> It's not just that we "don't understand" the mechanism of action, it's that there's no remotely plausible way for it to work in our existing model of the physical world.
That's the same thing. FYI the posited mechanism of action is that water is able to form substructures just with H2O molecules themselves and it's these water structures that theoretically produce the effect. Obviously this isn't verified and just is speculation but atleast it's a "remotely plausible" way for it to work in our existing model of the physical world, even if we don't understand all the mechanisms underpinning it.
> "As suggested by the peer-reviewed literature" is a deep and frankly disingenuous mischaracterization.
Fair, but that's why I qualified with "the peer-reviewed literature (according to various meta-analyses)" so you know that I'm not referring to peer-reviewed literature as a monolothic beast that achieves consensus but instead am referring to the various meta-analyses.
So I agree that studies and meta-analyses are divided on the topic, for sure. There are studies that show positive effects and studies that show no positive effect. The fact that there are any studies showing a positive effect though should be of interest. If the results are not due to error or bias, then the positive effect of homeopathy needs to be followed up on and deserves more funding to get to the bottom of. Unfortunately a lot of science is political and homeopathy doesn't have a lot of political clout.
> Disregarding anything that doesn't confirm your favored hypothesis isn't science.
Couldn't agree more, but you should consider that you're guilty of doing exactly this when you disregard any studies that show a positive effect for homeopathy beyond placebo. It is, as you say, one of the oldest and most common failure modes in human cognition, but moreso is often easy to see in others much harder to see in yourself.