Travel Laptop Subwoofer

know what you can

Hello, dear ones

Komemntartfenster This is a sign of undue suffering limited, so I reply back here.

thank you and for your constructive input! I think it's good that the debate is now where it belongs, not in the bottom of the accusations, but in the (relatively) ordered space of epistemological questions.

Yet before a small slot:

Since I have the "Organon" and I read (the Perhaps surprisingly) I know about the homeopathic theory of the laity also, I know of course that Hahnemann has "reviewed" his medicine. With the idea of a "rational medicine", the man has indeed always boasted, but the one he was not the inventor of this idea, and secondly its methods sadly still exist in any way the criteria was that we now one even close to objective verification place (no matter what) is based. Although Hahnemann has made a lot of self tests (and consequently his own Einbildunsgkraft served on most excellent) and otherwise produces a lot of paper with his patients, but meticulous looks different off! His writings are full of contradictions, every few years turned his argument by 180 °, much remains in the dark. Also, almost all the books are received, work records, logs, results tables either missing or have samples .- anecdotes and character. Above all, he has waived the indispensable (and then still unpopular) instrument of the double-blind study. Imagine, here comes a media attention miracle doctor in the city obtains a chair and also founded the same an institution, where he was admired and attacked as he, at once with a large tam-tam a "test program" starts. About a cure, the effect of he and his Employees are firmly convinced of what one naturally to everyone, both experts, Journaille or patients who can know at every opportunity. Is it any wonder that there is a certain percentage of patients who believe they feel a relief of their suffering? Hahnemann, if at all, "discovered" the placebo effect (de facto recognized the antiquity of course, already). However, it is entirely from today's perspective, no matter whether Hitler was sincere and accurate or not, because we do not need to verify his claims. And of course, because it looks bleak.

And now to the theoretical knowledge:

A standard argument of the New Age scene is that science only "one among many ways to understand the world and to consider". This kitchen philosophical relativism is true only if one of "see details" is the lowest all-new standards. But of course there is the art of gaining, just like in any other trade, differences in quality! And this quality is not equal Quantitiät. Basically, I'm assuming that I do not live in a solipsistic illusion, but that the universe is and to me that being well expressed. Nor do I believe that the universe is just as I do, and I am getting too not confuse people, understood the Schrodinger Dunger wrong and make each observation depends only on the observer.

It is also not as if the nature of nature (hihi) "unstructured" and get after our Forscherei structure. A skydiver without a parachute and then the mud if he does not know that: K = G x (M1 x M2) / r ². And 1 +1 will always result in two, whether with man, charged with, or without. Figures, mathematical laws, and the physics are! The universe does not obey our imagination (even if I would do as an artist sometimes!), But has its own rules and can find out. So I check a claim with the means available to me. Either through their own thinking and acting, or (if the subject is more complex nature) by searching in the worlds of knowledge third. In the end, I decide not for the "best" explanation or for those with whom I feel most comfortable, but that I consider most likely and convinced me in her compelling logic as possible. The claim that hydrochloric acid (Acidum hydrochloricum ") helps with hemorrhoids because both burn properly (like with like!") Does not convince me, that is, at best, pseudo-logic and satire.

And here we come to the wrong image of science, which you have (and unfortunately 90% of humanity): Science is not knowledge, but only a very effective way to distinguish knowledge of wishful thinking. It is neither a creed nor a conviction, but simply by far the most stringent criteria catalog for review. No other such a catalog, he was religious or esoteric nature, has proven to be so effective and reliable. Also trofft science not statements of "truth" but about probabilities. Is unfortunately often ignored. Many findings that have gained through science, but are so often confirmed and therefore also probably been such that we will be easily recognized by every soul in this world as truth. You will not find anyone who is clearly in mind and challenging the forces of Newtonian theory by jumping out the window on command.
As science is now so successful in gaining knowledge, many faiths try to disguise itself as science, such as the "intelligent design" creationist. Homeopaths try the same thing they give to the painting of science, but are afraid of the consequences resulting therefrom. One of these consequences is falsifiability. Any reasonable scientist would a theory that the tens of other laws of nature contrary to the evidence 200 years and not turn on, drop it and not waste his time on more meaningful things. Homöos but caught in a perverse inner conflict: sometimes they quarrel herzzerreisend with others about any study (and bow to this funny enough scientific criteria), then refuse to return them to the instrument of falsifiability again by science as said "a way of many present "for inspection.

is clear to me: who sets up a claim and make even more money will have to be demonstrated this claim which must also clear. The scene has to choose! Either they reject scientific review consistently now and then just founded a church, or it faces the pressing issues and a hard-and-fast verification.