How do you think Homeopaths think Homeopathy works?

That wasn't an insult, it was a reasonable deduction based on the observation that after two centuries homeopaths have failed to come up with:
(1) A plausible mechanism by which a homeopathic remedy could have any kind of physiological effect on the body;
(2) Robust evidence that it does in fact have any kind of physiological effect on the body;
(3) Any kind of evidence that the basic principles of homeopathy (like cures like, less is more, etc) are even true.

In spite of this, people continue to become homeopaths. As there is no rational reason to believe homeopathy can or does work, it follows that the decision to put one's faith in it isn't one made by an objective consideration of the evidence. It is therefore reasonable to deduce that their critical thinking skills are not great. (Though, in fairness, some do improve as time goes on. I recommend the book, Homeopathy in Perspective by a doctor who spent most of his working life employed at the London Homeopathic Hospital and gradually came to realise it's a crock. Or try this piece on 'Escaping the cult of homeopathy', which quotes extensively from another ex-homeopath.)

It means that I've written twice as many posts that mention homeopathy as posts that mention chiropractic. What's your point? I trust this isn't you trying suggest I'm "obsessed" again? If so, you might want to look up the term 'selection bias' and consider why you omit to mention that 72% of my blog posts don't mention homeopathy at all.

I explained in your other thread why I consider homeopathy to be the most dangerous altmed. Now, instead of asking stupid questions and insulting other forum users, why don't you be brave enough to respond to the points I made in that thread?

 

And me calling you obsessed was a reasonable deduction based on the observation too.

Well, then don't use their remedies.

You wrote about Homeopathy 18 times. Naaaa, you're not obsessed.

I don't care about the reasons why Homeopathy irks you the most. Just wanted to know why.

 

I have no idea.

 

Well you'd agree it's not from a molecular level?

 

Why would we assume that it works if their is 1) no mechanism for it to work and 2) no theory on how it works?

 

Oh I think his post pretty much nails it lol
me

 

Homeopaths have theories on the mechanism. It's the skeptics who don't know their theories of mechanism.

there is:

 

Hello pot, this is the kettle speaking:

You're the one starting multiple threads about homeopathy.

You missed this bit:

 

Well, I don't think the proponents of homeopathy believe in molecules.

 

Now, I answered in good faith. I expect the same good faith in the other thread.

 

As I said, they think it works by magic.

What exactly is the 'vital force' of a substance? What are its properties? How does it get 'imbued' in the solution? How does it 'get the body to react'? Explain what exact physiological process please and spare us the woolly words and phrases.

Homeopaths and homeopathists don't have a clue what they are talking about. Thanks for confirming my observation yet again.

 

If I started 18 threads about homeopathy, you may have a point.

Regardless if 99% of your posts weren't about homeopathy, you still have written about homeopathy 18 TIMES !!!

 

If you're saying homeopaths don't think homeopathy works on a molecular level, you would be correct.

If you're saying homeopaths don't believe in molecules, you would be being ignorant.

It's already kinda been answered. They think it works on the level the "vital force" level works on. (and PS, it's not the "magic" level as some ignoramuses think it must be.)

 

No, ignoramuses think they think it does. Why don't you go write your 19th blog entry about the subject?

 

Without some other evidence of a vital force, it is the same as magic.