In part one of this series I issued a challenge to the world’s first Professor of Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Edzard Ernst, to prove his assertion that homeopathic are placebos by proving it by his own standards of what constitutes science: For every report of verum, show us one for placebo.
In part two I present the sole ad hominem assertion for the action of homeopathics.
In this part, I examine the claim for placebo more closely, present its solvent, and call for the question, challenging the opponents of homeopathy to create in a dialectic worthy of the academia he represents. if you can’t prove placebo, then stop making that assertion and start asking relevant questions.
We know the assertions of condemned evidence are never taken easily by invested reputations, and we know you know it. So why must we take each other as idiots?
If one someone says he has seen something you consider to be implasuible, you are well within your rights not to believe him. But if million subscribe to it, even scientists, who understand that it is implausible, then it bears further inspection. It deserves a personal test. But I don’t see that happening. Ernst won’t drink the dilute Kool Aid. He will not conduct a proving. Remember what he said? After more than a million dollars sunk into him and his program, he doesn’t have enough money to conduct one.
In the skepticism of Edzard Ernst, are his assertions evoked from global standards, or are they local? What are his criteria for a scientific study? Can he contrast the failing of tests for homeopathy to similar tests for allopathic pharmaceuticals?
If he’s so sure of his position, then he should have no problem in asking basic questions about it.
What dimensions does he see for homeopathy? Why does he not include the biochemical tests in his review of homeopathy?
Aside from alleging placebo, Edzard Ernst’s quest is to dismiss selective evidence qualitatively without naming crtieria, and to ignore the rest.
Within his arguments there are a few hidden assumptions, as there must be in any a priori allegation. This trundles along benignly, but it is missing something. A skeptic who applies his Pyrrhic node globally doesn’t have much to say except “cast thy shadow not on me, the truth cannot be known by any man, it is all for naught.”
Well, if Ernst were to do that we could all admire him, give him some wine and leave him alone in his barrel. But it doesn’t end there. Ernst, like every local skeptic with a positive assertion must ineviatbly succumb to barrel fever and come boiling out of it with his own hypocritcal version of the truth: Ernst says that the effects of homeopathics are due to “placebo.” That is his sole, ill-defined, vague thesis. That is the one incontrovertible statement of hard fisted, sure-to-the-bone belief of this “master scientist.” He knows from study, logic and law that homeopathics must have the avenue of the human mind to work their thaumaturgy, that they are not idiopathic substances like coals that lie alone in the pit and glow, no! They must have the engine and fire of the intellect to work their magic, for they have no power alone without the bellows of delusion.
However, there is a huge difference between the criteria in the case for homeopathy and the case against it.
In the case for it, the propositions are supported by trial, error and classical scientific terms. His are supported by little more than the criticisms he has levied on the evidence for verum.
His is a circular argument. It feeds on its own solipsism. We show him evidence, he denies it on grounds that there is no theory to support it. We show him theory and he denies it on the basis that there is no evidence to support it. And why is that again? Because there is no accepted theory in science to support he evidence . . yeah, but didn’t we just say . .
“NO!” he shouts.
Do you see the hypocrisy of his argument?
The deciding factor should be found in the specificity of the case. The truth has a rolling detail to it that in inspection gains in resolution, definition and concordance. Seven different types of biochemical tests logically dissolves the placbeo hyptohesis. Intermoelcular forces that constitute polymeric crystalliferous liquid aqueous structuring and the ensuing piezo electric effect define the theory of action.
The lies, however, that physical and dynamic indices don’t exist, that action is solely that of a placebo, lacks a corollary, is full of contradictions and is idiopathic.
But homeopathy is not idiopathic, not like its opponents want us to think. Homeopathy can not stand apart from science, and a diligent inspection of it shows that it does not. Homeopathy can be explained using current scientific terms, found mostly in supramolecular and crystal chemistry.
Next, a comparison of Edzard Ernst to Christian Science.