Well here I am creating the homeopathy survey!

[Janic]

example of tendentious formulation:
empirical knowledge that has real results, but cannot be proven by standard scientific tests.

empirical knowledge

All knowledge is first empirical, including A. Would you say that the A is empirical knowledge to present certain results. I doubt !
but cannot be proven by standard scientific tests.
Could we prove quantum physics from the means of classical physics? No, since the tools used were not adapted to it [*]. Likewise, the tools of A are not adapted to H either and yet it is these unsuitable tests that are still and always put forward. All of this has already been seen and reviewed.
[*] the same instruments are not used to measure weights, distances or volumes.

[ABC2019]

example of tendentious formulation:
empirical knowledge that has real results, but cannot be proven by standard scientific tests.

empirical knowledge

All knowledge is first empirical, including A. Would you say that the A is empirical knowledge to present certain results. I doubt !
but cannot be proven by standard scientific tests.
Could we prove quantum physics from the means of classical physics? No, since the tools used were not adapted to it [*]. Likewise, the tools of A are not adapted to H either and yet it is these unsuitable tests that are still and always put forward. All of this has already been seen and reviewed.
[*] the same instruments are not used to measure weights, distances or volumes.

so which wording would suit you instead?

(and if not yes of course that the A is an empirical knowledge, I have never claimed the opposite, nobody has never theoretically predicted the effectiveness of a treatment before trying it for real !!)

[ABC2019]

is there no proof that we breathe, and that it is necessary for life? first news I don't understand what you mean there ...

What you call proofs (in the scientific sense, your leit motiv,) is only recent and billions of living beings have not wondered whether it is necessary to have scientific proof to have the right to breathe "scientifically" hence the use of the term tangible.Character of something whose reality is obvious, undeniable.
{/ Quote]
I think you have a much too restrictive notion of "proof": it has always been considered as "proof" that we were alive that we felt a breath and a condensation of mist on a mirror, for millennia, including has absolutely no need of a "scientific" definition with "double blind" when the conditions are met (that is to say that the observed phenomenon is impossible in the contrary case to what one wants to prove - one KNOWS that a death NEVER breathes).
You still don't understand that the problem with healing is that it can happen EVEN WHEN NOTHING IS DONE (i.e. the previous property is not verified, the same result can be obtained also even when the drug has no action!). It is only and only in this case that careful study is needed;

[Christophe]

Yes it's possible.
There are plenty of examples in the same genre.

Have fun ... give us 3 examples of products sold on a very large scale and totally ineffective ...

the pangolin scales, rhino horn, bear bile. Man is capable of slaughtering and torturing thousands of animals for these totally ineffective remedies. So swallow a few granules of sugar, next ...

You did not follow my instructions: you are in the middle of the esoteric ... and these are moreover illegal and contraband products ...

[Janic]

I think you have a much too restrictive notion of "proof": it has always been considered as "proof" that we were alive that we felt a breath and a condensation of mist on a mirror, for millennia, including has absolutely no need of a "scientific" definition with "double blind" when the conditions are met (that is to say that the observed phenomenon is impossible in the contrary case to what one wants to prove - one KNOWS that a death NEVER breathes).

and I think you are confusing a finding and the scientific reasons to prove the composition of air and its transformation by the pulmonary system. It can be classified as your kind of evidence. Indeed if breathing was sufficient in itself, any gas would do, which is obviously not the case.
So the H also notes a phenomenon whose explanation is yet to be discovered, such as breathing in its time. In the meantime, what matters is that it works, regardless of the more or less valid explanations given to the phenomenon.

[ABC2019]

Have fun ... give us 3 examples of products sold on a very large scale and totally ineffective ...

the pangolin scales, rhino horn, bear bile. Man is capable of slaughtering and torturing thousands of animals for these totally ineffective remedies. So swallow a few granules of sugar, next ...

You did not follow my instructions: you are in the middle of the esoteric ... and these are moreover illegal and contraband products ...

they haven't been for centuries, I'm just telling you that there is nothing impossible that totally ineffective remedies have continued to be taken by millions of people for centuries.

And there are plenty of other Chinese medicine remedies that are also folkloric but not prohibited because they do not threaten fragile species.

[ABC2019]

I think you have a much too restrictive notion of "proof": it has always been considered as "proof" that we were alive that we felt a breath and a condensation of mist on a mirror, for millennia, including has absolutely no need of a "scientific" definition with "double blind" when the conditions are met (that is to say that the observed phenomenon is impossible in the contrary case to what one wants to prove - one KNOWS that a death NEVER breathes).

and I think you are confusing a finding and the scientific reasons to prove the composition of air and its transformation by the pulmonary system. It can be classified as your kind of evidence. Indeed if breathing was sufficient in itself, any gas would do, which is obviously not the case.

except that the only "tangible" thing is that we breathe, the chemical mechanism was not discovered until much later because precisely there is nothing "tangible" in the fact that we absorb oxygen and that CO2 is released.

And so if the proposals I made don't suit you, which one do you suggest instead? (so as not to divert the question to avoid answering it !!)

[Janic]

except that the only "tangible" thing is that we breathe, the chemical mechanism was not discovered until much later because precisely there is nothing "tangible" in the fact that we absorb oxygen and that CO2 is released.

except that what is tangible (takes a dico) is what is observable, not what is explicable.

And so if the proposals I made don't suit you, which one do you suggest instead? (so as not to divert the question to avoid answering it !!)

what does not suit me is to see that an ignoramus who does not even want to know a subject, takes himself for a connoisseur and throws anything because he has read fake news on social networks. So start by studying the subject BEFORE playing the boat. We'll see later if you start to know what you're trying to talk about.

[Obamot]

I said it: to do a poll [...] blah-blah-blah

To spend the time therefore! CQFD

and you why you post there then?

Stop taking people for noodles will you! For me the question does not arise when fighting against low-wing trolls.
There is only one to have created a thread to discredit homeopathy by the gang with biased questions, and therefore tendentious, and that's you.
“We” put you up against the wall and you slyly claimed “that this thread was not there to discuss whether homeopathy was valid or not”(Whereas among the questions, the answers are induced in this direction, and that since you still drive the point home!)
This is what is called taking refuge in denial => hence my question in the form of a rhetorical joke to know:
— “If you did that to pass the time!”

So there is nothing to oppose me to compare, you are one of those who assiduously defends the position of industry lobbying, and I hope you are paid handsomely for that, because it would still be silly to do it for free ”just to pass the time?

[pedrodelavega]

Likewise, the tools of A are not adapted to H either and yet it is these unsuitable tests that are still and always put forward. All of this has already been seen and reviewed.

So what are the tools of H to assess its effectiveness?

[*] the same instruments are not used to measure weights, distances or volumes.

In this case, whether in H or in conventional medicine, we measure the same thing: the effect of a therapy aimed at treating / curing patients.