I am not sure what you are saying here. I am asking what would change your mind. That is, what sort of evidence would suggest to that homeopathy was just a placebo?

First define placebo. I’ve argued elsewhere that a significant measure of homeopathy’s efficacy falls into the realms of what’s presently defined somewhat dismissively as ‘placebo’, but that what’s presently defined as placebo fails to recognise and accommodate potentially highly effective mechanisms of healing that are non-specific in action.

But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose that what you mean by ‘placebo’ is essentially a non-treatment. Something which by any current theoretical understanding, whether or not scientifically ‘proven’, conventional or otherwise, can in no way imaginable impact the course of pathology. Let’s say it’s represented by a plain and simple lactose tablet, unmedicated by any homeopathic potency and which, in the practitioner’s mind, has no imputed correlation whatsoever with anything else: no intent, no feeling, no understanding of any medicinal substance. It’s nothing more or less than what it is: a plain and simple lactose tablet.

For me to change my mind, it would be necessary for you to demonstrate that such a plain and simple lactose tablet is capable of producing identical reactions to those I’ve described — immediate, dramatic and permanent cessation of all symptoms of a complaint — with equivalent frequency to that observed in homeopathic practice. You would need to demonstrate this effect in acute life-threatening circumstances where the situation is worsening by the moment and this is the only treatment applied, You would also need to demonstrate it in chronic conditions of many years’ duration which have so far failed to respond to any other treatment. Then I would accept that homeopathic treatment is equivalent to placebo.

As for finding a trusted third party, it ought to be fairly easy. Good grief. If the reason you do not want to take part is because you cannot get in contact with a priest, a teacher, a policeman, councillor or some other figure we can mutually agree is unlikely to cheat then you have a very cynical view of the world. All you have to do is find someone who is less likely to cheat than the experiment giving a false positive. Not too hard.

You evidence a surprising degree of naïve trust in the power of a professional label to guarantee honesty in its practitioners Andy. Hmmm … that pegs you as a bit older (or maybe more old-fashioned) than I took you for. My personal experience (and numerous media reports would seem to confirm it) is that nowadays practitioners of these professions evidence no greater degree of incorruptibility on average than any other. Be that as it may, it wasn’t really my point.

This is about establishing a level playing field. You’ve issued this ‘challenge’ to homeopaths directly and personally, stating that you and other sceptics would find it more convincing than all the trial data, clinical data and case history out there. You may feel, out of some self-righteous belief that your vision of reality justifies it, that homeopaths ‘owe’ you some kind of demonstration of ‘proof’ and that therefore they should make all the concessions, take all the risks and do all the work. I’m afraid I don’t see it that way. I’m largely satisfied with the evidence base for homeopathy, although much work still needs to be done to find out how it works. Frankly, in the light of the fact that 90% of pharmaceutical drugs which successfully pass clinical trials only work for 30-50% of people they’re prescribed for, and that 20% of them have to be subsequently recalled on safety grounds, I find your faith in the quality of evidence produced by clinical trials intriguing to say the least. All very nice in theory, but in (clinical) practice real life doesn’t seem to conform to those expectations or support those conclusions. Ooops.

So as far as I’m concerned, this personal challenge is just that. Personal. And having made it such, I think it’s only fair for you to be in the same position any homeopath who takes part is going to be in. It puts your ’scepticism’ on the line just as much as my ability to distinguish one homeopathic remedy from another, and all the issues of trust that go along with it. I’ve said I’ll meet you half way. If you take part, I will. Are you up for this? Or not?

My intention was to show that what was “highly unlikely” to you, was to me, but a technical matter. I can add that the stems could be burst with a microwave device that could be built on the kitchen table. The soil or roots could be treated in the same way. Not too difficult.

That’s certainly plausible, though experiments to replicate these effects have evidently not been too successful so far, even with a temporary lab on-site and time to plan the execution of the circle. But it begs the question why. If all crop circles are man-made and you already have a gullible captive audience who can never discover the truth of the matter so long as you keep your mouth shut, why over-complicate things by introducing a whole series of anomalies that require you to lug around several pieces of additional equipment and spend more time risking discovery creating them? And do that consistently for at least 15 years in order to perpetuate the myth?

Suppressed Science’s variation is to caricature science, and then note as ‘uncharacteristic’ the evidence that exposes that caricature. It is its best weapon.

Well I’d say that was a subjective judgement which relies on a certain set of questionable foundational beliefs in order to support its conclusions. I wouldn’t say Suppressed Science caricatured science. Merely presented alternative rationales to conventional lines of reasoning which, based on the data, are no less plausible. It’s all in the eyes of the beholder.

Essentially any argument involving circular self-referential logic can be made to look like a straw man. Since all arguments are to some extent circular and self-referential, it’s arguably as redundant an argument as the straw man is in the first place. We may as well just go dance in a crop circle with a bunch of scarecrows for all the good it does.

Perhaps to say “There are more things ON THIS earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”

Suppressed Science uses an interesting mixture of whining and bluster to attack science. It is a museum of false arguments.

From Dennett,
“In the first stage, you create the strawman, and “refute” it (everybody knows that trick). Second (this is the stroke of genius), you yourself draw attention to the evidence that you have taken the first step–the evidence that your opponents don’t in fact hold the view you have attributed to them–but interpret these citations as their grudging concessions to your attack!” (Dennett, 1993, p43)

Suppressed Science’s variation is to caricature science, and then note as ‘uncharacteristic’ the evidence that exposes that caricature. It is its best weapon.

The sort of evidence that would induce me to think again about the evidence, as opposed to the theory explaining the evidence, would be for the times when homeopathy produces instantaneous, dramatic, complete and permanent cessation of all symptoms of a serious, even life-threatening, condition to cease to occur.

I am not sure what you are saying here. I am asking what would change your mind. That is, what sort of evidence would suggest to that homeopathy was just a placebo?

As for finding a trusted third party, it ought to be fairly easy. Good grief. If the reason you do not want to take part is because you cannot get in contact with a priest, a teacher, a policeman, councillor or some other figure we can mutually agree is unlikely to cheat then you have a very cynical view of the world. All you have to do is find someone who is less likely to cheat than the experiment giving a false positive. Not too hard.

The reason I remain confident for the present that there is a ‘genuine’ phenomenon amidst all the increasing human ingenuity in creating these designs is that there are effects which have not been satisfactorily explained, some of which I experienced first hand in the first circle I visited with no foreknowledge of these effects. I subsequently learned that what I and others in my family experienced are common observations. I’ve visited other circles expecting to experience the same again, and had nothing happen at all, so I hardly think those effects were all my own creation.

Direct experience of an unexplained phenomenon is usually sufficient to make most people question an accepted rationale that precludes any such possibility, particularly if they experience it in a variety of different circumstances which lead them to reject other suggested rationales. It’s the same with homeopathy. The effects we witness in homeopathy are not amenable to the suggestion that there’s nothing in the method capable of producing results which can sometimes seem little short of miraculous. I guess you’ve just got to experience it for yourself to appreciate what I mean.

I think that is a key differentiator between sceptics and homeopaths. Sceptics can be quite clear about what sort of thing would show they are wrong. I have yet to hear a homeopath articulate the sort of evidence that might be reasonably collected and make them think again. I think this is the difference between being ‘open minded’ and ‘close minded.’

You can’t have been reading very thoroughly then (though I guess you can be forgiven for that — I do go on a bit!). But I’ll say it again just to be clear. The sort of evidence that would induce me to think again about the evidence, as opposed to the theory explaining the evidence, would be for the times when homeopathy produces instantaneous, dramatic, complete and permanent cessation of all symptoms of a serious, even life-threatening, condition to cease to occur. As Walach says, “These are sometimes so quick and strong that only the blind and intransigent could attribute them to chance, placebo, wishful thinking, or deceit. ” These reactions don’t occur in every case, but they occur often enough to be well beyond the bounds of any kind of ‘coincidence’.

I do not want to take part for the sole reason that mere participation would mean that most homeopaths would be too distrustful. I would take part if I thought the result could stand on its own merits. This would require trust that I do not think is there and so the only way out is for me not to take part.

Well I could say exactly the same thing Andy. If you don’t take part, then no matter what protocol is initially agreed, if the results were positive then the apparent consensus sceptic opinion that all homeopaths are basically frauds would prevail. Where does that leave us? Where’s this mythical “mutually trustworthy third party” going to come from?

There has to be trust in the process for the results to be accepted. Implying fraud is the easy way out. It allows anyone to preserve their metaphor at the expense of the evidence … which is exactly what’s been going on in respect of the evidence base for homeopathy anyway.

You can of course hide behinds the false shield of pretending you do not have to prove anything to anyone. But that is exactly what your critics are accusing you of. When taking into your care customers with potentially serious illnesses, your critics are saying you should be doing that with a robust evidence base behind you, especially when your mode of treatment appears to be so implausible. This test is a tiny step forward in showing that you do appreciate evidence.

There is no hiding going on here because there is a robust evidence base for homeopathy! Just because a small minority of fundamentalist scientists refuse to countenance the validity of any evidence that’s not a clinical trial doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. The trial data are not negative either. Only one out of 6 (not 5 as Goldacre asserts) meta-analyses have concluded no effect beyond placebo and that study is severely flawed. The trial data are equivocal — usually taken to be a sign that there is insufficient understanding or control of the variables — and taken in the context of the wider evidence base, would indicate only that the full effect of the therapy doesn’t reside solely in the remedy.

The trial data only appear to support the null hypothesis if you assume that the therapy’s ‘implausibility’ by current standards of theory means it’s impossible, but that’s putting the theory before the evidence.

Lmso, he’s a prankster. What he says thrice is true!

To M Simpson you wrote:
“M just because I say I give all kinds of ideas house room doesn’t mean I subscribe to them! You asked is there anything which you and I can agree on as being loony tunes?”

No, you can take on all ideas that you wish. The arguments posted in support of an idea may be questioned without taking any prior stance, or believing you to be an idiot.

“The patterns are too precise…..On hilly terrain, the lay is adjusted for the terrain so the geometry is perfect when viewed from the air.”
…….lines in some formations have been only 6″ wide — too narrow for a human to walk along”

The degree of wonder goes to the observer’s technical knowledge. Recently, I saw a pavement artist preparing an image, which from a distance, looked three-dimensional. He used a grid on the pavement to map pre-distorted, computer-generated images.
It would not be difficult to do something similar in a cornfield. GPS could provide the few critical co-ordinates, and string the remainder. The measurement and production process could be engineered to minimize the time.
Tightrope walkers are evidence that narrow paths are no obstacle. A little practice with a balancing pole, (probably useful for other purposes) and the problem is solved.
Science does not need to test its underlying assumptions to explain or solve such trivial problems.

The reason for the escalation in design is prosaic. Originally, hoaxers were content to make the circles and say nothing, but that wore a bit thin. They decided to confess, knowing this admission would result in an explosion of copycats.
The next step was to rekindle the idea of mystical origins by making a few anomalous circles that would stand out against the background, thus attracting the attention of researchers. There is nothing more attractive to alt.science than the exception.
New features, such as apparently unnecessary complex folds, are are introduced. Imagination and speculation does the rest.

The formation of spurious elements such as odd bends and twists are always arguable, but I can suppose how they could be made.

It is not necessary to do everything in one night as the hoaxers lead their quarry to believe.
In the early summer, when nobody is watching and the corn is still growing, selected areas of corn could be scarred or otherwise manipulated so as to produce an otherwise inexplicable effect when fully grown or folded.

Trying to reverse engineer crop-circles is like trying to unravel a magician’s trick by observing only the end result.
Many of David Copperfield’s grand illusions exploit a very simple idea. The audience does not see the trick, and David Copperfield KNOWS that they probably won’t. Hoaxers know well their prey.

Before Bower and Chorley’s admission, crop-circle researchers did not even consider the idea that “such complexity” could have been produced with a board and rope.

“The act of making the patterns does demand intelligence….”
Snowflakes

I do not want to take part for the sole reason that mere participation would mean that most homeopaths would be too distrustful. I would take part if I thought the result could stand on its own merits. This would require trust that I do not think is there and so the only way out is for me not to take part.

The result of the test would not be picked to bits if the protocol was agreed in advance. That is why I say that the test must be public and be clear in its aims and methods before the test is carried out. The most obvious source of problems is in blinding, so that is why selecting a mutually acceptable trustworthy third party is so important. Do the test right and there can be no post-test nit picking.

You can of course hide behinds the false shield of pretending you do not have to prove anything to anyone. But that is exactly what your critics are accusing you of. When taking into your care customers with potentially serious illnesses, your critics are saying you should be doing that with a robust evidence base behind you, especially when your mode of treatment appears to be so implausible. This test is a tiny step forward in showing that you do appreciate evidence.

Firstly, yes I know you will distrust me. I am not really happy to be the ‘third party’. If you pass the test then the other sceptics will trust me – good for you, but if you do not pass then everyone will be convinced I cheated.

And if you don’t take part in this and I do pass the test then all the sceptics will be convinced I cheated. Where does that leave us? If I’m going to step up to the plate and put my metaphor and reputation on the line, then it seems only fair that you do the same.

Secondly, I intend to play no role in the actual test. It will be your test to prove to sceptics that what homeopaths say is real.

So not only do you want homeopaths to take part in your test, but you want them to organise it all for you too?! So that if they pass then you can all have fun shooting the methodology to pieces and accusing everyone involved of fraud? Looks to me like the sceptics not only want their cake and eat it but aren’t prepared to put their money where their mouth is.

Changing your minds is your prerogative and responsibility, not mine. I started this blog to help put the record straight about the lies and disinformation being spread about homeopathy in the name of ’science’, not to try and change minds that have no interest in changing. Everyone’s entitled to their own views and their own choices in life. I’m happy with mine. Presumably you’re reasonably content with yours. I’m prepared to meet you half way on this, but I’m damned if, in addition to going through the necessary pain and discomfort involved in identifying the remedies, I’m going to organise the thing and take all the risk on it as well. You’ll have to do better than that, Andy.

About my challenge then,

First of all, it is great that you think this might be worth ‘giving it a go’. If you are serious about exploring this then why not start a new post where it can be discussed. There are, though, a few things that you do not look too clear about.

Firstly, yes I know you will distrust me. I am not really happy to be the ‘third party’. If you pass the test then the other sceptics will trust me – good for you, but if you do not pass then everyone will be convinced I cheated.

Secondly, I intend to play no role in the actual test. It will be your test to prove to sceptics that what homeopaths say is real. I only suggest that you involve sceptics in discussing the details so that you can be confident they will accept your result should you pass.

Thirdly, yes – there are not too many details because I want to give you the best chance possible of winning. I do not want to put unneccesary hurdles in the way. All I really ask is that sufficient precautions are taken to ensure blinding and that you publicise in advance that you are doing the test and what you intend to do.

As for choosing the third party, I have not named one as that will depend on the homeopath(s) doing the test. A recommend someone who has a professional standing – a teacher perhaps – understand the importance of blinding and has no vested interests in the outcome .The third party should be able to verify what they did and how – after the trial.