Edit Preferences
Logout
Ajita's Comments (220)
View Comments:
Sort:
1 - 25 of 220
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 18:32:56 in Living
“If you think that the world's naturalists have not considered this question, you dont have a very accurate idea of the intelligence of freethinkers in general.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 18:31:36 in Living
“If your god does not have any noticeable effect on the universe, there is no need for that god hypothesis. If he/she does, then gimme proof.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 18:08:16 in Living
“"...but I ever said that I know anything. I said I don't and neither does anyone else.'
Ah, but that's the problem. You aren't saying anything at all. You simply use this language of ignorance to assign yourself a kind of unique knowledge that you deny everyone else.
In everyday life our actions are based on the fact that some things are more likely than others. This is how you and I operate. Yet, when it comes to the idea of god, you suspend the idea of knowledge itself in order to dissuade yourself of that scientific fact the idea of god is highly unlikely.
There are some scientific propositions that have less confidence than others. This is a red-herring. And, I notice how you use rational evidence-analysis to question certain aspects of science, but when it comes to questioning your god on the same criteria, you become a nihilist. Its this perpetual dance between the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for the believer to continue his belief in the imaginary, in the face of reason.”
Ah, but that's the problem. You aren't saying anything at all. You simply use this language of ignorance to assign yourself a kind of unique knowledge that you deny everyone else.
In everyday life our actions are based on the fact that some things are more likely than others. This is how you and I operate. Yet, when it comes to the idea of god, you suspend the idea of knowledge itself in order to dissuade yourself of that scientific fact the idea of god is highly unlikely.
There are some scientific propositions that have less confidence than others. This is a red-herring. And, I notice how you use rational evidence-analysis to question certain aspects of science, but when it comes to questioning your god on the same criteria, you become a nihilist. Its this perpetual dance between the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for the believer to continue his belief in the imaginary, in the face of reason.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 17:54:41 in Living
“Cop out. There is greater evidence for certain things than for certain other things. You are playing a game of false equivalence, like Fox does when they present a whimsical right-wing talking point with the same credulity as a statistically demonstrable fact. I am not asking you for proof that your god exists, Im saying that you have none and yet you pretend that a conscious universe is as plausible a proposition as any of the ideas that we have from science.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 16:32:21 in Living
“The problem with this is that you are introducing an unnecessary variable that is also highly improbable and completely unfalsifiable. If you are going to introduce such an extraordinary claim, there needs to be some evidence, let alone ANY measurable effect that this new variable has on the system.”
repearwo replied on Nov 15, 2009 at 01:35:32
“"I am not asking you for proof that your god exists, Im saying that you have none and yet you pretend that a conscious universe is as plausible a proposition as any of the ideas that we have from science."
And I am not trying to offer proof of anything. Science does not have a Goal to propose any ideas about God.
Your reference to Fox is insulting. People have a tendency to assume facts not in evidence. I am not anti-science. I do not approach things from a religious point of view. I do not belong to a church. If classified I am politically a liberal and avoid Fox and their fake news. None of that really has anything to do with this discussion.
I assert that science is just as much a religion as religion is. That idea is not alien to leading thinkers in the Scientific Community. Try opening that mind of yours and listen to what is being said without attaching things never offered.
I stand by my original statements.”
And I am not trying to offer proof of anything. Science does not have a Goal to propose any ideas about God.
Your reference to Fox is insulting. People have a tendency to assume facts not in evidence. I am not anti-science. I do not approach things from a religious point of view. I do not belong to a church. If classified I am politically a liberal and avoid Fox and their fake news. None of that really has anything to do with this discussion.
I assert that science is just as much a religion as religion is. That idea is not alien to leading thinkers in the Scientific Community. Try opening that mind of yours and listen to what is being said without attaching things never offered.
I stand by my original statements.”
Ajita replied on Nov 14, 2009 at 17:54:41
“Cop out. There is greater evidence for certain things than for certain other things. You are playing a game of false equivalence, like Fox does when they present a whimsical right-wing talking point with the same credulity as a statistically demonstrable fact. I am not asking you for proof that your god exists, Im saying that you have none and yet you pretend that a conscious universe is as plausible a proposition as any of the ideas that we have from science.”
repearwo replied on Nov 14, 2009 at 17:01:20
“Circular Logic: IF I am going to say there is not proof of anything I must submit proof that there is not proof.
For somethings there are proof, something require imagination.
Can you tell me with high probability that there is a smallest particle? No you can't and without that smallest particle you can not prove you or anything else exists. Using this discussion as proof is not acceptable because you can not prove that any of this is not just in your head.”
For somethings there are proof, something require imagination.
Can you tell me with high probability that there is a smallest particle? No you can't and without that smallest particle you can not prove you or anything else exists. Using this discussion as proof is not acceptable because you can not prove that any of this is not just in your head.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 16:11:26 in Living
“"That god probably does not exist, but that does no mean that there is no God, it just means we have not yet reached an ability to move away from our self-centeredness and see that we are part of something larger that has an ethic and morality of its own, not as a dogma but as a way to function with the wholeness of what we call existence.'
Ah, the mental gymnastics some employ to convince themselves that an extremely improbable and unfalsifiable proposition deserves the same level of credence as the empirically demonstrable natural world.”
Ah, the mental gymnastics some employ to convince themselves that an extremely improbable and unfalsifiable proposition deserves the same level of credence as the empirically demonstrable natural world.”
repearwo replied on Nov 14, 2009 at 16:36:34
“If that is so, I think we are in the same gymnasium.
"For true appreciation, it takes time" Maude in "Harold and Maude"”
"For true appreciation, it takes time" Maude in "Harold and Maude"”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 16:01:40 in Living
“The arrogance is in saying that you know that we know absolutely nothing.”
Ajita replied on Nov 14, 2009 at 18:08:56
“"...but I ever said that I know anything. I said I don't and neither does anyone else.'
Ah, but that's the problem. You aren't saying anything at all. You simply use this language of ignorance to assign yourself a kind of unique knowledge that you deny everyone else.
In everyday life our actions are based on the fact that some things are more likely than others. This is how you and I operate. Yet, when it comes to the idea of god, you suspend the idea of knowledge itself in order to dissuade yourself of that scientific fact the idea of god is highly unlikely.
There are some scientific propositions that have less confidence than others. This is a red-herring. And, I notice how you use rational evidence-analysis to question certain aspects of science, but when it comes to questioning your god on the same criteria, you become a nihilist. Its this perpetual dance between the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for the believer to continue his belief in the imaginary, in the face of reason.”
Ah, but that's the problem. You aren't saying anything at all. You simply use this language of ignorance to assign yourself a kind of unique knowledge that you deny everyone else.
In everyday life our actions are based on the fact that some things are more likely than others. This is how you and I operate. Yet, when it comes to the idea of god, you suspend the idea of knowledge itself in order to dissuade yourself of that scientific fact the idea of god is highly unlikely.
There are some scientific propositions that have less confidence than others. This is a red-herring. And, I notice how you use rational evidence-analysis to question certain aspects of science, but when it comes to questioning your god on the same criteria, you become a nihilist. Its this perpetual dance between the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for the believer to continue his belief in the imaginary, in the face of reason.”
repearwo replied on Nov 14, 2009 at 16:33:38
“A paradox for sure, but I ever said that I know anything. I said I don't and neither does anyone else. How can I know this? I can't.
The universe is built upon the idea that there is nothing that you can know. except that there is nothing that you can know, and you can't know that.
In a world in which nothing exists, clearly everything is a paradoxical syllogism.
It is world where nothing exists and everything exists.
I have to humbly admit I am arrogant.”
The universe is built upon the idea that there is nothing that you can know. except that there is nothing that you can know, and you can't know that.
In a world in which nothing exists, clearly everything is a paradoxical syllogism.
It is world where nothing exists and everything exists.
I have to humbly admit I am arrogant.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 15:56:57 in Living
“Science is more subtle than you make it out to be. Evidence is not about absolute proof, but about degrees of confidence in an objective reality. What we know from science is not the absolute truth, but the best objective understanding that we have of what reality is. It is a reality that attempts to eliminate our subjective biases, something that 'experience' is comprised of entirely. It is simply the best means of knowing the world outside of our limited biological perception. To equate the epistemology of science with blind faith is disingenuous.”
repearwo replied on Nov 15, 2009 at 01:21:17
“"you suspend the idea of knowledge itself in order to dissuade yourself of that scientific fact the idea of god is highly unlikely."
It is your bias that leads you to this conclusion, but that is fine. You can take a horse to water...
I have in this discourse stated several widely accepted positions that are accepted by scientist, you have chosen to even deal with that or the fact that I apply the same standard of reason and knowledge to both science and religion.
A scientist that does not understand that all he perceives is highly unreliable is a dangerous person.”
It is your bias that leads you to this conclusion, but that is fine. You can take a horse to water...
I have in this discourse stated several widely accepted positions that are accepted by scientist, you have chosen to even deal with that or the fact that I apply the same standard of reason and knowledge to both science and religion.
A scientist that does not understand that all he perceives is highly unreliable is a dangerous person.”
Ajita replied on Nov 14, 2009 at 18:08:16
“"...but I ever said that I know anything. I said I don't and neither does anyone else.'
Ah, but that's the problem. You aren't saying anything at all. You simply use this language of ignorance to assign yourself a kind of unique knowledge that you deny everyone else.
In everyday life our actions are based on the fact that some things are more likely than others. This is how you and I operate. Yet, when it comes to the idea of god, you suspend the idea of knowledge itself in order to dissuade yourself of that scientific fact the idea of god is highly unlikely.
There are some scientific propositions that have less confidence than others. This is a red-herring. And, I notice how you use rational evidence-analysis to question certain aspects of science, but when it comes to questioning your god on the same criteria, you become a nihilist. Its this perpetual dance between the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for the believer to continue his belief in the imaginary, in the face of reason.”
Ah, but that's the problem. You aren't saying anything at all. You simply use this language of ignorance to assign yourself a kind of unique knowledge that you deny everyone else.
In everyday life our actions are based on the fact that some things are more likely than others. This is how you and I operate. Yet, when it comes to the idea of god, you suspend the idea of knowledge itself in order to dissuade yourself of that scientific fact the idea of god is highly unlikely.
There are some scientific propositions that have less confidence than others. This is a red-herring. And, I notice how you use rational evidence-analysis to question certain aspects of science, but when it comes to questioning your god on the same criteria, you become a nihilist. Its this perpetual dance between the subjective and the objective that makes it possible for the believer to continue his belief in the imaginary, in the face of reason.”
repearwo replied on Nov 14, 2009 at 16:47:57
“Actually I am trying to make out that science is very subtle.
Faith by its very definition is Blind. So blind faith is redundant.
Man's Science can tell us about Man's world. Man, however, lives in and outside Man's world.
We view a black hole and use science to explain it, yet we have never seen the other side of the Black Hole. If I am 180 on the other side of the black hole and equally far away, what does the black hole look like?
I say it looks just it does on this side. If infinity is as we say it is, then there is as much space inside what we believe are collapsed stars (Black Holes) as there is in all of the space surrounding it.
I do not know that, but I believe that not because I can prove it but because I can make a good argument for that as any one else. In fact a lot of the Scientific explanations of Black Holes carry with them a distinct lack of the objectivity you claim for science. The scientific method msy strive for objectivity, but men are not all that objective when it comes to ideas that threaten ones existing ideas.”
Faith by its very definition is Blind. So blind faith is redundant.
Man's Science can tell us about Man's world. Man, however, lives in and outside Man's world.
We view a black hole and use science to explain it, yet we have never seen the other side of the Black Hole. If I am 180 on the other side of the black hole and equally far away, what does the black hole look like?
I say it looks just it does on this side. If infinity is as we say it is, then there is as much space inside what we believe are collapsed stars (Black Holes) as there is in all of the space surrounding it.
I do not know that, but I believe that not because I can prove it but because I can make a good argument for that as any one else. In fact a lot of the Scientific explanations of Black Holes carry with them a distinct lack of the objectivity you claim for science. The scientific method msy strive for objectivity, but men are not all that objective when it comes to ideas that threaten ones existing ideas.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 15:48:05 in Living
“The main reason why culture evolves is the increasing knowledge that humanity accumulates. Every new understanding about the nature of empathy and every new technological invention that affects our social behavior opens up previously unknown areas for philosophical inquiry, leading to an evolving culture and a constantly changing morality. It is understandable that you would seek comfort in an absolute standard for all moral questions, but this is not how you or anyone else acts when it comes to real life issues.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 15:44:56 in Living
“You are confusing biological impulse with morality. Of course the biological impulses may not evolve at the rate that morality evolves on, but morality does evolve. This is because morality is not about biology alone. Biology interacts with culture in humans, to give us our morality. It does not exist in a vacuum, independent of cultural meaning. Our moral positions, on REAL LIFE ISSUES, are constantly evolving. Humanity's moral positions on every single issue has evolved over the ages. To deny this is to ignore the evidence.”
What Would You Do For God? (VIDEO)
Commented Nov 14, 2009 at 12:48:25 in Living
“Since the beginning of civilization religion has held the monopoly on moral education, albeit a moral education based on absolute principles. This type of moral certainty has crept into modern secular society as well. This bias is apparent in this article.
What needs to change is our cultural understanding of the nature of morality- to understand that morality is a constantly evolving thing, dependent on individual values and current cultural moods. There are no easy answers to the complex issues that we must overcome to lead a moral life, and there are varying degrees of moral ambiguity. This is an evidence-based point of view.
As religious institutions fade away and their influence dies with them, secular societies need to incorporate moral education into the school curriculum. This is the future of human morality, not superstitious behavior modification tools or a call to some inherent absolute morality.”
What needs to change is our cultural understanding of the nature of morality- to understand that morality is a constantly evolving thing, dependent on individual values and current cultural moods. There are no easy answers to the complex issues that we must overcome to lead a moral life, and there are varying degrees of moral ambiguity. This is an evidence-based point of view.
As religious institutions fade away and their influence dies with them, secular societies need to incorporate moral education into the school curriculum. This is the future of human morality, not superstitious behavior modification tools or a call to some inherent absolute morality.”
Obamanaut replied on Nov 14, 2009 at 15:36:03
“However you institute morality, there has to be some mechanism for teaching it. There is a place for the teaching of faith in every culture. The thing is, morality shouldn't and really isn't an evolving thing. It is either moral to do a thing or it is not. Even those who don't believe in the ten commandments, which do a pretty good job of laying out what we should be doing, the tenets of the commandments are still valid. Every major faith on the planet follows these rules. Morality is based on them, so, evolving morality? I don't think so. It will never be moral to do anything that causes guilt in ourselves or pain in others. The simple rule that covers all of moral behavior: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Period.”
Media Fail: Kimberly Munley Did Not Bring Down Fort Hood Killer
Commented Nov 13, 2009 at 12:40:14 in Media
“So, it is ok for the military to lie?”
PAsteelers replied on Nov 13, 2009 at 18:14:41
“No, it is not ok for anyone to lie. The military does lie on a regular
basis, I get that. That is why it is important that the media check the facts, so we will know why and what they are lying about.
Look, I am the first one who will call out racism when I see it.
There are hundreds of example of hateful bigotry perpetrated at
any given time and place. I just don't think the military did this.
I think the media likes to build up "great white hopes". I blame them.”
basis, I get that. That is why it is important that the media check the facts, so we will know why and what they are lying about.
Look, I am the first one who will call out racism when I see it.
There are hundreds of example of hateful bigotry perpetrated at
any given time and place. I just don't think the military did this.
I think the media likes to build up "great white hopes". I blame them.”
Media Fail: Kimberly Munley Did Not Bring Down Fort Hood Killer
Commented Nov 12, 2009 at 18:17:51 in Media
“You are missing the point. This is about deliberate lies, not political correctness.”
PAsteelers replied on Nov 12, 2009 at 18:29:27
“By definition a journalists is to gather and investigate the "facts".
It does not matter what they were told, if they are competent, they would
have interview the "hero". If they could not, they should not have ran
with the story. Yes the military lies, it is a reporter job to uncover the deceit
and report the facts.”
It does not matter what they were told, if they are competent, they would
have interview the "hero". If they could not, they should not have ran
with the story. Yes the military lies, it is a reporter job to uncover the deceit
and report the facts.”
No Difference Between President Obama and Candidate Obama
Commented Nov 03, 2009 at 23:44:50 in Politics
“I think Obama is doing a lot, but of course he has moved to the center since his election. This was inevitable, knowing who he is.”
masher replied on Nov 03, 2009 at 23:57:24
“I don't see how bailing out billionaires is the center. I don't know any conservatives who agree with bailing out Wall Street.
What people need to realize is that the corporate communist have taken over both parties. What they call the "center" is really just corporate welfare.”
What people need to realize is that the corporate communist have taken over both parties. What they call the "center" is really just corporate welfare.”
Winthorpe replied on Nov 03, 2009 at 23:48:27
“You mean, the leader of the country?”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 13:57:43 in Living
“Great. Ignore the substance of his/her comment and focus on the fluff.”
coveark replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 16:23:43
“Whatever, It was not response to fluff..................It was response to smart ass name calling and I suspect you knew that.”
ScienceFTW replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 14:56:11
“don't you love how comments like this will remain uncensored because they are "pro-altmed" but if you or I were to make a comment like this - it gets deleted almost immediately?”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 13:55:29 in Living
“Try sugar water.”
coveark replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 17:59:42
“I am trying not to do sugar......thanks all the same”
eXcommunicate replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 15:19:27
“LOL”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 13:54:49 in Living
“Nope.”
coveark replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 16:23:59
“yep”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 13:45:24 in Living
“If you are serious about really wanting to know what homeopathy is, please, please go to objective scientific sources first before you go to a homeopath. I'm sure that on getting informed, you will not go to the latter.
As for what's the harm, here: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html”
As for what's the harm, here: http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html”
smukkestjerne replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 14:37:15
“Besides evidence from clinical studies, homeopathy benefits from over 200 years of empirical evidence which no one can deny. Despite what people say/import onto websites against homeopathy, no death has ever occurred from a homeopathic remedy. Humans make errors. Doctors make errors and homeopaths too but the difference is that conventional medicine can/does kill, a homeopathic remedy can never kill. The beauty about homeopathy is that if a non-indicated remedy is given to a human or animal, the effect is little and usually none. The opposite is true for conventional medicine. The methodology used in clinical trials for conventional medicine are puzzling. The test subjects are usually young white males. Is the world only made up of young white males? Hmmm... while homeopathy's empirical evidence expands the whole globe, all peoples, sexes, animals (not the same as conventional sense animal testing). I'm not against conventional medicine. I think it should be used in life-threatening situations where alternative-medicine cannot be used (longer treatment periods needed). They are also good for acutes e.g. I had a really bad toothache a few weeks ago and the effect of the homeopathic remedies only lasted a short while (maybe I did not use the correct potency or remedy) so I needed something stronger so I took Ibuprofen/codeine which helped more than the homeopathic rx. This medicine allowed me to get through my long week-end holiday to see my dentist who in turn performed an emergency root canal.”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 13:41:05 in Living
“Sunito,
There are a lot of things that work in ways that we don't understand. What we do know is that homeopathy cannot work if water is not a supernatural concoction.”
There are a lot of things that work in ways that we don't understand. What we do know is that homeopathy cannot work if water is not a supernatural concoction.”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 13:37:48 in Living
“live4art,
The point we are contesting is that it does not work, and there is no possible way it could work. It is magic, pure and simple.
There are many anecdotal stories about all sorts of cures. The problem with these is that without rigorous scientific analysis the patterns we see may not be accurate. There are many possible reasons for why you had your particular reaction. The point of a scientific double-blind study is that it eliminates all unnecessary variables and puts the actual claims to test.
As for anecdotal evidence, there are plenty of cases where homeopathy has harmed people because real medical care was not provided. I am only citing this here to counter your anecdotal evidence. The point is that science is interested in getting to the truth. Homeopathy has been around for way too long for science to not recognize any truth to it. In fact, reputed medical journals and committees of medical doctors have rejected the magical claims of homeopaths.”
The point we are contesting is that it does not work, and there is no possible way it could work. It is magic, pure and simple.
There are many anecdotal stories about all sorts of cures. The problem with these is that without rigorous scientific analysis the patterns we see may not be accurate. There are many possible reasons for why you had your particular reaction. The point of a scientific double-blind study is that it eliminates all unnecessary variables and puts the actual claims to test.
As for anecdotal evidence, there are plenty of cases where homeopathy has harmed people because real medical care was not provided. I am only citing this here to counter your anecdotal evidence. The point is that science is interested in getting to the truth. Homeopathy has been around for way too long for science to not recognize any truth to it. In fact, reputed medical journals and committees of medical doctors have rejected the magical claims of homeopaths.”
Insulin replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 15:11:31
“Really Ajita - than explain why in the 1918 flu which killed millions world wide the death rate in NYC hospitals for flu was - 1 % in the homeopathic hospitals and 30% in the conventional medical hospitals -
I will be explaining to the many people I know beside myself who have been cured and gotten consisent good results with homeopathy that our anecdotal evidence means nothing. As to the poor suckers who are uncured and worsening with conventional medical treatment, a system that claims to be scientific despite horrible outcomes, you can reassure them that they are in the good hands of science.”
I will be explaining to the many people I know beside myself who have been cured and gotten consisent good results with homeopathy that our anecdotal evidence means nothing. As to the poor suckers who are uncured and worsening with conventional medical treatment, a system that claims to be scientific despite horrible outcomes, you can reassure them that they are in the good hands of science.”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 13:23:53 in Living
“Wrong on many levels. Firstly, homeopathy is not just taking a small amount of what causes disease and then giving it to patients. It is the dilution of that small amount to a point where only water is left. Homeopaths claim that the water 'remembers'.
Secondly, vaccines do the exact opposite of what is being claimed here. The small part of the virus/allergen use in vaccines is a non-infective part of the agent. It is often just a protein. This is used to AMPLIFY the immune response to the pathogen. The article here is suggesting the exact opposite reaction to magic water.”
Secondly, vaccines do the exact opposite of what is being claimed here. The small part of the virus/allergen use in vaccines is a non-infective part of the agent. It is often just a protein. This is used to AMPLIFY the immune response to the pathogen. The article here is suggesting the exact opposite reaction to magic water.”
philko replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 14:10:13
“Don't conflate anti-viral vaccines with allergy vaccines. They have two different purposes.
Anti-viral vaccines do use "deactivated" viruses and their purpose is indeed to increase immune system reaction to the virus (actually, it's a bit more like teaching the immune system how to recognize the virus).
OTOH, since there's no "infective part of the agent", there's no way allergy vaccines could use the "non-infective" part. Allergies are reactions to proteins and allergy vaccines use the *actual* proteins in an attempt to LESSEN the immune system's response to the allergen proteins. Its call desensitazation and it's *completely* different in mechanism and purpose than anti-viral vaccines.”
Anti-viral vaccines do use "deactivated" viruses and their purpose is indeed to increase immune system reaction to the virus (actually, it's a bit more like teaching the immune system how to recognize the virus).
OTOH, since there's no "infective part of the agent", there's no way allergy vaccines could use the "non-infective" part. Allergies are reactions to proteins and allergy vaccines use the *actual* proteins in an attempt to LESSEN the immune system's response to the allergen proteins. Its call desensitazation and it's *completely* different in mechanism and purpose than anti-viral vaccines.”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 13:18:13 in Living
“It is also useful to remember that before modern medicine, most people with serious allergies would have died before they could reach adulthood. As more people with serious immune responses to allergens are living to have children of their own, the rate of allergic responses will continue to increase.
In cultures where there is no history of dairy farming the incidence of lactose intolerance is high. This implies that in those cultures where there is a long history of dairy production, lactose intolerant children died early and did not pass on their genes.”
In cultures where there is no history of dairy farming the incidence of lactose intolerance is high. This implies that in those cultures where there is a long history of dairy production, lactose intolerant children died early and did not pass on their genes.”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 12:55:17 in Living
“rlt,
I am sure doctors who follow science-based medicine will encourage you to look at all possible SCIENTIFIC remedies. The studies you are talking about are indeed very encouraging. However, that is not what homeopathy is. Please do not confuse science with homeopathy. This is exactly what those pushing homeopathy are hoping people will do. They intend on piggybacking their magical ideas on real science.
There is a somewhat known mechanism for how immune responses develop. The science on this looks at things from a causal perspective and actually tries to understand mechanistic events behind such reactions. When it comes to allergies, there is definitely evidence out there suggesting that, in some cases, exposure can help suppress the immune response (note that in many other cases exposure to the allergens will make the immune response worse). This is not homeopathy at all. Pushing homeopathy on the basis of these claims is akin to pushing heroin because red wine has anti-oxidants.”
I am sure doctors who follow science-based medicine will encourage you to look at all possible SCIENTIFIC remedies. The studies you are talking about are indeed very encouraging. However, that is not what homeopathy is. Please do not confuse science with homeopathy. This is exactly what those pushing homeopathy are hoping people will do. They intend on piggybacking their magical ideas on real science.
There is a somewhat known mechanism for how immune responses develop. The science on this looks at things from a causal perspective and actually tries to understand mechanistic events behind such reactions. When it comes to allergies, there is definitely evidence out there suggesting that, in some cases, exposure can help suppress the immune response (note that in many other cases exposure to the allergens will make the immune response worse). This is not homeopathy at all. Pushing homeopathy on the basis of these claims is akin to pushing heroin because red wine has anti-oxidants.”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 12:27:01 in Living
“Besides, for every study that the homeopaths claim to show any significant difference from placebo, there are many others that don't. The fact is that the majority of the double-blind studies out there are highly suggestive of homeopathy being nothing but sympathetic magic.
Has the survey that people who use homeopathy are more educated appeared in any scientific papers? Are they more educated in 'homeopathic medicine'? The argument that certain "famous people" use homeopathy is called the argument from authority. It has no place in science. certain famous people are also Scientologists.
Lastly, congratulations on your book. I'm sure the gullible will come forth and fill the coffers.”
Has the survey that people who use homeopathy are more educated appeared in any scientific papers? Are they more educated in 'homeopathic medicine'? The argument that certain "famous people" use homeopathy is called the argument from authority. It has no place in science. certain famous people are also Scientologists.
Lastly, congratulations on your book. I'm sure the gullible will come forth and fill the coffers.”
HeresHoping replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 13:26:20
“Maybe surveys are more likely to be returned by educated people? Maybe surveys are more likely to be returned by people who believe in the topic being surveyed?”
LOCUTUS13 replied on Oct 18, 2009 at 12:46:37
“fanned”
Homeopathy for Allergies: Nothing to Sneeze At
Commented Oct 18, 2009 at 12:19:57 in Living
“True, controversy is what sustains the nonsense that passes for discourse in this country. Good to see that you are following in the tradition. Manipulation of data and name-calling are a far from benign combination.”
1 - 25 of 220
