sophie100 said on 09 August 2010
Back in the mid-nineteenth century there were surgeons who would wipe their scalpels on the soles of their boots in order to show their disdain for the concept of germs. How, after all, could something exist that could not be seen?
The fact that western technology cannot demonstrate how homoeopathy works is quite different from therefore asserting that it *cannot* work.
As for the placebo effect: as an explanation it is hardly more scientific. Explain, if you will, how believing you will get better means that you get better - in scientific terms, that is. As it happens I have no problem with the concept, but then, I'm not tied down by scientific dogma.
As for the referred placebo effect: explain, if you will, how that differs from faith healing?
It might be worth bearing in mind that Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, was as surprised as anyone else at his findings. Despite what the anti-homoeopathy brigade would have you believe, he was a true scientist, who based his ideas on a very large number of practical experiments.
As for those who dismiss anecdotal experience: bear in mind that it was Einstein who said that knowledge without experience has no value.
Experience really is more important than knowledge.