User talk:Sharavanabhava

Please click here to leave me a new comment.

PR request

I have added some suggestions. The article needs a lot in terms in improvement so not done a through review, will do so when the article in better shape and previous comments are addressed. Just leave me a message then before a WP:GAN or so. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions and edits. Very helpful and appreciated. —Whig (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

marketing

Maybe I am missing verbals point (re knowing if a product is effective or not). i thought the point was that consumers are not really able to judge how effective any product is, or at least unable to distinguish the benefits from placebo. Even oscillococcinum, so effective it does not need individualised treatments, at its best is only claims to decrease the symptoms of flu by less than a day. Can customers really tell the difference? No , they buy it again because they did get better and the marketing was convincing. Those two in conjunction is all that is needed. As verbal says this is not specific to homeopathy it is standard practice. Another excellent example is toothpaste marketing and branding. David D. (Talk) 20:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understood his point because he was not providing examples of useless things that people buy repeatedly. Things that people get suckered into buying once without perceiving any benefit aren't really examples. But homeopathy does work from my own personal experience and I use it because it works. That isn't to say that it is always the correct or best treatment option for a given condition or symptom. If oscillococcinum (which I haven't personally used) reduces flu symptoms by a day and it's usually a self limiting condition anyhow, it's at least providing some benefit in that case. I'm not sure there is any benefit whatsoever to some of the OTC and prescription drugs for cold and flu symptoms. —Whig (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether there is benefit or not is not really the issue, it's can the consumer detect the difference. You say you can, which is why you buy it. But you don't have to be able to tell the difference to be loyal. i think the toothpaste example is relevant here. Why do consumers stick with particular brands? The distinctions are small and probably not noticeable. Humans are not logical at all when it comes to consuming and preferences. That's why marketing works. David D. (Talk) 20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that brand loyalty is something that isn't entirely rational. I try to choose a toothpaste that is recommended by the ADA. I cannot tell the difference between one brand and another but dentists presumably can determine which are most effective. Apart from that there are matters of taste and things like whitening formulas that people might choose between. But surely you wouldn't say that toothpaste doesn't do anything?

I have tested the effects of homeopathic medicines upon myself very carefully. That doesn't mean I distinguish between brands of homeopathic medicine, however. Choosing Boiron or WHP or Hahnemann Labs is a matter of which is most convenient and has the medicine I need in the potency that I am looking for.

I'm not deceiving myself or stupid. I pay attention. And for what it's worth, the most powerful psychedelic I've ever experienced was Hydrogen 200C. —Whig (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cavity QED from homeopathy page

Regarding your last post on the homeopathy thread, cavity QED and sonoluminescence are two different phenomena. Sonoluminescence requires degassing of a sample of water and application of sonic waves to generate bubbles (or a bubble) with diameters on the micrometer scale. The light emitted in such situations is thermal in origin, resulting from the rapid compression of appropriate gas molecules upon collapse of the bubble. There is no evidence that these bubbles can be generated without ultrasonic excitation, or that the behavior is observed in samples which have simply been shaken. Cavity QED deals with the altered relaxation of excited molecules when they are enclosed in a cavity. Agin, there is no evidence, nor theoretically plausible mechanism, for suggesting that simple shaking of water will lead to these excited states, nor that shaking leads to altered cavitation, not that delayed photon emission would have any pharmacological effect upon drinking of the shaken water. Your proposition requires that a lot of remarkably unlikely and unfounded "what ifs" were all to happen. I'm still baffled at how, instead of simply acknowledging that homeopathy doesn't work (as has been thoroughly demonstrated), every imaginable esoteric physical process is invoked as the mechanism by which this non-observable phenomenon occurs.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Succussion is not shaking, it is forceful striking. Just as striking a rod of iron induces magnetic effects, but shaking a rod of iron does nothing. You do not have to tell me that cavity QED and sonoluminescence are two things. You need to learn more about both. —Whig (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

O.K., so you've redefined succession for me. But if you are going to make these claims about how your definition of succession should lead to a transfer of information to the solvent, you need to come up with a realistic theory as to how this happens. You're suggesting cavity QED or sonoluminescence, but have not shown any evidence to suggest that either should come into play from "forceful striking" of water. My reading more into these two phenomena will not change the fact that you have quite arbitrarily thrown them out there without any justification for why they should be considered as playing any role in this whole process. There is sound experimental evidence and theory which explains why struck iron rods or vibrating guitar strings generate magnetic fields, There is none to suggest that succession will lead to either excited state chemistry or sonoluminescence. Don't tell me to read more about these topics, give me a reason (references) why I should even consider that they would be involved in this process. Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

I haven't redefined a thing. Nothing I have said is arbitrary. Your denialism of homeopathy is obvious, and you are not willing to be convinced of effectiveness, therefore any physical mechanism will be rejected by you out of hand. —Whig (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Convince me. Without any supporting evidence, everything you have claimed herein is arbitrary. You may as well have said that Leprechauns are responsible for homeopathic activity, because you would have been able to offer just as much evidence for it, which of course is no evidence at all. You suggest that, because I refute your unfounded arguments that I will clearly not accept any argument and that my criticism should therefor be dismissed. I'm certain there is a logical fallacy in there. Thanks for wasting my time.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Convince you of effectiveness? You are welcome to be convinced yourself, would you like me to suggest a remedy? If you are asking to be convinced of the physical mechanism when you deny the possibility of any physical mechanism, in spite of clear physical proof of sonoluminescence in cavitation and cavity QED photon binding occurring in laboratory apparatus, perhaps you can explain why photon binding would not occur in cavitating by succussion. —Whig (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Proper controlled studies offer evidence of effectiveness, one person deluding himself does not. I'm not asking for evidence of sonoluminescence as a real phenomenon, but evidence that this effect can be observed from succession. The onus is not mine to suggest why photon binding does not occur during succession, You are making the claim and therefor need to support it with evidence. Show me a paper in a reputable journal that suggests that succession leads to cavitation and that it also causes excited state molecules to exist in these cavities. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time comprehending how this whole "burden of proof" thing works.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no interest in being convinced of anything. As I have said before I don't know of papers which discuss homeopathy in these terms, therefore I cannot provide you with the only thing that apparently will convince you of the fact that the same laws of physics apply in cavitation cavities as in artificially created cavities.

By the way, please have at least the seriousness to learn how to spell succussion when discussing this topic in the future. Thanks. —Whig (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have every interest in being convinced by appropriate evidence, but in every response you have posted, you have offered no supporting evidence but simply tell me that I don't want to hear your evidence. Let me see it and I'll let you know if it impresses me.

First, the origin of the cavities is not my concern, although you have repeatedly made the unsupported assertion that succession has some effect on cavity formation, and I would like to see references for any of these statements. Hell, I'm even willing to concede that this *might* be possible, but only if there is experimental evidence to support it. Second, I do not need references about cavity QED and how it relates to homeopathy. What I want is a reference which suggests that vigorous shaking of water will lead to the excited electronic states that the cavity QED phenomenon requires.

http://www.google.com.ag/search?hl=en&q=homeopathy+succession&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Follow the above link to a google search based on the words "homeopathy and succession'. Many, many homeopathy proponents use the term "succession". If the field were to normalize its jargon, I might be able to keep up on what is the preferred spelling.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Google searches for ignorance are not evidence of correct spelling, and you persist in referring to shaking when that is not what succussion is. That succussion causes cavitation is uncontroversial. That cavitation causes photons to be emitted is uncontroversial. That cavity QED applies in all cavity domains is uncontroversial. That you refuse to observe the evidence for yourself by simply perceiving the effect of the remedy is the reason you cannot see it. You are not engaging in any attempt to learn, but to lecture on things you clearly refuse to learn anything about. Go away. Thanks. —Whig (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Snap!

jokes and stuff

I removed NRen2k5's comment and your reply. He was just making a parody of Dr.Jhingaadey, not a serious affirmation that he believed in homeopathy (that winking smiley at the end was a good clue that he didn't mean what he said). My excuses I my removal was rough, it's just that article talk pages shouldn't be used to make jokes about banned users, and the whole thing was off-topic anyways, since, as you pointed out yourself, it had nothing to do with improving the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I recognized he was trying to mock, but tried to get things back on track. I do not disagree with removing his comment and therefore my reply. —Whig (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Trolls and email

Re [1] – I know what you mean; I was going to comment per email, but you don't have it enabled. So let me just say without presenting any evidence or other background information that I am 100 % sure the user is genuine. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll look into re-enabling e-mail. I don't really know what you mean to say the user is genuine, or do you mean you are certain the new unnamed IP user is not DrJ? —Whig (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He really believes it and has his own practice. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot know what he believes, and have no way to verify his claim. —Whig (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But we can. He left his email and website many times. He's no troll, if you mean someone "pretending" to be a believer in homeopathy. No, he is a real homeopath and he doesn't intend disruption, but intends to make Wikipedia stop including content that demeans homeopathy. That ends up being disruptive because it violates our policies in several ways. He has a website and presence on the internet as a homeopath, and he linkspammed it many times, which is what got him one of his first blocks. IOW, he's not faking it. He doesn't understand Wikipedia and doesn't seem capable of doing so, as it's been explained to him many times. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as long as all sides in a dispute are fairly represented in the article then it is totally appropriate and necessary that content be included that expresses negative views of homeopathy. If he is a "professional" homeopath as he claims he should not be making such irresponsible claims as no professional homeopathic association would allow. I do not believe he is real just because he has a website but it does not matter. He has used deception as well in claiming not to be the user he clearly is, so why should I believe anything he says? Anyhow he is a disruption and I think we are all in agreement on that. —Whig (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He is a disgrace to homeopathy in much the same way (yet totally different...) that SA and QG are a disgrace to skepticism, if you get my point. All of them have behavioral issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, without wanting to criticize individuals with whom I've had interactions in the past, I would certainly agree that true skepticism requires a certain amount of open mindedness. —Whig (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whig if you would like to enable email for a few hours or just contact me by email (my homepage is linked from my user page), I can give you further information that I don't want to appear on-wiki. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail, look forward to hearing from you. —Whig (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

information storage

"Does succussion cause cavitation cavity quantum electrodynamic information storage as bound photons?" <-- what do you mean by "cavity" in this context? How long would this "information storage" be expected to last? Just what information would be stored?
ps: blast from the past...I was just reading that you "obviously have no intention of contributing constructively here". Thanks for making the point about succussion, it is an aspect of homeopathy I never understood previously. I think it is great that you can bring a perspective to Wikipedia that allows clueless folks like me to learn about homeopathy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)