapy of choice actually does this. Homeopaths - with their nonsensical 'Law of Similars' - seem to believe it's a matter of sympathetic magic though, understandably, they avoid saying words like 'magic' out loud and in public.

You're welcome.

 

No, I want to know why a lot of you skeptics bring up "sewage water" and all that other gross stuff when it comes to the theory water retains memory.

What's the point you skeptics are trying to make with that?

 

There is no theory that water has a memory. There is magic mumbo jumbo that is does but zero scientific evidence and an explanation of why.

 

Why can't skeptics answer my question about the point of an argument THEY are making?

 

Why can't you ever accept the answers you're given?

How about this, ask a question and then (*)(*)(*)(*)ing answer it yourself, it's what you actually want.

 

What part of my answer didn't you understand?

ETA: Hint, the part of my answer that you didn't quote is the part that answers your question. Sorry for you confusing you by making an additional point of my own.

 

The part that didn't answer my question.

 

Well focus on the part that did answer your question. Here it is again:

 

How does that answer my question?

 

There are 1.39*10^18 m^3 of water on earth (Source: http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html)

A person drinks about 2 liters of water or 6.7*10^25 H2O molecules in one day.

Boring numbers? I disagree.

For example, Einstein drank about 55000 liters of water during his life (4*10^-17 times the amount of water on earth). Every day, we can expect to drink about 3 billion water molecules that passed through Einstein's body at some point during his life. That doesn't make us any smarter (or dumber), but in my humble opinion, it's an astonishing number. Even without all new physics at a subatomic level, the cycle of water and life is fascinating.

I apologize for going slightly off-topic.

 

Anybody going to be able to explain to me why skeptics bring up the argument that if water retains memory, then wouldn't water retain the memory of gross stuff like sewage, etc? What's the purpose of bringing that up?

 

Because then surely drinking any water would kill you.

 

I have explained it. Although I have explained the answer as simply as possible, you evidently don't understand it. There's nothing I or anyone else can do about your comprehension skills but there is really no need to keep repeating the question. If this is some labyrinthine route to making some point of your own point, you're wasting your time.

 

I should have explained my question better.

I'm wondering why skeptic bring up gross stuff like "sewage" versus any other substance water would come in contact with that would retain its memory if that does happen?

Why don't you skeptics just say this what you said:

"This raises the question of how the water knows to remember the ingredient added by the homeopath but forgets everything else that's been in it."

Do you skeptics bring up the memory of "sewage" as a childish gross factor?

 

Because it is a good question that has yet to be answered and you have to admit that an awful lot of waste has been added to water over millennia

But if you have an issue with sewerage then use the term "pollution" because there is enough of that in water as well

 

I tried homeopathy many years ago. It was a pathetic total failure, sad to say.

 

No. Sewage, pollution, it doesn't matter what you call it - it's still a fair point. Your "question" is just an ad hominen that highlights, rather than diverts from, that point.

 

I came across a very short vid about the Dunning-Kruger effect and was reminded of this thread for some reason. Enjoy.

John Cleese carefully considers your futile comments

 

Ironic you call my question an ad-hom, as you're about to see...

If you skepitcs bring up the sewage argument because of this:

"This raises the question of how the water knows to remember the ingredient added by the homeopath but forgets everything else that's been in it."

Why bring up something with a negative connotation, such as sewage, when anything the water would come in contact with, such as rose pedals, should theoretically, according to your argument, effect the outcome of the soon-to-be homeopathic remedy?

So isn't you skeptics bringing up the theoretical contamination of "sewage" an ad hominen, brought up for "shock" value?

 

The basic principle of homeopathy is to "let like be cured by like". Under that point of view, it makes sense to use diluted sewage water to cure the adverse health effects of drinking sewage water. Homeopaths prefer to dilute more poisonous substances though, like arsenic or caffeine.

Even in those cases there is no "shock" value though. As you should have noticed by now, skeptics keep pointing out that any substance at such dilutions is (practically) inexistent and therefore harmless.

 

Not exactly. Homeopaths don't combine different ingredients to make a homeopathic remedy. Some do, however, combine different single homeopathic remedies together afterward in the hopes the combination remedy will more likely help the person taking it versus the person taking only a single remedy for their problem.

Tell that to a person unfamiliar with homeopathy. I bet they'll disagree.