Homeopathy is big. In Britain, there are homeopathic hospitals which are funded by the taxpayer.
What is homeopathy? It's a so-called "alternative medicine". Practicioners insist it works, even in the face of multiple high quality medical trials in which it has failed to work better than placebo.
Many people ridicule homeopathy. It's not hard to see why: these medicines are made by diluting various things in water until there is nothing in the bottle but water. A standard dilution, 30C, is diluted enough that if you had a ball of the medicine which stretched from here to the centre of the sun, there'd be one molecule of the original substance in it.
Still, some people swear by it, and are offended by the ridicule of scientists, doctors and science enthusiasts. Should their beliefs be defended from ridicule?
Bear in mind that this does some harm - people have sold homepathic cures for diseases like malaria, where placebo is far from sufficient as a treatment. Protecting these ideas from ridicule leaves ordinary people vulnerable to quacks when they fall ill.
So, do you think users and practitioners of homepathy should be protected from ridicule? And is your answer different from Martin's poll?
What is homeopathy? It's a so-called "alternative medicine". Practicioners insist it works, even in the face of multiple high quality medical trials in which it has failed to work better than placebo.
Many people ridicule homeopathy. It's not hard to see why: these medicines are made by diluting various things in water until there is nothing in the bottle but water. A standard dilution, 30C, is diluted enough that if you had a ball of the medicine which stretched from here to the centre of the sun, there'd be one molecule of the original substance in it.
Still, some people swear by it, and are offended by the ridicule of scientists, doctors and science enthusiasts. Should their beliefs be defended from ridicule?
Bear in mind that this does some harm - people have sold homepathic cures for diseases like malaria, where placebo is far from sufficient as a treatment. Protecting these ideas from ridicule leaves ordinary people vulnerable to quacks when they fall ill.
So, do you think users and practitioners of homepathy should be protected from ridicule? And is your answer different from Martin's poll?
