You mean the kind of fundamentalism that wants to force (proper and self-proclaimed) medical practitioners to stick to the facts?

The dictatorship of unbiased evidence?

I feel your pain. What a cruel world.

Daniel

Bayes ideas are great for spam filters, but really quite bad for predicting weather and seismic events.

Considering how badly statistics are being used these days to gather health data, I don’t predict much better for the health industry. Whether it is the Tamoxifen study stoppage (the canceled the study because they thought there were signs the treatment worked, but you wouldn’t be able to tell if the treatment worked until the end of the study), Cell phones non-studies (how many times do you have to get negative results on a ubiquitous product to know their is nothing there), or pthalates in babies, the quality of the data is so abused as to make any future analysis nonsensical.

The software will constantly adapt for marketing purposes, but there is a feedback mechanism that will eat itself in the end.

This does beg a product though. Tie your statistics to a consumer database, tie your phone into it while you talk to the customer service of any of these companies and the “product” provides you with next best step information. We can make computers talk to each other with you and the call tech as mouthpieces.

Add to this the fact that the execs of company don’t know anything about statistics either and what you really have is a bunch of Silver Bullet, Quacks, etc bamboozling each other as to the pertinence of their Next Best Action system.

Good story though.

I very much appreciate the time and trouble that you have taken here. I’m going to start with the bat paper as I’ve found it easily plus it isn’t too long:

http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat

It should be a gentle way into a complex subject as I’ve often wondered about these creatures as they sometimes swoop just over my head in the garden early in the evening.
I’ve heard about Dennett and he is going to be heavier but I will be having a go. Thanks for telling me about Jerry Fodor.
Regards to you

Dennnet’s major book is “Consciousness Explained’. This book was published in 1991 and he has since revised his ‘multiple drafts’ model, but the basic arguments are the same. This book is dense with ideas and a fascinating read, even if you do not agree with the conclusion.

His model has been confirmed by a battery of behavioural tests. In the last decade alone, ‘nMRI’ scanners have undergone a revolution that rivals that of the computer, allowing detailed confirmation of the materialist model. One thing I appreciate about Dennett, and why I recommend him, is that he tackles his opponents head on. Dennett’s books will also provide their arguments and supporting bibliography.

A more recent and less technical book is ‘Sweet Dreams’, in which Dennett tackles the philosophical objections to the study of consciousness, that cause many to concede defeat and declare the topic beyond our understanding. (This is how they want) it to be, I think)

Like Dennett, most current researchers and philosophers are monoists, that is, they do not separate mind and body, and so turn their backs on the tradition of Descartes. Probably the best writer from this more subjectivist, but material camp, is Thomas Nagel. His infamous paper “What is it like to be a bat?” is a reasonable encapsulation of his objections to the materialist view.
Even further removed is Jerry Fodor, but he seems to have lost the plot and now argues rather like a creationist, but I suppose it is necessary to read all sides.

1. I am clearly very impressed by homeopaths’ discovery of electronic devices.

2. That I may be pleased and impressed that the output (of Bio-resonance) matches my personal reading of the repertory.

(There is absolutely no comparison between a random number machine and a homeopathic repertory – Either this is complete ignorance or a wind-up)

3. I take it from the tone of your posts that you actually practice homeopathy.

No I don’t. I’m otherwise occupied at present.

That’s quite a few assumptions in a few lines.

Lastly, you mentioned Peter Chappell. It is not for me to defend Peter Chappell’s work as it is a departure from Homeopathy – I don’t understand it personally. I would rather leave it to him.

“Homeopaths are reported as pouring into Africa to ‘cure’ AIDS. The only person foolish enough to announce this is an ex-homeopath called Peter Chappell (much lampooned here)”

slmcowan also said;

“Peter Chappell is the most controversial homeopath in connection with AIDS and he was telling me personally just a couple of days ago that there is no question of attempting to get people to neglect their ARVs.”

Just thought that merited highlighting.

I have made no unwarranted or wild assumptions. Please show one that I have made

When asked about the validity of those machine you said;

” These ‘machines’ are a con and can lead the naive totslly astray.”

Perhaps you should look at this page;

http://www.remedydevices.com/testim.htm

Here you will find enthusiastic testimonials from happy users. Are they just idiots? Why is their opinion less valid than yours? I note in passing that this difference of opinions is just one of the many internal consistencies from which homeopathy suffers, so thank you for proving one of my points.

Which leads us to;

“Repertories however definitely have not nonsense as the more carefully they are used the greater the probability of success”

I’m afraid that your retreat to argument by bald assertion counts for very little. You are welcome now to produce some verifiable evidence that this is true. You know, comparative data with proper analysis.

I take it from the tone of your posts that you actually practice homeopathy. I’m sorry to say that the quality of thought you have displayed so far is exactly why many of us think you should be regulated out of existence. Given that you cannot reflect competently upon your activities someone else should do it for you.

Perhaps I should not have brought up this angle on the HIV problem as it is not very PC and will always get pounced on with glee. Maybe it is not relevant to this thread either! However I do know of numerous cases where low-life people merrily spread their diseases and when this happens to even friends of friends of friends you can get very angry.
Of course not all African men are predators but if you are a well-off African man in Africa it can be very easy to indulge yourself to your heart’s content. The social and work environments can be very different.
Thinking about it, I agree that it would not be possible for African Governments to police sexual behaviour of sick people. Many African prisons are standing room only.The resources don’t exist.
As marking people is unacceptable, even if supported by vulnerable Africans there is really no solution apart from throwing lots of condoms around and putting up posters etc

I really would expect homeopaths to do their best not to confuse patients about the role of ARVs.
Peter Chappell is the most controversial homeopath in connection with AIDS and he was telling me personally just a couple of days ago that there is no question of attempting to get people to neglect their ARVs.
I think negative assumptions are being made.

I will be very grateful if you could list a book that attempts to explain consciousness from a strictly scientific and materialist viewpoint. I can’t promise to be converted but am genuinely interested. Thanks