What do you get when you mix homeopathy with astrology?
This.
I should say that I have to give a kudo to the author for trying to set up a scientific experiment to see what would happen, but the experiment itself is so hopelessly flawed!
In fact it’s so wrong it’s hard to know where to start. The lack of double blinding. The single blinding still being able to influence the testers. The fact that all the testers were believers, and able to influence each other. The starting supposition that a) homeopathy works, and 2) astrology works (when neither does). A lack of clear results predicted so that conclusions (either negative or positive) could be drawn. The very subjective observations. And so on.
It’s clear from the article that the homeopath/astrologer means well, and is actually curious about all this. I wonder if there is any reliable way to take that curiosity, that well-meaning intention, and redirect it toward science? If there is — besides slowly and methodically banging the drum of reason — I’d love to know. A lot of people who believe in things like homeopathy and astrology and all that really are naturally curious, intelligent people, but somewhere down the line they strayed off the narrow path that winds its way through reality, and it would be nice to find a good way to nudge them back in the right direction.
Tip o’ the precessed vial of distilled water to Krelnik.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Is it worth pointing them to Carlson’s paper “A double-blind test of astrology”, Nature, 5 December 1985? There’s no homeopathy involved, but it does demonstrate how to test pseudoscience with a double-blind and skeptical belief.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:45 am
What is Tituration?
“I read a scientific paper once and so I know if I do things like that I’ll look smarter”
October 24th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Water was exposed to a telescope? Is that even legal in Boston?
October 24th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Hey Phil. Isn’t the phrase you’re looking for “‘That’s not right. It’s not even wrong.”? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
October 24th, 2009 at 9:36 am
“Water was exposed to a telescope? Is that even legal in Boston?”
Not on Sundays.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:55 am
I’m dumber now for having read that.
I don’t get the sense the author is actually curious about anything. The entire collection of words on that page is nothing more than fragmented selections from a stoney evening among bong buddies (or people wishing they were having a stoney evening and just projecting to compensate).
I’m with Markle @4. It’s not even wrong.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I’m just worried where they’re getting “homeopathic plutonium” from…
October 24th, 2009 at 10:49 am
What if there was a way to use homeopathy to predict the future? That would be a boon to anti-scientists everywhere.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Woof. That was painful to read. You, Phil, are a mensch for having the restraint necessary to treat that article so kindly. (Perhaps too kindly. I’m wondering, why no “nofollow” on that link?)
Listen, I understand that taking a pugnacious approach to every instance of woo can feel like kicking puppies, sometimes. I know! I have friends– bright, creative, beautiful people, for whom I have a lot of love and respect– who would have fit in very comfortably with these “experimenters”. And I try to be measured, and non-confrontational in my disapproval, when things get to be a little too much. (Let’s face it, I want people to like me.) But, sometimes the line between “a little too much” and “way too much” gets crossed, and you just have call things what they are: crap.
That article, that experiment, is crap!!
October 24th, 2009 at 10:53 am
I wonder: Is this woo^woo, or just woo*woo? I’m certain it’s more than woo+woo.
October 24th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Don’t bother. There was no attempt at a scientific experiment there. I’ve read other homeopathic “provings” before, and they’re pretty much all like that.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:34 am
The guiding principle of homoeopathy appears to be “dilution gives strength” and in practise commonly available homoeopathic “remedies” are diluted to the point where the concentration of silica dioxide dissolved in the water is greater than any active ingredient. Unfortunately silica dioxide doesn’t seem to cure anything.
If homoeopathy were valid, I could cure an entire city of a particular illness merely by adding a single drop of a homoeopathic “remedy” to the water supply. What a gift to man kind, I wonder why nobody does it?
October 24th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Do you know what happens if you leave a normal bowl of water out over night, under a full moon, so the light from the moon can shine upon the water?
That’s right, you end up with a normal bowl of water with lots of dead bugs in it.
Dead bug water. Wow … the moon light DOES change a normal bowl of water, it’s magic.
October 24th, 2009 at 11:53 am
WTF?!?!?!? I made the mistake of reading the linked page. That was a startling bit of nonsense. Blarg! My brain hurts now. I’d hoped that by reading the page, I’d get some insight into homeopathy or astrology but I think I suffered brain damage instead. Seriously, it felt like the author just strung some words and phrases together and added some “methodology” and anecdotal “evidence” to make it look sciency.
These particular gems stuck out for me:
(Saturn) is a very earthy planet ruling a very earthy sign.
Saturn…helps us… or in some cases, hinders us.
What do those statements mean??? AAAAAAAAAAAHHH!!!
Sorry. I’m totally freaked out now.
I’m interested in religion and why people are religious, but this hurt!
October 24th, 2009 at 11:56 am
There might be, but I don’t think anyone has done the needed research yet. They might be on it though:
According to “denialism” blog “Unified theory of the crank” [IIRC - you have to google the blog] there is experiments where they tested how well people assess their outcome in tests. Not surprisingly, incompetent people are incompetent to judge their efforts. Uh, I guess you can call it meta-incompetence.
[To complicate matters, there is a subtle statistical effect which later research reveals. Turns out that competent people also have problems to judge their competence. It is a social process that can be thwarted.
But for all practical purposes, in normal situations competent people are competent in their judgment.]
What later research points to is that this circle of incompetence can likely, or will, be broken by incompetents learning to learn. I.e. by trying to master something simple, they will slowly bootstrap themselves to learning competence. I gather that such simple things can be to learn how to cook or how to build chairs, and learn it really well. From this anything can be possible. Even homeopaths understanding how to do experiments. (o.O)
But this is where I think the research stands. I dunno if they have checked the efficiency of such schooling. It should work, otherwise no one would be able to learn. But how feasible is it to “turn the lights on” in a crackpot’s “attic”? Obviously most of them have no incentive to be knowledgeable individuals, and are quite happy with living in a magical world that are likely in parts totally comprehensible (as they get it wrong) and n parts totally incomprehensible (as other people don’t get it wrong
).
October 24th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Yo Phil, great, keep switchin the lights on Bro,
The sun is not close.
Why should IO have affection for this earth?
Or this sun for that matter?
A Bazillion suns…
But This IS my Home…
October 24th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Found it
Incentive to be a knowledgeable individual.
October 24th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
let me give you the formula 0×0=0 besides two weeks ago I gave facts that present an error in astrology (the fact that there are 15 not 12 contellations in the zodiac astrolgers disregard 3 ) and some one accused me of being insenseitive to astrolgers I do’nt think its insenseitive to present facts it’s up to the astrolgers to answer the facts I present and not blast me for prresenting them if any astrolgers read this blog then explain why the three constellations do’nt apper on your horrascopes if as you contend the 12 have an effect would’nt the other 3 have an efect as well arent people born under these 3 as well as the 12 ?
October 24th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
This reminds me of the first chapter of the Sagan classic “Demon Haunted World”. The bright and questioning minds wasted on nonsense when science is so much more interesting.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Once again, these people have absolutely no interest in pursuing anything that requires even a modicum of intellectual rigor. For them, the made-up is so much easier to deal with than anything that would require research, corroboration, accepted science, and so on. I simply don’t understand why time is wasted on these yahoos. Their minds are already shuttered from reality. If (or when) their behavior becomes a danger to the rest of us, then we can and should take action to curb that behavior. Until then, ignore them.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
I came across this and had to pass it along. Infomania took the ghost hunting shows to task in this segment, and I couldn’t help but think you’d approve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdbZTijnaT8
October 24th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
“a kudo”?
“a kudo”?!
“Kudos” is NOT a plural!!!!1!
</word rage>
Sheesh.
Oh, and astrology and homeopathy combined is definitely woowoo.
October 24th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Phil: “. . . I have to give a kudo . . .”
That’s better than a kudzu, perhaps. Kudos is singular; kudo is an erroneous back-formation that assumes that kudos (which is sometimes used as plural) is in fact a plural.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
18. mike burkhart Says:
let me give you the formula 0×0=0 besides two weeks ago I gave facts that present an error in astrology (the fact that there are 15 not 12 contellations in the zodiac astrolgers disregard 3 ) and some one accused me of being insenseitive to astrolgers I do’nt think its insenseitive to present facts it’s up to the astrolgers to answer the facts I present and not blast me for prresenting them if any astrolgers read this blog then explain why the three constellations do’nt apper on your horrascopes if as you contend the 12 have an effect would’nt the other 3 have an efect as well arent people born under these 3 as well as the 12 ?
Cetus, the whale? I remember years ago reading a book that presented the 15 constellations (can’t find it at library web search, don’t recall title) for astrology. I thought it was interesting woo, and more interesting that it ‘violated’ the idea of ‘The Wisdom Of The Ancients’ that Bible throwers and other ‘ancient wisdom’ folks.
Also, I get BA via Google Reader, and also have an iGoogle page with a quote of the day. The one from October 15th is a good quote for why there’s woo:
Mankind have a great aversion to intellectual labor; but even supposing knowledge to be easily attainable, more people would be content to be ignorant than would take even a little trouble to acquire it.
– Samuel Johnson
J/P=?
October 24th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I don’t understand why Phil was so nice to this person.
I (unfortunately) read the linked “experiment”. I don’t know what I was really expecting other than some hilarity due to combining the nonsense of homeopathy with the absurdity of astrology, but since Phil mentioned the author “trying to set up a scientific experiment” I was at least expecting something that on some level somehow resembled something like an . . . experiment.
But it turns out it wasn’t even funny, just stupid. And now I have wasted more of my life by typing out this comment.
October 24th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
What do you get when you mix homeopathy with astrology?
Homorology
October 24th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Homeopathic science: The weaker the evidence, the stronger the proof.
October 24th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Astropathy.
- What do you get when you mix homeopathy and antimatter?
- Water antipathy.
October 24th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Homeopathic science: The weaker the evidence, the stronger the proof.
*Wipes eyes*
I enjoyed that thoroughly. Thanks.
October 24th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
What we have here is a homeopathic proving. How can you consider yourself competent to comment on homeopathy if you don’t recognize a proving when you read one?
October 24th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
How is – if at all- the “not even wrong” statement/concept related to the “vacuously true” concept in truth tables in logic?
October 24th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
If homeopathy worked why no homeopathic beer? A single drop of the real stuff could get the world drunk! And of course why isn’t every glass of water you drink instantly lethal, not to mention disgusting, given how often its been cycled and the chemicals used to treat it?
More importantly why don’t those who believe ever ask these sort of questions?
October 24th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Years ago I bought a refractor scope. At some moment in time I got a really good look at the Orion Nebula. I saw, where to the eye was only a smudge of light against the darkness, a nursery of adolescent stars wrapped in a cloak of nurturing, luminous blue. It was a Major Moment in my attempt to comprehend the universe. The sight was past moving; I was transformed.
I suppose the light must have changed my brain. Now I can only regret that I didn’t have some powdered milk to sprinkle on the eyepiece.
Damn.
Now I’ll never really know.
*evil grin*
October 24th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Darn! I was looking for a cool subject to post this latest quest to understand the origin of life. Oh well, I guess this will have to do.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427306.200-was-our-oldest-ancestor-a-protonpowered-rock.html?full=true&print=true
Quite a cool discussion of proton pumping and life.
Gee, I guess if homeopathy worked, we’d all be glowing in the dark from all the radio nucleotides dumped in our water since the Alamogordo nuc tests, three mile island, Chernobyl and atmospheric nuc testing. So, why can’t I read my book in the dark???
Gary 7
October 24th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
I wonder if they forgot to be thorough in the conduction of this experiment by forgetting to eliminate possible sources of data contamination/bias, such as the smoking of marijuana before hand?
October 25th, 2009 at 2:08 am
It doesn’t say how exactly the telescope was used…I mean, would a true homeopath really have concentrated the light of Saturn onto the “powdered milk sugar”?
October 25th, 2009 at 7:01 am
what a mess…
October 25th, 2009 at 9:17 am
This paragraph:
explains a great deal.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:19 am
them Homeo-paths are tryin to turn me Homeo-sekshul!
October 25th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“I wonder if there is any reliable way to take that curiosity, that well-meaning intention, and redirect it toward science?”
Teach appropriate methods of scientific experimentation to the well-intentioned.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@ JakeR (23. )
Kudos is singular; kudo is an erroneous back-formation that assumes that kudos (which is sometimes used as plural) is in fact a plural.
“Peas porridge hot.
Peas porridge cold.
Peas porridge in the pot, nine days old.” -nursery rhyme.
There was a time when “peas” was singular, but like “kudos” fell into a wrong correction of which we have never recovered. Now we have one pea, and two peas. Also, we make pea soup instead of peas porridge.
A living language changes; only the dead ones remain intact.
October 26th, 2009 at 1:17 am
I believe it was Isaac Asimov who lamented once that at a news stand he saw 22 titles on Astrology and only 2 on Astronomy.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Human life is hardly 100 years. Any astronomy related developments (like mankind leaving the earth and settling on a different planet/solar system/galaxy) will take 1000s of years. So people are more interested to know something good or bad that is going to happen to them today or tommorrow and not what will happen after 1000s of years. Astrology is the solution here. Irrespective of whether its right or wrong, Astrology offers comfort to people during their short duration of existence.
Astronomy is just a ‘nice to know’ thing for majority not a ‘need to know’ thing. Hence Astrology will always score over Astronomy.
October 26th, 2009 at 3:08 am
Actually the answer to “What do you get when you mix homeopathy with astrology?” was discussed on the BA forum in 2006.
http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/46224-homeopastrology.html
October 26th, 2009 at 4:44 am
Saturn only provides reflected light, thereby filtering out many of the harmonics of a full light spectrum. I recommend that looking at the original light (SOL) source directly, through a telescope will shine light where it may never reach otherwise.
Also ancient light is much closer to the primordial creation, so focusing on the old galaxy just found that is > 14 thousand million years old may provide even more powerful woo to a mixture of sugars.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:40 am
Someone should publish a set of do-it-yourself science experiments involving homeopathy, astrology, prayer, tarot, ESP, and maybe a few more. They could design the tests fairly and scientifically, yet easy enough that anyone could run them. Maybe they’d start popping up in high school science fairs. Wouldn’t that be something. Imagine forcing the people who believe this stuff to answer a kid’s question “What is wrong with this test, because it didn’t work?”
October 26th, 2009 at 10:15 am
Thats funny but how bout this do it yourslef alien auttopicy kit comes with one dead alien made of latex and insterments sure to get a kid an A in a psuedoscience fair (I remember a toy line called “mad scientist” did have a toy called disect an alien in the 80s)
October 26th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
I’m reminded of the the story on the Skeptic’s Dictionary page on Applied Kinesiology: http://www.skepdic.com/akinesiology.html
After several demonstrations of how the body could tell the difference between a ‘good’ sugar and a ‘bad’ sugar, somebody set up a double-blind test, so that even the applied kinesiology supporters didn’t know which was which. The result:
October 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
47. mike burkhart Says:
Thats funny but how bout this do it yourslef alien auttopicy kit comes with one dead alien made of latex and insterments sure to get a kid an A in a psuedoscience fair (I remember a toy line called “mad scientist” did have a toy called disect an alien in the 80s)
There was also an Alien Autopsy game based on the classic ‘Operation’. I had it but gave it away as one of the ‘Christmas Gift/Secret Santa’ gifts at work a few years ago.
J/P=?
October 27th, 2009 at 6:46 am
@ Mike Burkhart (18 et al.) -
Please please please use punctuation in your comments. I actually can’t read what you have posted because it gets too hard to parse out meaning from the unbroken string of words.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:05 am
JakeR (23) said:
I would go even further.
Kudos is “stuff” not a “thing”. Therefore, it disregards singular / plural formations.
To exemplify:
Could you ever have “a sea-water”? Could you ever have “a panache”? No! By the same token, kudos is kudos and it has no relevance to singular / plural constructs.
Having said all that, I think Phil was actually just playing with the language for comedic effect.
Some aspects of English are really simple, but they seem to be the ones where people make most errors (such as apostrophe use and “less” versus “fewer”).
October 27th, 2009 at 9:11 am
Prolix (30) said:
Because:
(1) The described procedure proved nothing;
(2) We all live in the same universe and are therefore stuck with the same laws of physics and chemistry; hence,
(3) Anyone with some genuine knowledge of chemistry or pharmacology is qualified to comment on homeopathy.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Mike Mullen (32) said:
These are perfectly valid questions.
However, the homeopaths will answer this with some mumbo-jumbo about what they call “succussion” – that’s the way in which they bash the container when they are diluting a “remedy”. Homeopaths allege that without the succussion, the “remedy” has no power.
AFAIK, no homeopath has seriously tried to demonstrate this.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Gary Ansorge (34) said:
Erm, I think you meant “radionuclides”.
Nucleotides are the organic building blocks of nucleic acids (comprising a base, a pentose sugar and one, two or three phosphate groups).
A radionuclide is the general term for radioactive isotopes of elements, when one is discussing more than one element. If discussing a single element, the term “radioisotopes” is more likely to be used.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:29 am
This bit:
suggests that these people have never worked with finely-divided powders before. It is common to see small air currents lift faint but visible puffs of very fine particles from a finely-divided powder.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:39 am
Bahdum (41) said:
Except that the nursery rhyme refers to pease pudding, made not from garden peas but from split peas. Pease was indeed once a singular noun, but that does not change the qualitative difference between a pea / two peas / many peas and some kudos. Your analogy is not valid.
While languages indeed change, they either change through a consensual process, or they split into multiple languages (which is what appears to be happening to English in places like India and Singapore – the form of English spoken there is sufficiently different from English English that a native English-speaker would only understand a fraction of it).
They do not change by one person getting something wrong.
Having said that, I will reiterate that I think Phil was knowingly playing with the language when he wrote “a kudo”.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:18 am
[...] Wissenschaftsblogger (inklusive mir).« und »Homöopathen tun sich mit Astrologen zusammen um potenzierte Planetenstrahlung zu [...]
October 28th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
words,words,words.
Where are all of the Truly smart people?