#1 - Posted: 16/08/2008 13:24
after writing a lengthy forum entry on homeopathy, i now realize that perhaps homeopathy shouldn't be listed here as an anomaly. an anomoly is an objective phenomenon that doesn't "make sense". it seems from the authors review above, that he has never established for himself that it is a valid phenomenon. if it's not a valid phenomenon, then it is not an anomaly, and is not even worth further consideration on this site. that of course is always the problem with anomalies: it is a question of who believes your data. if the scientific consensus is that it is valid data then you have a valid anomoly. the problem is that scientific consensus is strongly prejudiced against the acceptance of any anomalous findings as valid data.
on this site, under the heading of "anomalies", i don't see that the author has established a set of criteria to determine what is a genuine anomaly or not. there is no point in debating about the horns on a rabbit, if only kooks think a rabbit might have horns. if we can establish this, then we can see whether homeopathy meets the criteria. then we perhaps we can limit our discussion to trying to see what it has to teach us.
these same points apply to the cold fusion section as well i would say.