September 12, 2007
Homeopathy is bunk
Ars Technica, usually devoted to things electronic, has branched out a bit, with this excellent gouging of homeopathy. For those of you that don't know, homeopathy is an alternative "medical" theory that operates under the assumption "like cures like". When a patient presents with certain symptoms, the homeopath looks for some herb, mineral, etc. that is supposed to produce the same effect. He then prepares a solution dilute to the point that no actual molecules of the reagent are left. This is supposed to cure whatever is afflicting said patient.
In short, it's utter and absolute bunk. The article concludes with a list of traits one can use to distinguish science from pseudoscience:
* Ignore settled issues in science: We know a great deal about the behavior of water (and evolution, and other contentious topics), but there are many efforts to introduce new science without ever addressing the existing body of knowledge. As such, many of the basic tenets of topics such as homeopathy appear to be ungrounded in reality as we understand it.
* Misapplication of real science: Quantum mechanics is an undeniably successful description of parts of the natural world, but the limitations of its applicability are widely recognized by the scientific community, if not the general public. Pseudoscientists such as homeopaths appear to cynically target this sort of ignorance by applying scientific principles to inappropriate topics.
* Rejection of scientific standards: Over the centuries, science has established standards of evidence and experiment to ensure that data remains consistent and reproducible. But these strengths are presented as weaknesses that make science impervious to new ideas, a stance that is often accompanied by...
* Claims of suppression: Pseudoscience is rejected because it does not conform to the standards held by the scientific community. That community is depicted as a dangerous hegemony that rejects new ideas in order to perpetuate a stifling orthodoxy. This happens in spite of many examples of radical ideas that have rapidly gained not only acceptance, but major prizes, when they were properly supported by scientific evidence.
* A conclusion/evidence gap: Many areas of pseudoscience do not set out to examine a phenomenon but rather have the stated goal of supporting a preordained conclusion. As such, they often engage in excessive logical leaps when the actual data is insufficient to support the desired conclusion.
* Focusing on the fringes: All areas of science have anomalous data and anecdotal findings that are inconsistent with the existing understanding. But those anomalies should not obscure the fact that the vast majority of current data does support the predominant theories. In the hands of a pseudoscientist, these unconnected edge cases are presented as a coherent body of knowledge that supports the replacement of existing understandings.
Apply this to... oh, I don't know... creation science and what do you get?
I've seen more than one person killed by homeopathic alternatives to medical/surgical treatments --one for cancer, and one for diabetes-- and many others in bad health becasue of them.
But you can't argue with them --they think they're geting better...
(*puff, puff, pass*)