but I've never heard the one about fairies
So there are too many allegedly "rational" people who will discount the real, repeatable & demonstrable phenomena of dowsing, because they dislike the idea that there is stuff that cannot be incorporated into the current ideology of science.
Materials scientists will tell you that the standard story about homeopathy makes sense to them.
And acupuncture works.
So there are too many allegedly "rational" people who will discount the real, repeatable & demonstrable phenomena of dowsing, because they dislike the idea that there is stuff that cannot be incorporated into the current ideology of science. That's just silly.
That's just silly.
Then you haven't met the dogmatic denialists I have when I've tried to discuss the subject of dowsing. They may be silly, but reporting their attitudes is not. keep to the Fen Causeway
I like to think that any inexplicable pheomenon or construct that has been around for thousands of years has some value which we might not yet understand or have erased from our culture. I don't believe in dowsers, but I am not prepared to dismiss dowsing. Same for many other oddities - it is too easy to dismiss practitioners, but often much harder to dismiss the practice, especially if it has been around for thousands of years. Presumably they indicate some usefulness to societies, even if they are placebo effects or other processing effects on the conscious or subconscious. You can't be me, I'm taken
Materials scientists will tell you that the standard story about homeopathy makes sense to them. I've never heard that?
I've never heard that?
'Homeophobia' must not be tolerated
A major bugaboo for "homeophobes" is the concept that a solution where the solute is extremely diluted (beyond Avogadro's number) absolutely cannot, they believe, be any different from the original solvent. Hence homeopathy must be a fraud. This has been the anti-homeopathy crowd's trump card for more than 100 years. But let us turn to scientists who specialise in water's properties. Prof Martin Chaplin of London's South Bank University, a leading expert on the (molecular) structure of water, says: "Too often the final argument used against the memory of water concept is simply 'I don't believe it' ... Such unscientific rhetoric is heard from the otherwise sensible scientists, with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence, and reflects badly on them." As it happens, there is agreement among all those who have studied liquid water that it is, in fact, the critics, who are totally wrong.
But let us turn to scientists who specialise in water's properties. Prof Martin Chaplin of London's South Bank University, a leading expert on the (molecular) structure of water, says: "Too often the final argument used against the memory of water concept is simply 'I don't believe it' ... Such unscientific rhetoric is heard from the otherwise sensible scientists, with a narrow view of the subject and without any examination or appreciation of the full body of evidence, and reflects badly on them."
As it happens, there is agreement among all those who have studied liquid water that it is, in fact, the critics, who are totally wrong.
It follows that simply proving that water does have a memory does not prove that homeopathic medicines work.
I don't get the feeling from that or reading the comment thread that there is a lot of acceptance of the point of view the water memory could explain homeopathy among material scientists.
