I challange Dr. Nancy Malik and anyone else who wishes to be involved in the debate that homopathics is anything more than pseudoscience.

Standed rules (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=76020) but with one adition
Only scientifically recognised, peer reviewed, published journal articals or cochrane grade reviews acceptable. Goverment documents acceptable as long as its at least single blind randomised clinical trials

Is Dr Nancy Malik a member?

errr yes?

james look at this post http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1928822&postcount=132

I know hes a newbi at only 43 posts but he is welcome to anyone he wants INCLUDING sam:) I dont like him just dimissing science grade evidence all the time and thinking his own junk including what i send to you before, so lets see if he can actually surport his postition against cochrane

The name Nancy indicates to me that he is a she...but I could be wrong...

Thanks Assguard.

I think I would enjoy discussing with so many skeptics.

Hey, I will be with Nancy on this one, just for the mental challange!

The whole question as usual depends on the definition: what is pseudoscience?

Homeopathy is "placebo therapy at best and quackery at worst.", but would that make it also a pseudoscience???

syxygys BEFORE we start we are defining that, psudoscience means what it means HERE. ie there isnt one scientfic paper proving that ANY of it works and its where all discusions for homopathics will be requested to go if you lose:p It means its no better than what rikie (or whatever his name is) posts

Oh and Syzygys unlike last time this isnt an ethical debate, it requires scientific papers.

Dr. Nancy Malik mon gratuas:)
One more change im afraid i mixed up the weeks and i go back to uni next week so i need to request that we vary the maximum posting time to 7 days if thats ok with you, i doubt i can do this sort of resurch during the week unfortuantly

will leave the proposal thread open till sunday to see if anyone else wishes in to the debate if thats ok with you, Dr. Nancy Malik.

No problems Sir.

Just to correct a spelling error, I assume, Asguard, you are referring to "homeopathy" not "homopathics". Should I edit the thread title?

ummm arnt they the same thing?

before i showed my own ignorance i googled "homeopathy" and got this site "Australian Homoeopathic Association - Information on Homeopathy ..." so im assuming they are the same thing

However if im wrong feel free to correct:)

Asguard:

First, there's a misspelling in the title of this thread: homopathics instead of homeopathics.

Second, and this is perhaps one for the linguistics forum, it seems to me that "homeopathy" is a noun, which "homeopathic" is an adjective; hence "homeopathic medicine", for example. However, it seems that the term "homeopathics" is another word that some practitioners use for the practice of homeopathy. It's probably a mostly American thing like "chiropractic".

Note that in "Australian Homeopathic Association", "Homeopathic" is an adjective.

Fair enough:)
In the interest of making this the debate its intended to be rather than one for FR i changed the title:)

Your definitly right that i missed the "e" so my apologises:)

As its now sunday night and no one else has shown any interest in paticipating (i was hoping sam would but oh well) this thread is now closed and the debate starts

Debate thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=83220) here

Discussion Thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1933251#post1933251).