R. Gibson Miller (Gibs Miller is a short name, easily recognized by all Homeopaths)
Dr. Roz wrote:
Never heard of this person..........
This is an expression for acting smart.
This shows your half knowledge & still you want to dominate.
_____________________________________________________
Reference please?
á
Never heard of this person..........
á
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com á
á
R. Gibson Miller
-
Liz Brynin
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: R. Gibson Miller
Sorry, but I have never heard of him either!
And with regard to the comment that was made about Dr.Rozencwajg :
"This is an expression for acting smart.
This shows your half knowledge & still you want to dominate."
- I consider this to be unbelievably personal and rude. Can we please stop such attacks?
Liz
Reference please?
á
Never heard of this person..........
á
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com á
á
And with regard to the comment that was made about Dr.Rozencwajg :
"This is an expression for acting smart.
This shows your half knowledge & still you want to dominate."
- I consider this to be unbelievably personal and rude. Can we please stop such attacks?
Liz
Reference please?
á
Never heard of this person..........
á
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com á
á
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: R. Gibson Miller
Just coming in on the last two posts here, but I agree with Liz. First, I'd never have recognised "Gibs Miller" to be R. Gibson Miller (a name that most practitioners probably have heard of but is in no wise essential to know), and to presume that anybody would do so may be a bit silly.
Second, Dr Roz's (or anybody's) request for a reference is a request for something fundamental to all scientific progress: to some (secondhand) indication of the very evidence that one has claimed exists. If Dr Roz had sought to reduce MM's status, he might have asked for something more stringent: original photocopies perhaps, or proof of MM's involvement in the relevant discovery. He instead asked for the least that MM must be able to offer in support of a contention of fact: a reference. A reference to the evidence one says exists is the basis of any scientific advance to be made outside the laboratory or field laboratory itself.
We trust our scientific researchers (sometimes to our loss) not to falsify their original data, even if those data may have been derived through some kind of error. But, whilst we cannot reasonably demand access to a laboratory to oversee experiments, or to the field laboratory to oversee observations in progress, the scientific process does not otherwise -- and should not otherwise -- rely on the authority of any person; it relies instead on readiness to produce the evidence.
To berate a request for evidence, then, as constituting "acting smart"; "half knowledge"; or a "want to dominate" is to entirely mistake the nature of scientific enquiry and scientific progress and, doubtlessly inadvertently, to offer in its place one's own authority in the matter. One of the incidental consequences is, as Liz has pointed out, an unnecessary and unjustified demeaning of the individual who happens to have advanced science by one small step by asking for a reference.
I hope that that clears up something of the process for you, MM.
Cheers --
John
Reference please?
á
Never heard of this person..........
á
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com á
á
Second, Dr Roz's (or anybody's) request for a reference is a request for something fundamental to all scientific progress: to some (secondhand) indication of the very evidence that one has claimed exists. If Dr Roz had sought to reduce MM's status, he might have asked for something more stringent: original photocopies perhaps, or proof of MM's involvement in the relevant discovery. He instead asked for the least that MM must be able to offer in support of a contention of fact: a reference. A reference to the evidence one says exists is the basis of any scientific advance to be made outside the laboratory or field laboratory itself.
We trust our scientific researchers (sometimes to our loss) not to falsify their original data, even if those data may have been derived through some kind of error. But, whilst we cannot reasonably demand access to a laboratory to oversee experiments, or to the field laboratory to oversee observations in progress, the scientific process does not otherwise -- and should not otherwise -- rely on the authority of any person; it relies instead on readiness to produce the evidence.
To berate a request for evidence, then, as constituting "acting smart"; "half knowledge"; or a "want to dominate" is to entirely mistake the nature of scientific enquiry and scientific progress and, doubtlessly inadvertently, to offer in its place one's own authority in the matter. One of the incidental consequences is, as Liz has pointed out, an unnecessary and unjustified demeaning of the individual who happens to have advanced science by one small step by asking for a reference.
I hope that that clears up something of the process for you, MM.
Cheers --
John
Reference please?
á
Never heard of this person..........
á
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com á
á
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: R. Gibson Miller
It is amazing how much energy is spent at insulting people who ask genuine questions and how little at finding answers.
If I may answer in the same email about Laws and Principles, all of those have explanations, that, as Homeopathic Doctor writes, are in the books.
The number of succussions is not a good example as we know from H himself that he tried many different ones and we know that today different pharmacies use different number of succussions.
What I asked was, in case it has been forgotten in the "Joe bashing", was this: there is a "rule" that some remedies must not be prescribed one after the other, and especially the trio Calc Sulph Lyc. Please explain WHY this rule should exist other that experience of practitioners, which as some courageous souls have confirmed, is certainly not universal.
Let's see with examples: gravity is a Law, inescapable; did it start existing when Newton formulated it? No, his Law of Gravity EXPLAINED what happened and what can be expected. Which also BTW is linked to the EXPLANATION of why the sun raises in the East.
We can breathe air but not water. Fact. Explanation: because we do not have gills and here is the difference between gills and lungs........
I do not care at all about the opinion some people have about me and their delusions about my domination instincts, frankly it is absolutely irrelevant and totally laughable.
What I do care is that when a genuine question is asked, the answer is all too often "follow the religion". How are we supposed to make progress that way?
And we have witnessed ferocious arguments about the use of LM potencies, which is progress for some and useless complications for others; between dry dosers and liquid dosers; progress within homeopathy apparently is also not welcome, let alone asking for a clear mechanism of action and an understanding based on what we know today.
Well, that is anyone's choice..........
Now I am going to don my leather boots, my straps and leather mask, grab my whip and go and play dominatrix......
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
If I may answer in the same email about Laws and Principles, all of those have explanations, that, as Homeopathic Doctor writes, are in the books.
The number of succussions is not a good example as we know from H himself that he tried many different ones and we know that today different pharmacies use different number of succussions.
What I asked was, in case it has been forgotten in the "Joe bashing", was this: there is a "rule" that some remedies must not be prescribed one after the other, and especially the trio Calc Sulph Lyc. Please explain WHY this rule should exist other that experience of practitioners, which as some courageous souls have confirmed, is certainly not universal.
Let's see with examples: gravity is a Law, inescapable; did it start existing when Newton formulated it? No, his Law of Gravity EXPLAINED what happened and what can be expected. Which also BTW is linked to the EXPLANATION of why the sun raises in the East.
We can breathe air but not water. Fact. Explanation: because we do not have gills and here is the difference between gills and lungs........
I do not care at all about the opinion some people have about me and their delusions about my domination instincts, frankly it is absolutely irrelevant and totally laughable.
What I do care is that when a genuine question is asked, the answer is all too often "follow the religion". How are we supposed to make progress that way?
And we have witnessed ferocious arguments about the use of LM potencies, which is progress for some and useless complications for others; between dry dosers and liquid dosers; progress within homeopathy apparently is also not welcome, let alone asking for a clear mechanism of action and an understanding based on what we know today.
Well, that is anyone's choice..........
Now I am going to don my leather boots, my straps and leather mask, grab my whip and go and play dominatrix......
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com