Software

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

Dear Luise,
I also beleive that without knowing the principles of individualization and analysis of chronic diseases, using a software does not lead to a sound prescription. The final decision should also be made on the basis of a good knowldege of Materia Medica, clinical experience and intuition.
The softwares do not help us in the casetaking and also in the first phase of case analysis. But all these cannot deny the value of softwares in helping us to solve the cases. Repertorium Virosum, like many other softwares, is not just an analyzing software; it is also a source of data which can be updated frequently.
Regards,
Ardavan

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Ardavan,
I readily conced all you say above, all you have said and everything
others have written about it on the list.

However: This does not toch what I have been rying to say.

My misgivings are about the rating/grading part of the software.

For rating/grading judgement is needed. Judgement the software does
not possess.

What I am saying is for the general computer software. Perhaps the MV
has been set-up in a way that such judgement is not needed.

Regards

Luise

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

On Aug 18, 2008, at 5:21 AM, Luise Kunkle wrote:
It's the same issue--Garbage In, Garbage Out! The computer's rating
system is useless *unless the rubrics are well chosen*. Even *if* the
rubrics are well chosen, the computer's rating of remedies may or may
not be useful. (The ginseng case I posted is one example of that, but
others are easily found! Anything needing a "small remedy", for
instance.)

And it's back to the same thing: The user needs to have good enough
understanding of the process of matching remedy and case, to *realize*
when the computer's suggestions are useful, and when they are not. But
exactly the same is true with hand-repertorization.

[Ardavan Shahrdar]

Dear Luise,
We should never abandon our own judgment. In this part I totally agree with you.
If you are talking about the homeopathic analysis function of RV, there is an important point in it. It is not a simple input-output system. It does a kind of complex analysis. You can call it a kind of judgment; at least a good chewing which still needs the stomach enzymes! It is great to have an experience with it.
Psychologically speaking, some people are intuitional types, and some are analytical types and some are between (Jungian pairs). According to tests, I am a 50/50 (approx.) person. Maybe that's why I feel no conflict in going back and forth to intuition and analysis.
Regards,
Ardavan

--- On Mon, 8/18/08, Luise Kunkle wrote:

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Ardavan,
No, I was not talking about the RV at all!!

I know far too little, actually nothing, about it to make any
evaluation except by paralleling it to the general software - which
may be absolutely wrong.

But perhaps I know too little about the general software also. I have
never used it and just know what I have learned or thought I learned
from discussions on various lists.

When, driving on the highway, all other cars seem to be going in the
wrong direction, the odds are that I am the one who is doing so:-)
Applying this to the case at hand I guess I am wrong.

So let's all forget about it;-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========