omOriginally posted by sonhouseGood advice. Like I say, I'm not crazy. You can probably tell that for yourselves. Psychiatry is a symptom of a greater sickness. Science itself is sick with apathy.
Did you have a bad experience with a psychiatrist? Just wondered why you picked THAT exact science to grouse about. There are genuine pseudosciences like alien visitations, vis a vis pyramid builders and such that you could rail against.
11 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou give a link supporting your opinion that "homeopathy is more proven as a science than psychiatry" and that link finishes with the line;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml
I put it to you that homeopathy is more proven as a science than psychiatry.
"the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been."
is that your best shot?
And remember that the program makers were trying to support homeopathy
12 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckPsychiatry has anti depressants and anti psychotics. Homeopathy loses.
OK, I readily admit I started this thread just to p*** you off but it's still a serious question.
For those that haven't studied homeopathy it's a case of serially diluting a substance until it only has a probability of being within the solvent.
I know what you're thinking. Bunch of donkey ****s. However. Upon the first experimentation it was proved t ...[text shortened]... le world?
I put it to you that homeopathy has more of a basis in science than psychiatry.
I believe the dilution process is unscientific and does not work. I'd like to see scientific evidence that it does.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Homeopathy is disprovable and therefor subject to scientific examination.
You give a link supporting your opinion that "homeopathy is more proven as a science than psychiatry" and that link finishes with the line;
"the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been."
is that your best shot?
[b]And remember that the program makers were trying to support homeopathy[/b]
There is evidence that water has memory and can retain attributes of a substance that has been serially diluted and subsequently removed from it.
The placebo effect is a perfect example where less is more and we regularly measure an agents effectiveness against it.
For example, patients who are administered morphine and then given a saline placebo, still experience a reduction in pain.
“every mental representation of a movement awakens to some degree the actual movement which is its object.”
http://www.mediafire.com/?l2599b6j5uatm79
The placebo effect is proven to be as powerful as some of the strongest medicines we have today.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes, this is true. But has it been tested and can it be tested whether the symptoms of an 'illness' are more or less likely to increase the chances of an individuals success? I'm guessing for example a bit of paranoia came in quite handy when sabre-tooth tigers were roaming the planes.
Psychiatry has anti depressants and anti psychotics. Homeopathy loses.
I believe the dilution process is unscientific and does not work. I'd like to see scientific evidence that it does.
Science and in particular psychiatry doesn't attempt to tackle issues within the context of 'what can be'. It just meds it up and throws it backwards.
I suggest that science is a backwards art and people are reticent to leave it because science doesn't have the kahoonas to challenge religion and we all know what those dicks are upto.
I believe science should be subject to it's own doctrines which include evolution. Science is viewed in retrospection. It is science fiction authors who have set about the task of generating new probabilities and futures. Science should include the ability to create disprovable futures even more so than disprovable pasts. As the weight of responsibility is on our future.
12 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckThat didn't answer my question. Did you have to seek psychiatric help only to come out of it worse for wear?
Good advice. Like I say, I'm not crazy. You can probably tell that for yourselves. Psychiatry is a symptom of a greater sickness. Science itself is sick with apathy.
You say science is 'apathetic'. Are you saying ALL science is bad? If so, how do you explain the advances made by such giants as Newton, Madam Curie, Einstein, Rutherford, Maxwell, Tesla, Westinghouse, Goddard, Galileo among many others?
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not saying 'all science is bad' that's a strawman argument and belongs in the debates forum.
That didn't answer my question. Did you have to seek psychiatric help only to come out of it worse for wear?
You say science is 'apathetic'. Are you saying ALL science is bad? If so, how do you explain the advances made by such giants as Newton, Madam Curie, Einstein, Rutherford, Maxwell, Tesla, Westinghouse, Goddard, Galileo among many others?
I am however suggesting that science needs a kick up the ass. We all raise eyebrows and huff a lot when a religious nut turns up and tries to pedal his wares yet we don't take responsibility for creating our own future. It's hypocritical and I think it needs to be addressed.
With regards to what I 'have' and 'haven't' done. You'll need to win a wager to find out.
OK. Here's what I reckon. The pattern of probabilities for possible futures is contained within quantile vesicles. I reckon those vesicles are temporal loops which contain our existence and our current and known perception of this existence.
I am using homeopathy as an analogy to communicate the quantum dissolution of probability fields into a perceptive result.
13 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckAll you have is statements. You can claim you see entire universes inside your eyeball but you better be prepared to back up your claims with evidence, otherwise you are just another nut on a pulpit yelling the barometer is falling, the barometer is falling🙂
OK. Here's what I reckon. The pattern of probabilities for possible futures is contained within quantile vesicles. I reckon those vesicles are temporal loops which contain our existence and our current and known perception of this existence.
I am using homeopathy as an analogy to communicate the quantum dissolution of probability fields into a perceptive result.
13 Jul 12
16 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseNo. I am simply using occum's razor to say how the most likely theory of existence within the context of science and language can be.
All you have is statements. You can claim you see entire universes inside your eyeball but you better be prepared to back up your claims with evidence, otherwise you are just another nut on a pulpit yelling the barometer is falling, the barometer is falling🙂
It's a matter of deduction. I have then gone on to say for us to truly disprove this deduction we need to re-examine language and context.
I have read Sonhouse's links to theories of intelligence singularities and I like them alot. Kudos to Sonhouse for this link. These singularities are expected to happen within the next 30 years in the absence of a nuclear war. It is speculated therefore, should this event occur, it is not possible to predict a future beyond 100 years, 'if' an ultra-intelligent being comes into play. Whereby my theory is 'if' ultra-intelligence exacted existence, 'it'/'we' may have the capacity to create such temporal loops.
13 Jul 12
5 edits
Originally posted by Thequ1ck
OK. Here's what I reckon. The pattern of probabilities for possible futures is contained within quantile vesicles. I reckon those vesicles are temporal loops which contain our existence and our current and known perception of this existence.
I am using homeopathy as an analogy to communicate the quantum dissolution of probability fields into a perceptive result.
I am using homeopathy as an analogy to communicate the quantum dissolution of probability fields into a perceptive result.
Lol. What are you on?
You keep coming up with indecipherable statements like this again and again. I don't know how you do it.
Just for starters, what on earth do you think “quantum dissolution” means?
I know from my chemistry courses, the word “dissolution” in science normally means a substance turning into part of a solution by being dissolved in a solvent:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_%28chemistry%29
“...Dissolution is the process by which a solid, liquid or gas forms a solution in a solvent. ...”
I for one have never heard of “quantum dissolution” and I am very familiar with quantum mechanical terms so I googled it and found only nonsense ( most of it was from misprints ) and no definition so I don't see how it can have a valid meaning. Try googling “quantum dissolution” and see if you can get a definition/explanation.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12473
13 Jul 12
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou have no idea what you're talking about. Like robbie and Dasa, you're just babbling in your ignorance. You have no chance of convincing anyone except those who are as unfounded in science as yourself. Give it up.
occum's razor
Richard