At 02:57 PM 7/21/2009, you wrote:
And dose and potency are 2 very different things
From: "Dr. Luc De Schepper"
Lecture Two for the Public: The Watery Doses In Homeopathy and the Dosing (How Much to give?)
What most homeopaths in the world do
Most homeopaths follow Hahnemann's directions set out in the 4th Edition of the Organon, published in 1828. They put a certain amount of dry pellets of the chosen remedy on the tongue and wait and watch for the reaction. Most homeopaths are also convinced that it does not matter how many pellets are put on the tongue: 3, 5, 20,.it does not matter! This was an unfortunate inheritage from Kent and blindly followed by most homeopaths. This dose (how much of the remedy) as well as when to repeat the dose will be discussed in the next two lessons. The question is here, dry doses versus watery doses or solutions.
The Watery Doses
Up till 1828 Hahnemann administered one or two poppy-seed pellets dry and then "waited and watched." However he was not entirely satisfied with this dosing technique. Even in 1828 Hahnemann already mentioned the exceptional use of watery solutions and in 1833, in his 5th edition of the Organon he made it the rule! He explained his reasoning in A286 of the 5th edition:
".the effect of the homeopathic dose increases, the greater the quantity of fluid in which it is dissolved.(in other words, it does make a difference if we give 1 tsp, 1 TBS, 1 cup, 3 drops, etc.).For in this case, when the medicine is taken, it comes into contact with a much larger surface of sensitive nerves responsive to the remedy action."
So 1 drop will stimulate less nerve endings than 1 tsp; 1 tsp less than 1 TBS, etc. We can see here the importance of such dosing especially in the view of the many very sensitive patients we encounter. Each individual has a different reactivity of his Vital Force (Qi, Immune response) and the dose of the remedy must be tailored to the individual patient! More about this further.
Hahnemann at this point (1833) added another facet to his dosing: the succussions! A succussion is hitting the bottle in which the remedy is dissolved hard against a book or the palm of your hand. Each time you succuss, the remedy changes slightly in potency, and gets a little stronger. The amount of the succussions will be determined by your homeopath as he knows the results of your first test dose: the response to it determines the amount of succussions. It is like driving a car: once we know how comfortable the patient is, we can determine the speed (amount of succussions) which he is able to drive. This is very important in order to achieve the fastest possible response to the remedy and to assure the fastest and gentlest cure!
As one can see, due to the wide range of patient sensitivity levels-something that is greatly magnified today-and the variation of the disease states (some are long time suppressed, making a gentle cure difficult), the homeopath needs more ways to administer doses. Hahnemann felt that the best way to adapt to these various circumstances was to prepare remedies in watery solutions.
The succussions, altering each dose to become more potent is another issue neglected worldwide by homeopaths! They claim that they can give unpunished a dry dose of a certain potency unchanged once a month for a year, and worse, some repeat such dose daily and unchanged! What is the result? Hahnemann tells us (in Chronic Diseases) that by doing so, the patient will add symptoms belonging to the remedy but not to his disease picture.in other words, he will add symptoms to his disease he never had! The danger is even that great that through such mechanical repetition, the original disease of the patient will be totally replaced by a new disease, entirely consisting of the remedy symptoms, symptoms you never had! You could compare this to the side effects of allopathic medicine which create in the long run more symptoms and new diseases often worse than the original disease! So don't think homeopathy cannot harm: if your homeopath continues to give unchanged doses you will have all the "side effects" of our remedy (we call it accessory symptoms). It is even worse if you receive the wrong remedy and your homeopath repeats such dry doses unchanged and too frequent. Patients who are suffering from such medicinal or remedy diseases are much more difficult to treat further!
The Importance of the Dose (How Much?)
I am horrified by the statements of many homeopaths who claim that "It does not matter how much (and some add what potency!) the homeopath gives to the patient, as long as we have the correct remedy!" Such people must go back to school and read carefully in the Organon what they are doing to their patients. For anyone who has his eyes open in practice and for anyone who cares about his patients, the determination of the right dose (how much of the remedy should I give?) is extremely important if we want to limit the suffering of our patients! Of course those homeopaths who adhere to the 4th edition of the Organon do not care that their patients go through a similar aggravation of their symptoms (existing symptoms aggravate), in fact they welcome it as it tells them that they have chosen the right remedy. How cruel to deny their patients the gentler cure to be obtained following the watery doses of the 5th and 6th edition of the Organon. Ask your homeopath why he is doing so: I don't expect him to be able to give you a decent answer!
This is what Hahnemann had to say about the dose (A275 and 276):
"The correctness of a remedy for a given case of disease depends not only on the accurate homeopathic selection but also on the correct size or rather smallness of the dose! (In other words it is not sufficient to choose the correct remedy, but the accent is put here on the smallness of the dose!). A remedy given in too large of a dose though completely homeopathic to the case will still harm the patient by its quantity and unnecessarily strong action on the vital force.
"In strong doses, the more homeopathic the medicine and the higher the potency (note that dose and potency are two different things!) the more harm is done. Indeed it is far more harmful than equally large doses of unhomeopathic medicine.Excessively large doses of an accurately selected homeopathic medicine, especially if frequently repeated, are, as a rule very destructive! Not infrequently they endanger the patient's life or make his disease almost incurable!
So what Hahnemann says here and what has been seen in the practice for over the last two hundred years is that it is far more dangerous to administer too frequently too large doses of the right homeopathic remedy than the wrongly chosen remedy!
What a condemnation of those homeopaths who "don't care about the dose," as if it can do no harm and what a pity of those patients coming under their care.
What can we conclude from Lesson 2?
1. ALWAYS (for acute as well as Chronic diseases) put the remedy into water!
2. The dose (how much needs to be given) is just as much part of the rightfully selected remedy as the name of the remedy
3. Do not accept similar aggravations (an aggravation of your existing symptoms). The watery solutions allow the homeopath to minimize and even avoid such similar aggravation.
4. The smallness of the dose is a very much neglected part in homeopathic circles. Many aggravations are due to giving a too large dose rather than a too high potency. Always rather start with a cautious small dose!
5. We will discuss potencies in the next lesson and will then take the opportunity to accurately describe HOW these watery solutions should be taken in acute and chronic diseases. The guidelines by Hahnemann are found to be very exact and those who want to impose their own inventions on the patient should try it first on themselves and their loved ones!
Warm regards from Dr Luc!
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start July 29 & 30
Recommended Reading
-
Liz Brynin
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
Well, I still disagree. It is patently obvious on reading the Organon that this new medicine of Hahnemann's was comprised of 3 basic principles - not one.
I know very well what homeopathy menas - but it is only one facet of what Hahnemann was trying to achieve. And by the way, he didn't 'discover' homeopathy - the word comes from the Greek, and the principle of 'like cures like' was already known to the Ancient Greeks. Hahnemann, who knew about this way of treating illness from the Ancient Greek writings, simply took the idea and developed it.
If we choose to call this 3-pronged system 'homeopathy', then we're wrong, perhaps. It doesn't show the other aspects, which are just as important.
Without the minimum dose and single remedy, Hahnemann would have got nowhere.
Liz
I know very well what homeopathy menas - but it is only one facet of what Hahnemann was trying to achieve. And by the way, he didn't 'discover' homeopathy - the word comes from the Greek, and the principle of 'like cures like' was already known to the Ancient Greeks. Hahnemann, who knew about this way of treating illness from the Ancient Greek writings, simply took the idea and developed it.
If we choose to call this 3-pronged system 'homeopathy', then we're wrong, perhaps. It doesn't show the other aspects, which are just as important.
Without the minimum dose and single remedy, Hahnemann would have got nowhere.
Liz
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
Dear Liz & John
I am not sure exactly when Homoeopath came in to usage, but I think it is a term coined by Hahnemann, same as Allopathy etc.
Hahnemann's discovery was:
1- Like cures Like. This was the greatest discovery.
So to find out the first like (properties of the remedies), he set up provings.
He also gave us instructions on how to find out about the second like (disease sx) from the individual patients.
2- He then found dilution and potentisation - some 7-8 years after having discovered and practised Homeopathy.
(So homeopathy does NOT require dilution and potentisation. But if we do not use these techniques, we have very limited materia medica.)
3- Then he found out about the deeper problems caused by micro-organism which he called MIASM - now further developed by Dr Ardavan Shahrdar.
4- Then he further refined how the remedies are to be prescribed and how a diseased person be treated. (Eg water doses and Q (LM) potencies etc) -
(See Organon 4, 5 and 6)
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Liz Brynin
Sent: 22 July 2009 08:07
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Recommended Reading
Well, I still disagree. It is patently obvious on reading the Organon that this new medicine of Hahnemann's was comprised of 3 basic principles - not one.
I know very well what homeopathy menas - but it is only one facet of what Hahnemann was trying to achieve. And by the way, he didn't 'discover' homeopathy - the word comes from the Greek, and the principle of 'like cures like' was already known to the Ancient Greeks. Hahnemann, who knew about this way of treating illness from the Ancient Greek writings, simply took the idea and developed it.
If we choose to call this 3-pronged system 'homeopathy', then we're wrong, perhaps. It doesn't show the other aspects, which are just as important.
Without the minimum dose and single remedy, Hahnemann would have got nowhere.
Liz
I am not sure exactly when Homoeopath came in to usage, but I think it is a term coined by Hahnemann, same as Allopathy etc.
Hahnemann's discovery was:
1- Like cures Like. This was the greatest discovery.
So to find out the first like (properties of the remedies), he set up provings.
He also gave us instructions on how to find out about the second like (disease sx) from the individual patients.
2- He then found dilution and potentisation - some 7-8 years after having discovered and practised Homeopathy.
(So homeopathy does NOT require dilution and potentisation. But if we do not use these techniques, we have very limited materia medica.)
3- Then he found out about the deeper problems caused by micro-organism which he called MIASM - now further developed by Dr Ardavan Shahrdar.
4- Then he further refined how the remedies are to be prescribed and how a diseased person be treated. (Eg water doses and Q (LM) potencies etc) -
(See Organon 4, 5 and 6)
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Liz Brynin
Sent: 22 July 2009 08:07
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Recommended Reading
Well, I still disagree. It is patently obvious on reading the Organon that this new medicine of Hahnemann's was comprised of 3 basic principles - not one.
I know very well what homeopathy menas - but it is only one facet of what Hahnemann was trying to achieve. And by the way, he didn't 'discover' homeopathy - the word comes from the Greek, and the principle of 'like cures like' was already known to the Ancient Greeks. Hahnemann, who knew about this way of treating illness from the Ancient Greek writings, simply took the idea and developed it.
If we choose to call this 3-pronged system 'homeopathy', then we're wrong, perhaps. It doesn't show the other aspects, which are just as important.
Without the minimum dose and single remedy, Hahnemann would have got nowhere.
Liz
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
Hi, Liz --
Nobody here would disagree with you that potency (and dose, and miasm, and careful timing, and repetition in increasing potency, and... and...) are all important aspects of good homoeopathic practice. And nobody here would disagree that certain things (such as removing any maintaining cause, having a sympathetic ) complement good medical practice of any kind. (Those who practise what they call Heilkünst regard homoeopathy as being incomplete without integration into a practice that takes note of Hahnemann's complementary and less well-known recommendations. This doesn't alter their understanding that homoeopathy doesn't include those other recommendations. Yet those recommendations may be just as important. It may well be that, as you suggest, in order to be the most effective homoeopaths, we must become some broader kind of practitioner, such as a practitioner of Heilkünst.)
The point that we're making is not that any of these things is at all unimportant; it's that only one practice, requiring three elements (case-taking, pathogenesis, comparison), that makes or breaks whether what you're doing is homoeopathy at all. If you meet those three elements, it is; if you don't, it isn't. When it's as cut and dried as that, homoeopathy becomes very easy to explain in the most basic manner and very difficult to replace by other practices in the way that has been recommended by any number of aspiring gurus.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/22 Liz Brynin >
Nobody here would disagree with you that potency (and dose, and miasm, and careful timing, and repetition in increasing potency, and... and...) are all important aspects of good homoeopathic practice. And nobody here would disagree that certain things (such as removing any maintaining cause, having a sympathetic ) complement good medical practice of any kind. (Those who practise what they call Heilkünst regard homoeopathy as being incomplete without integration into a practice that takes note of Hahnemann's complementary and less well-known recommendations. This doesn't alter their understanding that homoeopathy doesn't include those other recommendations. Yet those recommendations may be just as important. It may well be that, as you suggest, in order to be the most effective homoeopaths, we must become some broader kind of practitioner, such as a practitioner of Heilkünst.)
The point that we're making is not that any of these things is at all unimportant; it's that only one practice, requiring three elements (case-taking, pathogenesis, comparison), that makes or breaks whether what you're doing is homoeopathy at all. If you meet those three elements, it is; if you don't, it isn't. When it's as cut and dried as that, homoeopathy becomes very easy to explain in the most basic manner and very difficult to replace by other practices in the way that has been recommended by any number of aspiring gurus.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/22 Liz Brynin >
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
Sorry about the incomplete sentence: it was interrupted by a phone call. 
I was talking there about a sympathetic disposition toward the patient.
John
2009/7/22 John Harvey >
I was talking there about a sympathetic disposition toward the patient.John
2009/7/22 John Harvey >
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
Hi, Soroush --
Yes, I forgot to mention that homoeopathy is not a Greek word but a Hahnemannian one; thanks.
A small correction to your account of the history: Hahnemann did not discover that like cures like and then set up provings -- at least, not by his own accounts of it. He set up a proving that opened his eyes to the possibility that like cures like. He set up more provings, conducted and encouraged treatment, and did historical medical research, all of which gave results consistent with "like cures like". Then he concluded that like cures like.
The order of this is important in establishing that Hahnemann's application of the law of similars was not merely a timely application of some universally acknowledged law but a generalisation of a great number of the most finely observed experiments ever conducted in medical history.
Hahnemann did indeed discover homoeopathy: serendipitously, one might say, but only because he had taken the enormous scientific leap of seeking to know the relationship between the primary effects of a substance and its ability to effect "good" results in certain kinds of illness.
Hahnemann's later criticism of quinine as being rarely suitable for intermittent fever shows the strides he took over the years in discernment of sufficient degrees of homoeopathicity, but certainly the broad similarities between the primary effects of Cinchona and the symptoms of intermittent fever evident in his first experiment were enough to galvanise him into further investigation, which resulted years later in the pronouncement that like cures like and a corresponding instruction, the homoeopathic practice, that likes by likes should be cured.
Anybody who actually reads the Organon rather than simply picks it up and puts it down every so often will know (1) that Hahnemann's discovery of homoeopathy was painstaking and original; (2) that he took great pains also to acknowledge all the previous speculations that had been made in the direction of the application of similars; but (3) that he nevertheless staked the claim, uncontested to this day, that he was the first to have actually tried to apply that idea systematically. I think that anyone who actually reads those statements will agree that to reinterpret them as confirming that Hahnemann applied some principle known of old would be perverse.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/22 >
________________________________
Yes, I forgot to mention that homoeopathy is not a Greek word but a Hahnemannian one; thanks.
A small correction to your account of the history: Hahnemann did not discover that like cures like and then set up provings -- at least, not by his own accounts of it. He set up a proving that opened his eyes to the possibility that like cures like. He set up more provings, conducted and encouraged treatment, and did historical medical research, all of which gave results consistent with "like cures like". Then he concluded that like cures like.
The order of this is important in establishing that Hahnemann's application of the law of similars was not merely a timely application of some universally acknowledged law but a generalisation of a great number of the most finely observed experiments ever conducted in medical history.
Hahnemann did indeed discover homoeopathy: serendipitously, one might say, but only because he had taken the enormous scientific leap of seeking to know the relationship between the primary effects of a substance and its ability to effect "good" results in certain kinds of illness.
Hahnemann's later criticism of quinine as being rarely suitable for intermittent fever shows the strides he took over the years in discernment of sufficient degrees of homoeopathicity, but certainly the broad similarities between the primary effects of Cinchona and the symptoms of intermittent fever evident in his first experiment were enough to galvanise him into further investigation, which resulted years later in the pronouncement that like cures like and a corresponding instruction, the homoeopathic practice, that likes by likes should be cured.
Anybody who actually reads the Organon rather than simply picks it up and puts it down every so often will know (1) that Hahnemann's discovery of homoeopathy was painstaking and original; (2) that he took great pains also to acknowledge all the previous speculations that had been made in the direction of the application of similars; but (3) that he nevertheless staked the claim, uncontested to this day, that he was the first to have actually tried to apply that idea systematically. I think that anyone who actually reads those statements will agree that to reinterpret them as confirming that Hahnemann applied some principle known of old would be perverse.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/22 >
________________________________
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
Here we go again John (angels / pins)
Hn was translating.
Read that the effect of bark extract was due to its bitterness.
Decided to try on himself (repeatedly) and on his friends & family.
Observed results that the extract produced malaria type symptoms! Eureka - Like Cures Like.
He call the method of finding the properties of a 'medicinal' substance PROVING.
Rgds
Soroush
[PERFECTION in its finality is not when nothing can be added, but when nothing can be taken away! (anon) ]
Keep it short and sweet!
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 22 July 2009 11:13
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Recommended Reading
Hi, Soroush --
Yes, I forgot to mention that homoeopathy is not a Greek word but a Hahnemannian one; thanks.
A small correction to your account of the history: Hahnemann did not discover that like cures like and then set up provings -- at least, not by his own accounts of it. He set up a proving that opened his eyes to the possibility that like cures like. He set up more provings, conducted and encouraged treatment, and did historical medical research, all of which gave results consistent with "like cures like". Then he concluded that like cures like.
The order of this is important in establishing that Hahnemann's application of the law of similars was not merely a timely application of some universally acknowledged law but a generalisation of a great number of the most finely observed experiments ever conducted in medical history.
Hahnemann did indeed discover homoeopathy: serendipitously, one might say, but only because he had taken the enormous scientific leap of seeking to know the relationship between the primary effects of a substance and its ability to effect "good" results in certain kinds of illness.
Hahnemann's later criticism of quinine as being rarely suitable for intermittent fever shows the strides he took over the years in discernment of sufficient degrees of homoeopathicity, but certainly the broad similarities between the primary effects of Cinchona and the symptoms of intermittent fever evident in his first experiment were enough to galvanise him into further investigation, which resulted years later in the pronouncement that like cures like and a corresponding instruction, the homoeopathic practice, that likes by likes should be cured.
Anybody who actually reads the Organon rather than simply picks it up and puts it down every so often will know (1) that Hahnemann's discovery of homoeopathy was painstaking and original; (2) that he took great pains also to acknowledge all the previous speculations that had been made in the direction of the application of similars; but (3) that he nevertheless staked the claim, uncontested to this day, that he was the first to have actually tried to apply that idea systematically. I think that anyone who actually reads those statements will agree that to reinterpret them as confirming that Hahnemann applied some principle known of old would be perverse.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/22 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
Hn was translating.
Read that the effect of bark extract was due to its bitterness.
Decided to try on himself (repeatedly) and on his friends & family.
Observed results that the extract produced malaria type symptoms! Eureka - Like Cures Like.
He call the method of finding the properties of a 'medicinal' substance PROVING.
Rgds
Soroush
[PERFECTION in its finality is not when nothing can be added, but when nothing can be taken away! (anon) ]
Keep it short and sweet!
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 22 July 2009 11:13
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Recommended Reading
Hi, Soroush --
Yes, I forgot to mention that homoeopathy is not a Greek word but a Hahnemannian one; thanks.
A small correction to your account of the history: Hahnemann did not discover that like cures like and then set up provings -- at least, not by his own accounts of it. He set up a proving that opened his eyes to the possibility that like cures like. He set up more provings, conducted and encouraged treatment, and did historical medical research, all of which gave results consistent with "like cures like". Then he concluded that like cures like.
The order of this is important in establishing that Hahnemann's application of the law of similars was not merely a timely application of some universally acknowledged law but a generalisation of a great number of the most finely observed experiments ever conducted in medical history.
Hahnemann did indeed discover homoeopathy: serendipitously, one might say, but only because he had taken the enormous scientific leap of seeking to know the relationship between the primary effects of a substance and its ability to effect "good" results in certain kinds of illness.
Hahnemann's later criticism of quinine as being rarely suitable for intermittent fever shows the strides he took over the years in discernment of sufficient degrees of homoeopathicity, but certainly the broad similarities between the primary effects of Cinchona and the symptoms of intermittent fever evident in his first experiment were enough to galvanise him into further investigation, which resulted years later in the pronouncement that like cures like and a corresponding instruction, the homoeopathic practice, that likes by likes should be cured.
Anybody who actually reads the Organon rather than simply picks it up and puts it down every so often will know (1) that Hahnemann's discovery of homoeopathy was painstaking and original; (2) that he took great pains also to acknowledge all the previous speculations that had been made in the direction of the application of similars; but (3) that he nevertheless staked the claim, uncontested to this day, that he was the first to have actually tried to apply that idea systematically. I think that anyone who actually reads those statements will agree that to reinterpret them as confirming that Hahnemann applied some principle known of old would be perverse.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/22 >
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
-
Lynn Cremona
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
The word Homeopathy did not exist before Hahnemann (before 1796) ‑‑
although the Principle of Similars, which has a long history, did (re
intro in the Organon).
Hahnemann was the one who figured out how to make this Principle into a
system.
He did it in _The Organon of Rational Healing_, which describes why he
thought about Similars, and then how to use the system.
Lynn
--------------------
finrod@finrod.co.uk wrote:
although the Principle of Similars, which has a long history, did (re
intro in the Organon).
Hahnemann was the one who figured out how to make this Principle into a
system.
He did it in _The Organon of Rational Healing_, which describes why he
thought about Similars, and then how to use the system.
Lynn
--------------------
finrod@finrod.co.uk wrote:
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
Yes... and?
2009/7/22 >
________________________________
________________________________
2009/7/22 >
________________________________
________________________________
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Recommended Reading
Yes, a proposed principle, observed sporadically, and never tested till Hahnemann tested it. It couldn't validly be called a summation of observations till he'd pulled together all the evidence and summated it. His summary was (at least, in Latin) Similia similibus curantur, and his instruction was therefore Similia similibus curentur. The proposed (i.e., little more than hypothetical) principle was just one more idea till he'd tested it. The principle was refined through testing, to the point at which he could later declare that Cinchona was rarely similar enough to malaria to actually have a curative (rather than simply disruptive) effect; yet it is the same, unchanged principle as he began with.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/22 Lynn Cremona >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
His summary was (at least, in Latin) Similia similibus curantur, and his instruction was therefore Similia similibus curentur. The proposed (i.e., little more than hypothetical) principle was just one more idea till he'd tested it. The principle was refined through testing, to the point at which he could later declare that Cinchona was rarely similar enough to malaria to actually have a curative (rather than simply disruptive) effect; yet it is the same, unchanged principle as he began with.Cheers!
John
2009/7/22 Lynn Cremona >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)