« Worst Arguments | Main | How Does He Know? »

October 30, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Good point, that there is (obviously) no mechanism to sort out "beneficial" vs "harmful" effects, of anything and a fortiori homeopathic treatments. And I suppose homeopaths do believe this, but couldn't they pull a "Duhem" and just give it up? Why can't a homeopath simply give up that belief, and say that both kinds of effects get transferred on to the patient? Sure, homeopathic treatment x might cure you of disease y, but still have harmful effect z as a side effect, just like almost every known allopathic treatment. Just like in those treatments, we weigh the cure vs the side effect, and decide whether to take the treatment (which we often do). This would make homeopathy look less perfect, sure, but still "valuable", and I could even see a homeopath using this "similarity" to allopathic medicine as an argument FOR homeopathy!

Just wondering.


The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site