GG news of the World

[Rod Paradise]

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

I'm calling FOUL here as well, I've yet to see a proper Homoeopathy study where they have passed a peer review on their methods - so I sincerely doubt the *very*  (especially when the studies AVOID trying the placebo to check for placebo effect when proper studies do include it).

Very good, the central issue was the placebo effect.
However O'Brien's complaint that 'IT'S JUST WATER' puts him in the same camp as those who rejected the findings on the 'a priori' principle that if you can't demonstrate the same broad mechanism as common medicines (molecular action) it must be crap. To reject based on such a principle is really bad empirical science. If such an approach was valid, quantum mechanics could have been rejected right at the start. eg *Nothing travels faster than the speed of light* *Nothing comes from nothing* *If you know where everthing is and what forces are involved, you can say where everything will be in the next stage*. All common sense assumptions, just like 'molecules are the vehicle of chemical action', all widely held, all wrong.

LOL - But surely to state that *very* best scientist studies have suggested it worked, given that you know the flaws in those very studies, puts you further past the 'trusted opinion on science' pale than Mr O'Brien's bit of deserved (in my view) comic criticism of those charlatans who claim that it works?

And let's face it IT IS JUST FECKING WATER.

If a bunch of bog standard scientists had come up with experimental results that seemed to fly in the face of common sense, reason, and other empirical data, the first things you would suggest would be that their methodology, measurement or results were wrong. Less likely to find these in a near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist with many successful drugs to his name. So instead of attacking his methods, some attacked the very notion that he could be right, since it just appeared to be water. And water has no memory.

Sorry - but we're on story time here.

You seem to expect us to believe your story just as you expect us to believe 'near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist' when you have showed your method to be flawed and instead are relying on anecdotal evidence & then crying 'foul they want reality'.

IF your genius chemist used placebos as a control and followed normal scientific controls which are there for a reason then why wouldn't his study be accepted? Did he?

I'd also have trouble trusting a chemist making medical claims, since medicine is not (or should not be) a study of chemistry & biology but should take into account psychology as well. Hence the requirement to test for placebos.

So far Manuel:

Excellent post (esp the psychology medicine bit), and nice vid lol. I'm not trying to show he's right as a scientist, I'm trying to show that the reasons to reject him 'a la O' Brien' are wrong. 'The mechanism of medicinal action (and psychological action as well), is *molecular*. We found something that appears to have an effect without a molecular action, therefore reject it. This is the wrong approach. Quantum mechanics is a perfect analogy, it flies in the face of all Classical Physics assumptions, but remains right. You could reject it 'a priori' in just the same way that the 'Memory of Water' is rejected. Shame on you.

Shame on you Manuel - you are guilty of trying to pass of flawed studies as studies by *very* respected scientists as evidence then when the flaw is pointed out you try to breeze past it with a well done.

You argue about bad empirical science without seeming to grasp that your quantum physics example has been proven empirically (enough to show that there is something beyond the molecule) - that's why people believe it even if they don't understand it. NOTHING you have quoted shows anything to back up such a claim for Homoeopathy.

You then try to force the bluff with a near Nobel-Laureate (what is that  - one in the next lab to a REAL Nobel-Laureate?) chemist - and when pulled up on the scientist-dropping present with a wiki-paste about a medical scientist.

GUYS - I'm calling TROLL here. Better things to do.

[boldie]

Yeah, I'd have to go with Rod and say troll is the most likely.

Still tilts me though.

BTW, where the F is Boshi?

[Manuel]

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

I'm calling FOUL here as well, I've yet to see a proper Homoeopathy study where they have passed a peer review on their methods - so I sincerely doubt the *very*  (especially when the studies AVOID trying the placebo to check for placebo effect when proper studies do include it).

Very good, the central issue was the placebo effect.
However O'Brien's complaint that 'IT'S JUST WATER' puts him in the same camp as those who rejected the findings on the 'a priori' principle that if you can't demonstrate the same broad mechanism as common medicines (molecular action) it must be crap. To reject based on such a principle is really bad empirical science. If such an approach was valid, quantum mechanics could have been rejected right at the start. eg *Nothing travels faster than the speed of light* *Nothing comes from nothing* *If you know where everthing is and what forces are involved, you can say where everything will be in the next stage*. All common sense assumptions, just like 'molecules are the vehicle of chemical action', all widely held, all wrong.

LOL - But surely to state that *very* best scientist studies have suggested it worked, given that you know the flaws in those very studies, puts you further past the 'trusted opinion on science' pale than Mr O'Brien's bit of deserved (in my view) comic criticism of those charlatans who claim that it works?

And let's face it IT IS JUST FECKING WATER.

If a bunch of bog standard scientists had come up with experimental results that seemed to fly in the face of common sense, reason, and other empirical data, the first things you would suggest would be that their methodology, measurement or results were wrong. Less likely to find these in a near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist with many successful drugs to his name. So instead of attacking his methods, some attacked the very notion that he could be right, since it just appeared to be water. And water has no memory.

Sorry - but we're on story time here.

You seem to expect us to believe your story just as you expect us to believe 'near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist' when you have showed your method to be flawed and instead are relying on anecdotal evidence & then crying 'foul they want reality'.

IF your genius chemist used placebos as a control and followed normal scientific controls which are there for a reason then why wouldn't his study be accepted? Did he?

I'd also have trouble trusting a chemist making medical claims, since medicine is not (or should not be) a study of chemistry & biology but should take into account psychology as well. Hence the requirement to test for placebos.

So far Manuel:

Excellent post (esp the psychology medicine bit), and nice vid lol. I'm not trying to show he's right as a scientist, I'm trying to show that the reasons to reject him 'a la O' Brien' are wrong. 'The mechanism of medicinal action (and psychological action as well), is *molecular*. We found something that appears to have an effect without a molecular action, therefore reject it. This is the wrong approach. Quantum mechanics is a perfect analogy, it flies in the face of all Classical Physics assumptions, but remains right. You could reject it 'a priori' in just the same way that the 'Memory of Water' is rejected. Shame on you.

Shame on you Manuel - you are guilty of trying to pass of flawed studies as studies by *very* respected scientists as evidence then when the flaw is pointed out you try to breeze past it with a well done.

You argue about bad empirical science without seeming to grasp that your quantum physics example has been proven empirically (enough to show that there is something beyond the molecule) - that's why people believe it even if they don't understand it. NOTHING you have quoted shows anything to back up such a claim for Homoeopathy.

You then try to force the bluff with a near Nobel-Laureate (what is that  - one in the next lab to a REAL Nobel-Laureate?) chemist - and when pulled up on the scientist-dropping present with a wiki-paste about a medical scientist.

GUYS - I'm calling TROLL here. Better things to do.

Read my words again *SLOWLY* and you'll see that once again you totally fail to grasp the content of my post, instead twisting it so that you can attack it with poorly-rehearsed arguments.

[Manuel]

Better things to do.

Internet homeopathy argument>>>donkeyporn imo

[boldie]

Sigh. So, in simple words, what is your argument? I haven't really seen you make one. You're just saying that a comedian is wrong when he says homeopathy is a load of bollocks. Yet you don't offer any evidence that states that it's not bollocks.

[Doobs]

NUTS

[Manuel]

Sigh. So, in simple words, what is your argument? I haven't really seen you make one. You're just saying that a comedian is wrong when he says homeopathy is a load of bollocks. Yet you don't offer any evidence that states that it's not bollocks.

No, I repeatedly said that I did not take issue with him that homeopathy was bollocks, I said that I take issue with his a priori position that he shares with many scientists, viz that homeopathy should be rejected because 'after all, it is just water, and drug-medicinal action happens via molecules, and there are no new molecules here'. Instead of saying THERE CAN BE NO EFFECT they should say 'THERE MAY BE A NEW MECHANISM OF EFFECT THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND'.
There could be two conclusions to the homeophathy debate
1) It really works
2) It's bollocks

But it will always remain true that rejecting a scientific finding because you enter the scientific process with *assumptions that the experiment then seems to challenge* is right up there with the closed-mindedness of religious belief. As an analogy of this closed-mindedness, I suggested that the findings of early quantum mechanics would have appeared complete and utter nonsense to those pursuing research at the time on the basis of Classical Physics. This was an 'a priori' argument. Rob, however, with his really poor ability to see points of view that don't mesh perfectly with his own, translated this into an 'a posteriori' argument where 'the poorly understood but true empirical findings of quantum mechanics cannot be used as an analogy for scientific studies of homeopathy. Then in another of his wild tantrums starts pulling the 'troll' card wtf.
[ ] GCSE Biology and the odd flick through of 'New Scientist' = substitute for substantial formal scientific education. Ciao.

[boldie]

I reckon that Dara is closer to the truth when he says "It's bollocks" than any homeopathy believing "scientist" has ever been with "It really works"!
If it really worked you'd think there would be something more than theories that have consistently been found out.

The "water memory" theory is not the same as the quantum mechanics debate from years ago in that it doesn't just take place on a theoratical level but people have been trying to prove it and consistently failed to do so. This is not theoretical science.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_memory sums it up very nicely.


Water memory has effectively been disproved and therefore I really think your entire argument, that Dara, and scientists, shouldn't discard the idea, essentially doesn't hold and can be written off as a load of bollocks as well.

[boldie]

Thread back on track;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14346050

MP apologises to Piers. Reckon she should get the sack now? (Personally I think everyone who hides behind parliamentary privilige when making comments in an effort to score some cheap points should be sacked TBH)
Or is this just a result of a newspaper all of a sudden coming out with stories about her using coke and Morgan having shown who's the boss now?

[kukushkin88]

Thread back on track;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14346050

MP apologises to Piers. Reckon she should get the sack now? (Personally I think everyone who hides behind parliamentary privilige when making comments in an effort to score some cheap points should be sacked TBH)
Or is this just a result of a newspaper all of a sudden coming out with stories about her using coke and Morgan having shown who's the boss now?

On Desert Island Discs he bangs on and on and on about phone hacking being the norm and everyone did it so it was fine. He citied very specific examples of when it was done, the man is a complete prick. Only Richard Littlejohn, Paul Dacre and Clarkson ahead of him in britain's dumbest journalistic prick contest.

[boldie]

Thread back on track;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14346050

MP apologises to Piers. Reckon she should get the sack now? (Personally I think everyone who hides behind parliamentary privilige when making comments in an effort to score some cheap points should be sacked TBH)
Or is this just a result of a newspaper all of a sudden coming out with stories about her using coke and Morgan having shown who's the boss now?

On Desert Island Discs he bangs on and on and on about phone hacking being the norm and everyone did it so it was fine. He citied very specific examples of when it was done, the man is a complete prick. Only Richard Littlejohn, Paul Dacre and Clarkson ahead of him in britain's dumbest journalistic prick contest.

Completely agree with you (though I love Clarkson TBH) funny though that now that stories are being leaked about eh MP she immediately backs off

[Bongo]

Well it seems she was wrong so fair enough that she should apologise. Doesn't mean Morgan is innocent though just that she misread the evidence in that particular case.

[pokerfan]

News International paying the Dowler family £2 million.

http://news.sky.com/home/article/16072953