permaculture

[Allan Balliett <igg@igg.com>]

> If homeopathy has a real effect in a group of people, than this must be
> measurable. If studies showing this have been made and their methodology is
> all right, O.K.

This reminds me: I've also seen planting by the moon disproven by science.

If things are  true only if science has not disproven them, what good 
is observation? Can we only work with the world through the eyes of 
peer reviewed studies?

Both planting by the moon and homeopathy could only be "proven" by 
practitioners, because the nuances are understandably missed by the 
university people. (for example: in 'real' homeopathy, there are only 
remedies for individual conditions, not individual symptoms. Given 
this, I would think that it would be completely impossible to set up 
a scientific 'proof' of homeopathy. Not paying attention to this fact 
(in fact, minunderstanding the very basis of homeopathy) and 
administering homeopathic remedies as though one dose fits all is a 
sure way to 'disprove' homeopathy (while what you've really proven is 
that skipping the case taking state of a homepathic diagnosis is 
likely to end in failure.)

The bottom line is: only the mainstream culture has the funds to 
create formal testing scenarios. These funds are only likely to come 
from places that have a motivation for proving or disproving what 
they can through the study. As mentioned earlier: who wants to spend 
money to 'prove' homeopathy? Why prove planting by the moon when, if 
it is true, could call into question criticisms of traditional 
agricultures.
-Allan