Animosity and hostility / An ethical challenge to combination prescribers /

[John Harvey]

Hi, Jennifer --
The possibility of applying this marketing approach to the question of whether it's better to represent homoeopathy accurately or inaccurately is an intriguing one! The idea is interesting that, for instance, it might be more constructive to point out the benefits of representing one's practice in accurate terms than to speak of deliberate inaccuracy as undesirable.
That sounds fair enough. If that's your vision of how it could be approached, would you agree that it's desirable, probably even necessary, first to speak of the benefits of acknowledging inaccuracy in meaning, or do you think it's possible and useful to hold these discussions in the abstract, not seeming to apply to any particular practice, person, or thing? In other words, if the relevance of a discussion isn't established, then is there any point in it?
And if questions of meaning are to be repeatedly misinterpreted as questions of value, then how do you suggest they be addressed: by diverting conversation to the questions that weren't posed, or by clarifying them?
Finally, don't you think that, to some extent, constructive discussion requires acknowledgement of other points of view? Do two (or more) monologues on different topics, talking at cross-purposes and not responding to one another, make a conversation worth the name? Do you think that when others reply responsively to your ideas, it may be constructive to acknowledge whatever validity or truth lies in their statements, and to attempt to respond to relevant questions?
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on all this; thanks.
Cheers --
John