= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on [LINK] Why did Steve Jobs choose not to effectively treat his cancer? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (66)
Sure, some forms of alt med might potentially fall into that category. But the vast majority will just be wrong and will often contradict basic laws of physics. Homeopathy is a good example of this.
But if you happen to be rational, you can weed out the treatments that contradict the basic laws of physics.
I'm not assuming that homeopathy works, but I have been unable to find good quality experimental evidence on it. Anyone can say it seems to violate the laws of physics, but the only way to be sure is to test it. It does have a reputation and takes its basis thousands of years ago in the writings of Hippocrates. It's not terribly crazy to withhold judgment. I'm looking for good quality experimental data on its effectiveness.
Actually, homeopathy only dates to the 19th century.
You can't be sure about anything. Everything has some small chance of being the case, but homeopathy is grossly at odds with very basic aspects of modern physics, including simple issues of reductionism. Don't privilege the hypothesis http://lesswrong.com/lw/19m/privileging_the_hypothesis/ any more than any other idea out there.