kalmia/scientific

[Robyn]

Most of what I say below has probably already been said as haven't been able to coherently read all
the posts, so I apologise ahead of time if that is an issue for anyone, however, have been thinking
about this issue since Simon brought it up, and just felt inclined to say something about it.

I guess it would be safe to say that for a 'practice' to be scientific, there needs to be, upon
experimentation, a result that shows statistical significance. Experimentation, in this sense, means
the carrying out of particular methodological steps, that are able to be carried out by all who wish
to be included in the summary of the results. After the carrying out of these steps, results should
show significantly that they are due to the steps followed (and the thing being tested) rather than
by chance, ie., statistically significant.

When I did a thesis paper for my Psych., I did a scientific experiment aimed at showing how hypnotic
style suggestions could lead to an increase or decrease of bloodflow to fingers which were hooked up
to a machine for this purpose. I had to use the exact same method on each subject, or else the
results would not be valid in the context of the experiment and therefore of not much use for
sharing with anyone else. Everything, has to be the same for each test subject, the words used, the
time taken to say the words, the setting --- the entire method has to be controlled to eliminate
extraneous influences on the results. This is rather rigorous and this is what is required for
something to be considered scientific. What needs to be taken into account when assessing the
results are all the possible things that could have influenced the results other than what you did
as the experimenter --- such as whether they smoked before doing it, changing the capillary
action --- or the weather being cold, affecting capillaries -- and in my case, I had to assess their
hypnotizability as well ------ etc.................
This project of mine caused alot of controversy in the department, as I was combining 'hypnosis'
with science ---- and that was considered to be a problem - 'scientifically'---- due to the
intangible aspects and usual variations and influences that can change hypnotizability etc.....
Because of this, I had to come up with a method that would satisfy the standard necessary to get a
relieable result. This meant I had to make sure I did not influence the outcome in any obvious way,
using my knowledge of hypnosis and ability to affect people with my words etc................... I
battled the department to allow me to even do the experiment --- and then when it was being marked,
they were all disagreeing and had to find markers who had knowledge of hypnosis and scientfic
ethod ---- it challenged their usual mindset and they were not impressed that I did this to them!
They didn't really want to bother with this kind of thing --- however, I persisted and it was done.

If we want to call the practice of Homoeopathy scientific in this sense, well, I don't think it will
stick. In this time of 'Evidenced based Medicine', we just don't have the 'practice' regimen to
allow it to be called scientific by the accepted standards.

The principles behind Hom are considered by the founder to be scientific and they may well be ---
however, the biggest problem is when using these scientific principles to prescribe, it is dependent
on 'what' is observed by the practitioner, and thus what is used as the criteria for prescription.
If we all see something different using our powers of observation, based on different knowledge
ase -- and lets face it, we all have different backgrounds of knowledge that impact on our powers
of observation --- ranging from highly medically trained to no medical training, plus all the other
kinds of trainings and life experiences that we draw from to assess a case and arrive at a
prescription ----- This cannot be called scientific, no matter how hard we try.

Dr. Banerji's group totalities with specific potencies is the closest thing to 'scientific' that I
have come across in Homoeopathy so far. Other than that, and not considered Homoeopathy by most of
us, is the use of Heel products and method associated with this, Homotoxicology. Heel have attempted
to use homoeopathic medicines in a scientific way for this purpose --- and from the statistics
presented, they believe they have done this and so that is probably why many doctors in Europe
particularly are likely to use these products in practice rather than the 'art' we call Homoeopathy.

This problem for Homoeopathy in its present form, makes its practice an 'esoteric art' -----
meaning that it cannot be easily conveyed to others for understanding or practice -- which is a
requirement for something to be scientific. Most medical practitioners do not have the time to study
Homoeopathy in the depth that I might and therefore a tall order to expect them to do so whilst
earning a living --- however, they are more likely earning a better living than I am, and maybe
'appear' to be 'helping' many more people than I am capable of in my practice and this is not an
easy thing to change.

I don't really want to be practicing in an office with 20 people waiting in the waiting room to get
a treatment for their colds or other basic health issues handled by General Practitioners these
days. This kind of medical practice continues due to poorly educated masses, who retain the
allopathic mindset in their consciousness ---- flawed theory which permeates the world and which is
going to be very difficult to influence, no matter how successful homoeopathy is.

A shift of consciousness is going to be what is needed --- by individuals initially then groups
etc.. --- and before that can happen, the Homoeopathic community needs to be armed with a useable
tool --- reliable and nonesoteric --- at least as much as is
possible.............................................

we have a long way to go.........................
Best

Robyn

"The fact is we need any and every way of finding the right remedy; the simple simile, the simple
symptomatic similimum and the farthest reach of all - the pathologic similimum, and I maintain that
we are still well within the lines of Homoeopathy that is expansive, progressive, science fostered
and science fostering." (Dr. J. Compton Burnett)

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Well said Robyn!

Simon
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

[Shannon Nelson]

Yep, it sure is! And I like your friend's observation that "Newtonian"
science doesn't describe h'y but quantum science does. Now I still
think that my below definition of "science" does fit (parts of) what we
do, but I can see that it's quite a lot less rigorous than what Robyn
is describing! Which is certainly why "we" have usually referred to
"The Art and Science" of h'y. I suppose that if either (the art or
science aspect) were perfect, we wouldn't need both... Or at least, we
could choose which *one* we wanted to learn and practice, rather than
needing to flit from one to the other--tossing the "ball" from one
cerebral hemisphere to the other, so to speak.