A better anology for homeopathy if you insist on using rape as an example. What if the the girl imagined she was raped, there's no evidence anything happened, should we convict the last bloke she met?

Stupid argument of yours.

The woman knows she was raped. (Are you suggesting that women have no idea when they are being raped?).

The cured have no idea of whether the homeopathic 'treatment' cured them or something else did.

That just basically means that they're free to sell you any old crap that doesn't work. Whereas a doctor will tell you to go away and get some rest, a homepath will tell to go home to get some rest and sell you ineffective medicne too. I admit, it's a much better business model.

And in your mind it is. In my mind it's evidence of intercourse, not rape. Case closed and logic class for you?

You are a bit odd ball today. Your examples are not helping your argument.

Nobody is imagining they were ill or raped. My example was clear, and the analogy quite restricted. Science will fail to convince people otherwise, if they believe they were cured, that the cure is a hoax.

The main point mentioned, is that Science ignores anecdotal evidence , and thus discards certain elements of truth and fact. You cannot tell a girl who WAS raped, that she WAN'T raped because of lack of evidence. Having no proof, does not mean it did not occur. The analogy does not extend into your choice of believing something happened when it clearly didn't.

On the contrary. We agree entirely.

That was my point entirely, probably not made very well. The Scientists/Courts would say "If you cannot prove it, it didn't happen"

Cyrus. There are people here having a good debate. You foul it up with nonsensical clap trap. Please try elsewhere. You have never been to a Homeopath, and wouldn't have a clue about what they do or say, or how they work in partnership with other health practitioners.

Why, what's wrong with that? What have I said? There's plenty of claptrap about medicine not wanting to cure people, why don't homeopaths get the same critical eye?

Let's stick to a meaningful debate. One in which facts or experience are related, or meaningful analogies deployed. Not the stuff you post.

Actually it does, lot's of people think they have been cured by homeopathy, but they have no evidence it does, so they want evidence ignored and anecdotal evidence used exclusively.

In that case, don't compare the case for homeopathy to a case for rape.

That is exactly the point, sample size. It has no meaning unless that is given. As an extreme example, if 100001 people were tested and 100000 were tested positive, then that may be statistically relevant. If 10 million were tested and one gets the same result then that my be statistically irrelevant, i.e., the 100000 may have felt better but one cannot make the case that it was causal.

Hence just saying 100000 people have positive anecdotes is absolutely meaningless to scientists. I suggest you go back and check your O-level maths.

Meaningful analogy for the case for proof.
Anecdotal evidence -

"Homeopathy cured me" - Cannot be proved. It didn't
"I was raped" - Case not proved. You weren't.

I haven't displayed any Math. Suggest you go back and learn how to read.

...and what evidence would you want a cured person to show you ? A headache gone, runny eyes stop watering, a splinter gone ?

The whole point of the anecdotal evidence debate here is that it is useless to argue with someone who has experienced that which you are trying to say didn't happen.

You used rape deliberately to make it emotional, and make it hard to suggest the victim maybe lying or vengeful.

In no way does being given sugar pills and thinking they made you better equate to being the victim of a violent act.

No, the whole point is you trying to say anecdotal evidence is significant, when it's repeatedly been shown to you that it isn't in any shape or form. We cant gather evidence from a single person, we have to compare them to people who have the same symptoms and see which medicine worked on them. Homepathy has repeatedly failed this test, it performs no better than sugar pills. But you want that dismissed by deliberately trying confuse the argument to suggesting anecdotal evidence is significant in this case. It is not.

Stop being so thick and emotive, dragging this thread off topic. (The word troll comes to mind) I used an analogy for anecdotal evidence. Go back, re-read, digest. If it helps your mind, replace rapist with "victim of any crime" whereby the courts say it cannot be proved , yet the victim clearly knows it happened.

Get a a grip eh ?

It's perhaps telling of how persecuted homeopathy believers feel by science that they would stoop so low in their analogies. Their experience and "plight" of being supposedly cured and no one believing them is completely comparable, you see!