(August 13, 2014 at 4:26 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:(August 13, 2014 at 4:16 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Wrong, for instance, the discovery of Neptune occurred when gravitational perturbation in the orbit of Uranus was observed and seen as evidence of an undiscovered planet.
How many scientific articles do I have to post defining the "Placebo effect" as healing through faith?
Now people can clearly see what it is I'm dealing with. Humor me though, how are they different?
You have the order of things here very messed up. The observation was not "There is an undiscovered planet", the observation was the gravitational disturbance in the first place. The disturbance is the observation, not the evidence. The claim (or hypothesis) would then be that another planet exists, and further investigation reveals that yes, the disturbance is indeed caused by Neptune.
They didn't see the gravitational disturbance and suddenly have it revealed that it was Neptune that was causing it. The disturbance is an observation that was investigated, and until there was a hypothesis to test, it wasn't considered evidence for anything besides itself as a phenomenon.
Evidence doesn't mean proof, it means that something is likely.
So therefore the gravitational disturbance in the orbit of Uranus would be the evidence of an undiscovered planet, not the proof. The hypothesis of there being an unknown planet, was made from the gravitational disturbances alone.
(August 13, 2014 at 4:26 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The placebo effect is no more "Faith" healing than it is "homeopathic" healing or "water cystal" healing. You don't get to slap on your ill-defined pseudoscientific 'faith' label bullshit on an unconcluded scientific question.
Again, not my definition. that is how science defines it.
from the first page in a google search
pla·ce·bo ef·fect
noun
a beneficial effect, produced by a placebo drug or treatment, that cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment