You need to know what it claims it does and proven examples when it does not work. Then the opponent should present examples when it works reliably.

I claim homeopathy cured [X] person's sickness.

You can't disprove this example, ergo homeopathy works. Repeat ad nauseam.

You cannot claim this without any evidence. I can present scientific papers showing that homeopathy does not work better than placebo effect.

Sure, my evidence is that there are multiple friends in this situation that were cured by [X] homeopathy treatment. Your scientific papers are simply the result of expert's ignorance because they're not willing to examine homeopathy with a non-critical eye.

Disregard your examples, replace them with my own. That's how these sorts of arguments work and they can use faux-science in the same way you use proven science. They can link to 'experts' in homeopathy which have done studies on their own proving the vaunted benefits of crystal empowerment. It's your truth against theirs. You can't fight things like homeopathy with evidence because ultimately they don't care about your evidence, only theirs. And if you catch them in one spot, it's easy to lie and force you to search for more evidence to disprove it. Forever.

I never said it was an easy discussion. But it is important to fight such ignorance, because it affects us all in a bad way.

Scientific papers show that the curing effect is not caused by the homeopathy, but by the belief that it works. Scientists confirm that it actually helps, i.e. cures some illnesses, just not for reasons homeopaths claim. Now show me some evidence that it's homeopathy, which is important, not the belief.

Actually, homeopathy was a pretty decent theory when it appeared, in 1820s. What questioned its validity was two centuries of progress in physics, chemistry and biology.

So its validity was challenged a long time ago. All you need to know to question it today is that homeopathic principles haven't changed in the last 200 years.

Oh please, you're just throwing up chaff because I contradicted your point. Pick some other whacko theory (crystal power, personal auras, whatever). You don't need to be an expert in bullshit to question whether something is bullshit. You're just pretty sure that you get to be the arbiter of what's bullshit and what's irrefutable without a pedigree.

Not all fields of science are on as good of a footing as physics and chemistry, and there is almost certainly something you currently believe which will be shown to be false in the future. This is exactly the problem mentioned in the article:

> “I defer to the experts” (said with pride).

I am not really sure where you disagree with me, I would say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and so the whackier the theory, the easier it is to disprove.

> was two centuries of progress in physics, chemistry and biology

Well, also _medicine_. The application of the scientific method to medicine more or less killed off homeopathy as something that could be taken seriously. It wasn't a scientific theory.