Minutus

That will not work as described below for talking with the audiences of skeptopaths. Roger Barr did not go far enough. It is not enough to be proven. LENR is proven, but most scientists do not believe it. It must be commonly accepted by almost all scientists, which the verbiage below is not. It may be true.

Something is true. Homeopathy works. We are not sure how. But I guarantee that a description of however it works will NOT appeal to scientific materialists. Bach Flower Remedies don't even have the decency to be potentized, and they work. So, if anyone reading this is a closet materialist, may I suggest that you read near death experiences (NDE) and perhaps you will come to realize that we are more than our bodies and that the material world is not all that there is.

In the meantime, as Roger Barr implied (I think), using words that scientific materialists use when addressing non-believers is not a good idea. But, there are words that are true and have very long and respected histories, like prana, chi, life force, and vital force.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: furryboots@icehouse.net
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 03:05:01 -0700
Subject: [Minutus] Flip
The razor of simiplicity.
I have the book, and my two sentences would be:

Succuss water molecules (which have unique proven physical properties) plus some remedy to form unique shaped cages of water molecules surrounding remedy substance (called clathrates), which on further dilution and succussion may lose some of the surrounded substance but maintain the unique clathrate structures, even producing more complex and detailed forms at higher potency.

So why did you ask for a two-line summary then?

If you bother to take what I wrote and look up the *conventional* science behind each word/phrase, you will find nothing weird, it is all conventional scientific knowledge, albeit from a few different fields, and much is from THIS century. It merely needs a little assembly. As Joe points out in the book (which is well referenced), even Wikipedia has the science behind it.
.....and THEY think homeopathy is hogwash and will refuse to allow a description there:-)

People who do not WANT to believe, like those who stand to lose dollars or credibility or respect for what they have been claiming - will NOT believe .....Not because the explanation lacks credibility or familiar terminology but because the skeptic has decided in advance NOT to believe it, however it reads.
Plenty of historical examples: Flat Earth Society; Sun goes round the Earth or you die for blasphemy; airplanes are too heavy to fly; the fact that cats know when someone is about to die and will keep them company with purrs at the end, is read by "religious" skeptics as "cats are taught by satan to suck the soul out of a body and send it to hell".

People with such screwed up wiring, are not going to suddenly use logic. Only if/when they look stupid as a small minority, (or find a huge profit motive), might they capitulate in order not to lose face. Such people are not able to think for themselves - they can only cling to any majority idea, and try to bully their way along with noisy protestations.
[Empty vessels make the most noise.]

The easiest way to convert a closed mind to an open one is to somehow have that person "fall over" homeopathy ...by experiencing it for themselves.
"Believe it .....THEN you will see it".

So First - Believe it works (by experience) ...
Then only, the skeptic will be open to looking at an explanation of "how".
So what's needed is to contrive a way for the skeptic to "fall over" some homeopathy.

Namaste,
.......Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."