I read this blog entry, and I find the same fight that I've been waging against physics quacks. And since this is a truly wonderful argument against a pseudoscience, I am more than happy to give this blog entry ample air time on here.
This is a response to a response. The author had thoroughly argued against a peer-reviewed paper that purportedly claimed to have seen a positive impact of homeopathy. Both the author, and another, have severely criticized the paper for several shortcomings. But it appears that these criticisms irked a writer at a homeopathy website (surprise!). What you can read is not only a rebuttal, but also a very pointed attack against pseudoscience in general.
The issue that keeps coming back is the fact that many people cannot tell the difference between anecdotal evidence and scientific evidence. They also cannot reason why an anecdotal evidence is insufficient to claim validity of something. To me, that is the fundamental reason why we are having this discussion, and on why pseudoscience flourishes.
It would be interesting to see if this paper will get a ton of rebuttals in the coming months.