Homeopathy is Stupid

Homeopathy is stupid.  It doesn't even make sense conceptually, and when you factor in that it has been shown to NOT WORK, it amazes me that there are supporters out there for it.  People willing to believe in it because of anecdotal evidence... which in my mind isn't really evidence.  Peer review (review by other people trying to cure diseases in this case) and the ability to replicate the results (the ability to cure people of various ailments with homeopathy) are what you'd need to show that homeopathy works.  But it doesn't.  It fails those tests.  There are plenty of people claiming that it works... but unsubstantiated claims don't mean homeopathy is credible.

But first lets be clear.  Just to be sure those of you reading this blog post know what homeopathy is.  Imagine you have a cold that you want to get rid of.  You could just buy cold medicine.  You could eat lots of oranges or other foods high in vitamin C.  You could relax in a steam room to help clear your sinuses.  Or if you believe in homeopathy, you find a substance that is bad for people but which can cause the same symptoms as a cold.  I don't know such a substance off the top of my head, but what they do with it is to dilute it in water.  They go through a process that dilutes it even further over and over again.  And when they're done, they have a liquid that is... water.  That's it.  They dilute it so much (by definition) that the substance that causes the similar symptoms is effectively no longer present.  It is no longer an "active ingredient" in the dilution.  And homeopaths claim that drinking this dilution will have beneficial effect against the cold or whatever other ailment you're trying to deal with.

I'd just like to point out that the definition of homeopathy does not include herbal remedies, or home care.  It does not represent all of "alternate medicine".  It is very specific to using diluted materials that CAUSE bad symptoms to cure maladies that have similar symptoms.  Not only is that a stupid idea to begin with, but diluting it to the point of not being anything more than pure water means that the bad substance isn't even a factor.

I don't even need to read medical articles that test this to know that drinking water won't cure cancer or malaria.  but just in case you want to do further reading on the subject...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

Pay special attention to the parts where it points out that homeopathy doesn't work.

Now if you want to say that herbal remedies can work, and that alternative medicine can be effective... then yeah... I agree with you.  But homeopathy is a very specific practice that very specifically does not work.  At least... not any better than placebo does.  So it has psychosomatic effect going for it I guess.

Anyway, I just wanted to write this to express my horror at the thought of otherwise intelligent people arguing that homeopathy works... and more importantly that these people are part of society and presumably have a bearing on its future.  What else do they accept as truth despite evidence to the contrary?  How many people will die because someone insists that homeopathy works to cure cancer?  I suppose I don't care if it's people dying because they believe... but what about kids with parents who won't let them make use of real medicine?

Homeopathy is stupid.

About mediocrity

Any time we as humans decide to put effort into an endeavor, there are a range of possible outcomes.  At the extremes, we can succeed or we can fail.  But because life isn't always binary, we can “almost fail”, which is really success but not enough.  We can “mostly succeed” which is means we accomplished most of what we wanted, but we’re not satisfied with the results.  To achieve true success, we need to reach all our goals… enough that we feel proud enough that we want other people to know about it.  But perhaps even that is on a scale.  Some people might want others to know that they partially succeeded.

There’s a great quote from a speech given by Theodore Roosevelt, that’s often referred to as “the Man in the Arena”:

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

The quote makes sense, but it suggests that “success” might be in the attempt when compared to not even trying.  So is success defined in the effort or the results?  Do they combine to make the spectrum a little wider?  Does that mean two possible failure scenarios?  Do failing at an endeavor and not even trying in the first place both count as failing in the grand scheme?

If I want to start and run a “successful” company, by Roosevelt’s thinking I would likely be considered to have failed for not even trying… for not stepping into the arena.  But some part of me is apparently more frightened of the failure that can come with trying than the failure of not even trying.  If I fail while trying… while giving it my all… then in my own mind I am not good enough a person.  If I don’t try in the first place, I can console myself by saying that it wasn’t even something I wanted to try in the first place.  The failure that comes when you do try hurts me more.  So I am afraid to try.  And I am one of those cold and timid souls.

But then, it’s not just flat out failure that I’m afraid of.  Like I was trying to suggest early on: I believe in a spectrum of failure through success.  If I start that company and it exists (I succeed in creating it and making it run), but then it doesn’t do well enough to pay my cost of living, or allow me to hire people to do other parts of running the business, then it won’t feel like a success to me.  And going through the effort of starting a company up seems like a lot when it might flounder or fail.  And I won’t meet my own expectations.  I’ll become disheartened.  That’s the domain of mediocrity.

Anything I decide I want to put my mind to is something I expect to do exceedingly well at.  I can’t accept mediocrity.  So I only try things that I’m pretty sure I’ll do well at.  But it has devolved into me not doing much of anything.  I find time wasting activities that don’t matter.  They just pass time.  So I work.  I relax.  I sleep.  I go back to work.  There are a couple distractions from that cycle.  I spend time with my parents which is nice enough, but really isn’t something that makes life worth living.  I spend time with some friends about once a week, and while that makes me happy, it’s not something I can look back on and point to in pride.

I’m smart, and I know I have a lot of potential, but I’m not doing anything with it.  So I think I’m failing at life.  I’m not even stepping into the arena, and I feel pretty sad… a hole in my heart… when I think about it that way.  I know it’s true… but I can’t seem to make a change.  I can’t seem to get over the fear of being mediocre; of being average; of being just like 99% of the population.

So how do I convince myself to try?  Where do I get the motivation from?  And how do I make myself accept the idea of being in the middle of the pack?  I’ve been this way for years.  If I knew the answer, I think I’d have changed by now.