So the 20:23 event took place then.
You didn't know? Of course you didn't. Apart from having a name that would mean nothing to the anyone who isn't a molecular chemist, it received very little media coverage. It wouldn't have mattered if it had though. As I said some time ago, things like homoeopathy aren't really sciences, or even pseudo-sciences, they are far more like religions. You cannot convince a religious believer of the falsehood of his position with evidence and logic. Evidence and logic simply reinforce his view that he is right because religions are by definition, belief without proof. In among the bits of reporting that the event did get a spokesman for Boots said that they support calls for more research into this "treatment". Why not just read the studies already done?
Actually there's a simple answer to that last question. It would be the same answer if a thousand studies had been done, or a million. The results of the studies don't give the answer they want so they would like the studies to be done again (and again and again) until they do give the answer they want. A thousand overwhelmingly negative studies can be ignored as soon as there is one that by pure chance shows the slightest positive result. If I start selling patent medicine remedies under the brand name of "Bob's Old Quackery Pills" it won't matter if ninety-nine percent of my customers report no effect. It won't even matter if some of them get worse. As long as I can point to one who got better I can claim it as proof that my system works.
This is the problem. We can go on proving it's rubbish forever and true believers won't take a bit of notice of us.
That's the very essence of true belief.
You didn't know? Of course you didn't. Apart from having a name that would mean nothing to the anyone who isn't a molecular chemist, it received very little media coverage. It wouldn't have mattered if it had though. As I said some time ago, things like homoeopathy aren't really sciences, or even pseudo-sciences, they are far more like religions. You cannot convince a religious believer of the falsehood of his position with evidence and logic. Evidence and logic simply reinforce his view that he is right because religions are by definition, belief without proof. In among the bits of reporting that the event did get a spokesman for Boots said that they support calls for more research into this "treatment". Why not just read the studies already done?
Actually there's a simple answer to that last question. It would be the same answer if a thousand studies had been done, or a million. The results of the studies don't give the answer they want so they would like the studies to be done again (and again and again) until they do give the answer they want. A thousand overwhelmingly negative studies can be ignored as soon as there is one that by pure chance shows the slightest positive result. If I start selling patent medicine remedies under the brand name of "Bob's Old Quackery Pills" it won't matter if ninety-nine percent of my customers report no effect. It won't even matter if some of them get worse. As long as I can point to one who got better I can claim it as proof that my system works.
This is the problem. We can go on proving it's rubbish forever and true believers won't take a bit of notice of us.
That's the very essence of true belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment