Vis-a-vis homeopathy, ridicule seems insufficient. I'm really at a loss at how anyone can possibly believe that potency is proportional to dilution. What is it that tips a person into accepting this completely ludicrous idea?

What is alarming is that in India, Mexico, Brazil among others there are practitioners who use homeopathic remedies to treat life-threatening diseases as dengue hemorrhagic fever. I fear that there have already been deaths from its use as a substitute for standard medical treatment (which is probably more expensive) Votes: +7

That's one way of calling him a quack, I suppose, though the French wouldn't get it.

Shame about the intrusive apostrophe and in the title too.

(Yes, I'm a pedant.) Votes: +1

That was cringeworthy, and it won't help the perception some have that skeptics are jerks. The two fingered salute to no one in particular was a very classy touch.

Having said that, I can't believe that my hometown still has a hospital named for this fraud.

http://www.hahnemannhospital.com/

I swear that a year or so ago I found a history of the hospital on their site that glossed over its origins and played up its reputation today, but now there's no record of homeopathy or even Samuel Hahnemann anywhere on their site (save a brief mention in a PDF of its origins in "1848 when three physicians
founded the Homeopathic Medical College of Philadelphia in the back of a pharmacy.").

Maybe that's a good sign, but they really need to change the name and stop adding legitimacy-by-association to this nonsense. Votes: +3

Some people leave flowers, others leave rubber duckies. Votes: +2

I'm a fan of irreverent humor, but putting ducks on the man's grave??

Am I the only person who thinks this was in bad taste?

Not to mention that Hahnemann himself died in 1843, before the "germ theory" of disease was known, before obstetricians knew to wash their hands before delivery, before the term "anesthesia" was coined, when much of the medical world still subscribed to the "four humors" theory. So I suggest we give the poor dead guy a break. It's the homeopaths of 160+ years later who arguably deserve a good "ducking". (Though I think there are better things we can do with our time!)


Votes: +14

davidm:

Am I the only person who thinks this was in bad taste?

I can't see a problem. The bloke's dead. It seems unlikely he'll mind. Since he died in 1843, close friends and relatives who might object are probably somewhat thin on the ground as well.

...before the "germ theory" of disease was known...

Was it before people making claims of medical efficacy were morally obligated to properly test and provide evidence for those claims? Votes: +8

I see it as a fitting tribute to all of those who donated their foul organs to make Oscillococcinum. Votes: +1

Though we obviously don't approve of vandalism, this harmless prank made us laugh

Harmless? Pointless! Votes: +1

I personally am embarassed and sadly surprised that this item was posted in SWIFT. I think this kind of prank is at best childish, and at worst, disrespecting a grave--on the road to desecration. To put it up on SWIFT is to give it JREF's stamp of approval; to give it a place of honor; to give it Randi and the JREF's endorsement. I wish to say that I, at least, disagree with this, for several reasons.

One: Hahnemann may have had stupid ideas about what might promote cures for diseases and conditions, but he was not appreciably more ignorant than the other practitioners of his day. People didn't even know about germs at the time he wrote his book. His modern-era followers are open to the title of 'quack' and 'liar' ("canard" is the French word for duck and also means a big lie in English) but the man himself is not. He may have simply been sincere and wrong. He may have had some placebo-effect successes, and honestly believed he had discovered something of value...the same cannot be said of those of recent or current vintage that adhere to his ideas, however, since both the theoretical basis and the practical affect of homeopathy have been disproven.

Two: This is in essence an Ad Hominem attack. If we want to argue that homeopathy is quackery of the first water (pun fully intended), we should argue that: We should point out how the ideas are wrong. Mocking the founder of a bad idea that is a century and a half old is not any form of reasoned discourse; it is not education; it is part of a lively discussion of ideas. It's just schoolyard nastiness writ large. We--the skeptic community--are better than that! If we consider the name-calling and argument-evasion of the anti-vaxxers and Birthers and Truthers and "psychics" to be a cowardly and mean-spirited, it is no less so because it is being done against people and ideas we disagree with.

Three: This is a man's grave. I think that, in and of itself, makes it something we should not celebrate. Imagine, if you will, that after Randi's passing some supporter of homeopathy made a special effort to decorate his memorial with little plastic Pinnochio figures. Would you feel a sense of outrage? A sense that the time and place for making fun of those you disagreed with is when they are alive, and not at the place those who value them--for whatever reason--come to mourn?

I am deeply disappointed in the decision-making process by Jeff and whomever else at JREF vetted his choice. I am embarassed and wish to use this comment to apologize for the thoughtlessness of those who do not consider respect for gravesites to be one of the hallmarks of good manners and civilized values. I am a dedicated skeptic and JREF member, and this particular post does not represent me or my values!

If this be treason, make the most of it! We are better than this. -- Miss_Kitt Votes: +10

Oops! messed up my close on the italics above. Sorry. Votes: +1

People have strange attitudes toward death. In order to desecrate a grave, you'd first have to consider it sacred. I'm always surprised when skeptics have any truck at all with the idea of something being sacred. I frown on people who vandalise graves, or who do things that would upset close friends and relatives, but when the occupant is long dead and no damage has been done, I can't see a problem. It's a chunk of rock with some bones underneath. The only way it relates to the ex-person is in other people's memories.

One: Hahnemann may have had stupid ideas about what might promote cures for diseases and conditions, but he was not appreciably more ignorant than the other practitioners of his day.

I'm not sure this should be seen as a personal attack. It's a lighthearted and harmless attack on homeopathy in general, with the grave of its inventor merely a symbol. Nobody suggested explicitly that Hahnemann himself was a liar. In fact, they aren't even suggesting that modern homeopaths are necessarily liars either. "Quack" doesn't necessarily denote dishonesty. I still can't understand what the relative ignorance of the medical community at that time has to do with anything. Homeopathy doesn't work. Hahnemann could have tested it properly before selling it as a cure, just as easily as we can today. He didn't. He may have been sincerely deluded, but he was still selling 'cures' without adequately testing whether they worked. He doesn't get a free pass just because we knew less about medicine back then.

Two: This is in essence an Ad Hominem attack.

Again, I'm not sure in what sense this can be considered a personal 'attack'. An attack on a person would seem to imply some kind of damage. On a dead person, presumably this would have to be an attack on his reputation. Perhaps implying that a person was dishonest would constitute a personal attack, but if putting plastic ducks on a grave if an accusation of dishonesty then it's an increadibly mild one and one I missed entirely.

Three: This is a man's grave. I think that, in and of itself, makes it something we should not celebrate. Imagine, if you will, that after Randi's passing some supporter of homeopathy made a special effort to decorate his memorial with little plastic Pinnochio figures. Would you feel a sense of outrage?

I really wouldn't. Why Pinnochio, anyway? I'd be upset if people used the *occasion* of someone's death to personally attack him (see the recent unpleasantness regarding Steve Fuller's comments about Norman Levitt, for example), but not if people attacked him after he was dead. People - and especially public figures - are just as much fair game when they are dead as they are when they are alive. I doubt very much that Randi would care about people putting plastic toys on his grave and I don't care either.

the thoughtlessness of those who do not consider respect for gravesites to be one of the hallmarks of good manners and civilized values.

I don't think this is necessarily thoughtless. On the contrary, I've thought my attitude to grave sites through very carefully. I just can't accept that any object is sacred and while I certainly think we should respect the feelings of close friends and relatives in the period (perhaps a very extended period) following a person's death, I don't think that someone dying makes them immune to criticism. Votes: +9

Imagine, if you will, that after Randi's passing some supporter of homeopathy made a special effort to decorate his memorial with little plastic Pinnochio figures.

A better analogy might be if someone put an army of crocoducks on Charles Darwin's grave.

I have enormous respect for Darwin as both a person and a scientist, but I think I'd find this quite hilarious. This would be tinged with some sadness that people are still ignorant of his ideas, but I wouldn't find it in any way offensive. Votes: +3

The larger point here, I believe, is that truth/skepticism is not the *only* value we should be espousing here.

More important in fact are civility, respect for people (even if you don't respect their ideas), benevolence, and simple common decency.

These are the values that hold society together, and which create an atmosphere conducive to truth-seeking. When there is a basic trust that the other person isn't trying to harm you, you're more apt to let your guard down and be open to evidence.

For sure there's a place for "feisty" and heated debate, but it should be done playfully and with a sense of good sportsmanship. Regarding the "duck" prank, I would posit that NO ONE outside of a few skeptics would view this as playful or sportsmanlike. They would find it at best infantile, at worst hateful and reprehensible -- a breech of the most basic trust.

And I for one would *much* rather live along side a kind, reasonable, benevolent religious person or homeopath than a rationalist who I cannot place my trust in.

But why settle? If we're idealists, we should go for both! Votes: +1

I have enormous respect for Darwin as both a person and a scientist, but I think I'd find this quite hilarious.

It is a good analogy, and I think it's a great quality to be able to laugh and not be easily offended. I would say though that "ideally" we should not be overly concerned for our own sensitivity but at the same time very much concerned for others' sensitivity. That's more of a workable formula.
Votes: +4

davidm:

The larger point here, I believe, is that truth/skepticism is not the *only* value we should be espousing here.

More important in fact are civility, respect for people (even if you don't respect their ideas), benevolence, and simple common decency.

I agree entirely. It's nice to be nice and I don't think many people would argue with you here.

Regarding the "duck" prank, I would posit that NO ONE outside of a few skeptics would view this as playful or sportsmanlike. They would find it at best infantile, at worst hateful and reprehensible -- a breech of the most basic trust.

This is the point where we disagree. We just draw the line in a different place. I think it helps to gain a bit of perspective, however: we're talking about a few plastic ducks that were there for less than a day. Who has actually been hurt here? What trust has been betrayed? I agree that there are some things one could do to a grave that would be reprehenible for a variety of reasons, but I have a hard time seeing this as one of them. Perhaps the sense of outrage comes from conflating this altogether benign act with something like vandalising the grave marking (which would cost people time, effort and money), as well as justified offense (you attacked my stuff) or of doing something nasty with the remains of the body, which seems a deliberately aggressive move. If these are really the same kind of thing, then I don't think they could be further apart on the scale of offence.

And I for one would *much* rather live along side a kind, reasonable, benevolent religious person or homeopath than a rationalist who I cannot place my trust in.

It rather depends what you're trusting them for, I guess. Hopefully not medical advice.

It is a good analogy, and I think it's a great quality to be able to laugh and not be easily offended. I would say though that "ideally" we should not be overly concerned for our own sensitivity but at the same time very much concerned for others' sensitivity. That's more of a workable formula.

I agree with that too and that was the point of the analogy. I was trying to put myself in the position of a hypethetical person who might be offended by people putting plastic tat on the long-occupied grave of someone they respected.

I think it's important not to deliberately offend people for the most part. However, we also have to bear in mind the fact that people's tastes differ and nobody has the right not to be offended. If people really defend into histrionic fits of offense when someone temporarily puts plastic ducks on the grave of someone they probably hadn't even previously heard of, then I don't recommend they try my job. Votes: +3

This is the point where we disagree. We just draw the line in a different place.

Agreed. To me, this is clearly beyond the line. I do see it as a quasi-desecration.

we're talking about a few plastic ducks that were there for less than a day

Except that due to You Tube immortality they will in a sense ALWAYS be there, and viewed by many more people.

Perhaps the sense of outrage comes from conflating this altogether benign act with something like vandalising the grave marking

I'm probably conflating a few things. Like frankly, I think there's something pathetic (not to mention obsessive) about this woman going out of her way to purchase all these ducks, haul them overseas to France, carry them into the cemetery, and place them all over Hahnemann's grave. It strikes me as a bizarre sort of religious pilgrimage, an "offering" made to pander to James Randi. I find the whole thing disturbing on a number of levels.

So I think we'll just have to agree to disagree -- and by doing so respectfully, as I believe we are, this is really what I was hoping to capture here. So by that count I suppose it's a win-win. Votes: +0

Regardless of the person occupying the grave, the act of placing an object on the eternal resting place of another human is an act that sends one important message: Although this person may be gone, their influence is alive and well in this world.

With every object, be it duck or flower, placed at Hahnemann's grave that message is re-enforced and now millions on youtube have the potential to see that Hahnemann's legacy is alive and well.

I'm not making a value judgement on the prank itself (I've done my fair share of them), I just believe that the message it conveys (which will be interpreted as ad-hominem to some) will be counterproductive to skepticism. After all no publicity is bad publicity, right? Should we also start prank-calling Sylvia Browne's hotline and posting the results? Would this be constructive to the image of the JREF in any way?

Personally, I can't think of anything I might accomplish in my life to cause people 150 years later to commit various acts on my grave. But if they did it would mean that my memory and legacy have lasted far past my lifetime. Mission accomplished! Votes: +2

As someone said earlier, it doesn't hurt to be nice when trying to forward your cause. This act would likely be seen as callous and vindictive by any dedicated follower of Hahnemann (if they even 'got it', that is), and as such it isn't going to stand any chance of winning them over to the side of reason. Votes: +0

Not everything has to be about 'winning people over to the side of reason'.

There doesn't need to be only one method of fighting for reason.

People who do their skepticism in different ways to you are not automatically 'hurting the cause'.

I think one of the best and most effective things about skepticism is that there's no party line. We all go about things in different ways. I'm all for debate about the methods we might use, but outright dismissal of whole swathes of approaches and attitudes as somehow 'hurting' the 'cause' of skepticism (whatever that means) seems pointless at best. Votes: +2

@latsot

I'm all for debate about the methods we might use, but outright dismissal of whole swathes of approaches and attitudes as somehow 'hurting' the 'cause' of skepticism (whatever that means) seems pointless at best.

But where do you draw the line? Suppose it was Randi himself that pulled that stunt, which in some people's eyes borders on desecrating a grave. Would you still think it was OK? Face it, we skeptics need all the help we can get. Acting the maggot can only have a negative effect. It does hurt our cause. Votes: +0

But where do you draw the line? Suppose it was Randi himself that pulled that stunt, which in some people's eyes borders on desecrating a grave. Would you still think it was OK?

I don't draw the line anywhere. I might condemn individual actions, but I wouldn't accuse the perpetrator of 'hurting skepticism'. Votes: +1

This versatile styling tool has an ergonomic design and curved edge plates to create any style from straight to curly and everything in between. With a flash heating element and fixed temperature setting, the power to create the style of your dreams is your hands.
GHD
GHD IV Styler Votes: -8

This is why I can't get excited about someone putting some plastic ducks on a rock: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb...earth.html

I think we have bigger fish to fry. Even the URL is bad enough. Votes: +2

People take flowers to graves, that must be picked up and thrown away by whoever tends the cemeteries. These ducks didn't cause any harm. Some graves in this cemetery ARE vandalized - Jim Morrison's grave, located in the same cemetery, has been vandalized and the gravestone stolen on several occasions, which is one of the main reasons that police monitor this particular location.

Even though Hannemahn predated modern medicine, he is still held in esteem by those who follow his practices. This joke caused no lasting harm, and his children and grandchildren are long since dead as well. Votes: +1

I would just put a big glass of water on his grave. Votes: +0