Rolfe
Adult human female
Oh, you're right, it's very political. But part of the politics that has to be faced is that there is a lot of resistance to anything that is seen as being critical of a colleague. Niall (more recently) had an article about homoeopathy, from a sceptical viewpoint, published in the journal. But it was badly bowdlerised by the editor so as not to offend the homoeopaths! There's some sort of "political correctness" going on which I don't entirely understand.
It seems to have a lot to do with the constant claim that "it works". When a vet makes this claim, he tends to be given the benefit of the doubt. "Oh well, they're sincere." (Not!) "They say it works for them." "We must keep an open mind." And so the woo-woos get to say what they like and the sceptics are muted in the interests of good manners.
You feel that you've spent six months explaining the total absurdity and vacuousness of their claims entirely in vain.
The problem with your first idea was that it was likely to fail at the second stage. They will explain to a certain extent how it's supposed to work. Then they tell you that the only way you can have a valid opinion is if you go and take the full Faculty of Homoeopathy training course. Which I suspect of having more than a smidgin of brainwashing to it.
If you tried to get them to agree in advance that a certain course of homoeopathic action would definitely produce a certain effect, I fear you'd fail. That is the point when the congenital slipperiness would inevitably kick in.
As for showing that homoeopathic medicine doesn't work, or works less well than the real deal, you're back to the controlled trial. Several decent ones have been done, with predictable results. As usual, the homoeopaths simply say that the protocol wasn't homoeopathic. No matter what. Even if homoeopaths OKed the protocol to start with, after the null-effect result comes out, they go quiet and the rest of them denounce them as incompetent for suggesting such an obviously flawed protocol.
It's impossible to get hold of a sufficient number of disaster cases - these guys and their clients stick together. Individual cases are always nitpicked individually, and anyway they're always anecdotal - you can't say for sure what would have heppened if proper treatment had been given in any one case.
I'm open to suggestions for getting round any of this, but so far it hasn't been easy.
Rolfe.
It seems to have a lot to do with the constant claim that "it works". When a vet makes this claim, he tends to be given the benefit of the doubt. "Oh well, they're sincere." (Not!) "They say it works for them." "We must keep an open mind." And so the woo-woos get to say what they like and the sceptics are muted in the interests of good manners.
You feel that you've spent six months explaining the total absurdity and vacuousness of their claims entirely in vain.
The problem with your first idea was that it was likely to fail at the second stage. They will explain to a certain extent how it's supposed to work. Then they tell you that the only way you can have a valid opinion is if you go and take the full Faculty of Homoeopathy training course. Which I suspect of having more than a smidgin of brainwashing to it.
If you tried to get them to agree in advance that a certain course of homoeopathic action would definitely produce a certain effect, I fear you'd fail. That is the point when the congenital slipperiness would inevitably kick in.
As for showing that homoeopathic medicine doesn't work, or works less well than the real deal, you're back to the controlled trial. Several decent ones have been done, with predictable results. As usual, the homoeopaths simply say that the protocol wasn't homoeopathic. No matter what. Even if homoeopaths OKed the protocol to start with, after the null-effect result comes out, they go quiet and the rest of them denounce them as incompetent for suggesting such an obviously flawed protocol.
It's impossible to get hold of a sufficient number of disaster cases - these guys and their clients stick together. Individual cases are always nitpicked individually, and anyway they're always anecdotal - you can't say for sure what would have heppened if proper treatment had been given in any one case.
I'm open to suggestions for getting round any of this, but so far it hasn't been easy.
Rolfe.
The recent "suicide attempt" in Belgium was more the type of thing needed - in the public eye, and right in the homeopaths' eye. They need to be "called out" publicly to prove their wares.