The Case for and Against Homeopathy
Everyone's favourite tousle-haired Bad Science Ninja, Dr Ben Goldacre (ahem, Dr - as in medical, rather than Dr* as in Chemical...) has provided the common sense side of the argument - and done it well. Mind you, the arguments for homeopathy are paper thin and could be easily destroyed by a 10 year old (although in this case, it's someone who looks like a ten year old :)
The only real problem with it is that the case for is pretty weak (and has been given a proper fisking here as these two points of view have both appeared before, bizarrely, in The Guardian, the liberal lefty (usually) intelligent scourge of Daily Mail readers). It's a massive bugbear that I will not doubt blawg about at a later stage, that in the interests of 'fairness' we have to hear ALL sides of the argument, with no weighting being given to how sensible or bonkers the argument is.
The opening gambit is a beauty and in many ways negates reading the rest of the article (it's also interesting why someone with a bit of knowledge in the field didn't write the article):
A leading novelist who swears by it. A science expert who thinks it's tosh.
Imagine it wasn't homeopathy. Imagine a full reversal - say, for instance, a heart triple bypass and then you read in the paper a debate about its merits and found
A science expert who swears by it. A leading novelist who thinks it's tosh.
This could get silly. Thankfully, it's mid-day and the Christmas supplies of vino haven't arrived yet, so this particular train of thought has hit the buffers.
Oh, just one then......
Bible suggests young earth:
A creationist swears by it, a leading world class paleontologist thinks it's tosh