(September 16, 2014 at 8:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:(September 16, 2014 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote: I have read your posts and the article, so you get yet another thing wrong.
You make unsubstantiated assumptions; that won't gain you any credibility here.
If you read the article, then you would know that I'm not saying anything the Scientific American isn't, so what your saying is that the Scientific American is making unsubstantiated claims, correct?
No, they aren't claiming 'supernatural', only you are.
Quote:
(September 16, 2014 at 6:52 pm)Chas Wrote: But you haven't shown that it can't be explained by science, only that we haven't yet explained it.
Your conclusion that "therefore supernatural" is premature - it does not follow.
the placebo effect has been known about for past 110 or so years, I think it's safe to say it's unexplainable by science.
That does not follow. You don't understand what science is.
The placebo effect has been used as long as there have been humans. The history of the placebo effect is the history of pre-scientific medicine.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
