Right. So you admit you've presented no evidence of your belief that Homeopathy works.
Did you forget what this was about? As laypersons, according to you, we must defer to the "domain experts" as you put it:
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts
Why waste time with arguments and evidence when you believe that:
It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts.
Best to skip the bickering and head straight to the library!
The only bit missing was how to figure out who the domain experts were. Fortunately, you have the "answer" for us -- at least for this specific topic:
The domain-experts on homeopathy are the scientists that have peer-reviewd papers in scientific journals on the topic of homeopathy.
So I find a few well-established peer-reviewed scientific journals from reputable publishers on the subject and upon reviewing a sample of recent articles, quite to my surprise, a clear consensus emerged: homeopathy was effective. This was great, as it might just show you why your pronouncement sounds so ridiculous to educated people!
But like the finger-print scanner farce, you just double down. Now you tell me:
A journal called "Homeopathy" is not a reputable scientific journal.
Apparently, you can tell from just the title alone! Can I assume that no scientific journal is reputable if it is named after the subject?
Tell me, what criteria a layperson should use to determine which journals are "reputable scientific journals" when looking to identify the "domain experts" in a given subject?