I'm tossing this question out with some trepidation, but what the heck...
I've been thinking about how, on the one hand, being sold in the *basics* is essential to best practice of any art and any science. (And what the "basics" are determined to *be*, determines the type and nature of the art or science, but skip that for the moment.)
On the other hand, is there *any* art, or *any* science, in which the whole of its future development is determined by anybody's groundwork---whatever the level of genius? The art of Rembrandt does not define "art"; and the physics of Newton does not define physics.
We refer to homeopathy as an art, and we refer to it as a science. Nowhere do we (homeopaths) refer to it as a "religion". (Tho some others have done so.)
So why is it that we (some of us) are having these endless arguments about whether or not the writing and work of "our founder" constitutes the full and only proper definition of homeopathy?
As opposed to either any art I can think of, or any science I can think of--where discoveries, inspirations and strokes of genius (or what-have-you) are used not as *defining*, but instead as bases for going yet further and achieving yet more?
Okay, hit me...
John, want to have the first crack at that?
Shannon
Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Yes, okay.
Let's begin with Rembrandt, then, and art. A relevant analogy, of course, would be that Rembrandt had one day discovered that applying a pigment to a surface in a manner designed to reproduce a picture from the imagination resulted in some related picture on that surface -- and called the process "painting".
In such an analogy, if the young student artist Turner, frustrated at his inability to produce lifelike pictures, had one day taken to his bed with a plate of spaghetti and sauce and declared that thenceforth he would practise his painting by eating spaghetti rather than by wielding a paintbrush or paint -- of what possible use would his "development" of painting have been to art? What would have been this development's contribution to art's advance, or to its teaching? Obviously, none at all; instead, all of Turner's great potential as a painter would have been lost to the world.
The lazy Turner might nevertheless have insisted that eating spaghetti, because its sauce was coloured, was a form of painting and should receive recognition as such.
What would buying into his confusion have contributed to clarity about what one meant by the word "painting"? What advance would it have made in the art of painting? What unique legacy would others' adoption of his settled confusion have bestowed upon posterity?
Now, let's turn to science.
Why aren't you out there campaigning, year in and year out -- in the way in which you have for homoeopathy to be understood to include polypharmacy -- for science to include spaghetti-eating?
When you say "science", do you mean what everybody else means by it? Why do you? Why don't you include taking to your bed with a bowl of spaghetti? Is that not too a form of discovery? When you use the word "science" as narrowly as the rest of us do, aren't you limiting science's potential?
Surely you deign to use the word "science" in the same way in which the rest of us do precisely because the ability of the process of science to advance and to produce new knowledge is completely unhampered by retaining our understanding of what it is. We do not have to redefine "science" with every new discovery or new technique, precisely because science is a meta-method whose definition clearly encompasses use of those techniques -- and because we may continue to use any "unscientific" manner of acquiring knowledge regardless.
Just so is "homoeopathy" a meta-method: it may encompass many techniques; many new medicines; many new patients, practitioners, locations, dosages, discoveries, and rules of thumb.
The potential of science is not limited by retaining an understanding that science seeks to advance knowledge with the certainty that comes of reproducing experiments and observations, testing explanations of their results, and seeking alternative explanations.
The potential of homoeopathy is not limited by retaining an understanding that it seeks to advance cure by applying to the patient the medicine best able to reproduce his symptoms in the healthy.
When we wish to acquire knowledge in a manner that fall outside the boundaries of science -- for instance, by asking somebody a question, or by thinking a problem through, or by clairvoyance or precognition -- is our ability to do so compromised one whit by the exclusion of that manner from the realm of scientific advance?
Of course it isn't -- otherwise surely you would be out there campaigning tirelessly on the science lists for "science" to include asking others for advice!
When you wish to try healing somebody through prayer, or magic, or psychotherapy, or giving him two medicines together, is your ability to succeed in doing so compromised one whit by the exclusion of your techniques from the realm of acupuncture?
The reason you are not out there campaigning on the acupuncture lists to have acupuncturists buy into prayer or shouting or psychotherapy as a form of acupuncture is not, of course, that you recognise that they are not forms of acupuncture. But that would be reason enough, wouldn't it?
Your ability to practise whatever you like is not compromised by its exclusion, by definition, from anything else, be it acupuncture, science, homoeopathy, or farming. But the ability for practitioners of acupuncture, or science, or homoeopathy to have sensible conversations would be forever frustrated by endless campaigns for practitioners to buy into "non-discriminatory" definitions in which everything must include everything else.
Science is science; clairvoyance and asking for help are something else altogether; and the fact that we're able to distinguish them one from another can only be useful, can't it.
Homoeopathy is homoeopathy; polypharmacy and other prescribing without knowledge of the effects of the medicine on the healthy, the state of the patient, etc., are something else altogether; and the fact that we're able to distinguish them one from another hurts nobody. Rather, it lets us communicate and even think clearly.
Without debate ad nauseam as to why the word "homoeopathy" can, could, and by rights should mean everything we wish to practise -- we could actually discuss homoeopathy!
Kind regards,
John
--
"Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their airways simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis vaccines stop vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis bacteria to other people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from society once vaccination rates are high? No.
"Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in. The presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in no way affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
—Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011",
Let's begin with Rembrandt, then, and art. A relevant analogy, of course, would be that Rembrandt had one day discovered that applying a pigment to a surface in a manner designed to reproduce a picture from the imagination resulted in some related picture on that surface -- and called the process "painting".
In such an analogy, if the young student artist Turner, frustrated at his inability to produce lifelike pictures, had one day taken to his bed with a plate of spaghetti and sauce and declared that thenceforth he would practise his painting by eating spaghetti rather than by wielding a paintbrush or paint -- of what possible use would his "development" of painting have been to art? What would have been this development's contribution to art's advance, or to its teaching? Obviously, none at all; instead, all of Turner's great potential as a painter would have been lost to the world.
The lazy Turner might nevertheless have insisted that eating spaghetti, because its sauce was coloured, was a form of painting and should receive recognition as such.
What would buying into his confusion have contributed to clarity about what one meant by the word "painting"? What advance would it have made in the art of painting? What unique legacy would others' adoption of his settled confusion have bestowed upon posterity?
Now, let's turn to science.
Why aren't you out there campaigning, year in and year out -- in the way in which you have for homoeopathy to be understood to include polypharmacy -- for science to include spaghetti-eating?
When you say "science", do you mean what everybody else means by it? Why do you? Why don't you include taking to your bed with a bowl of spaghetti? Is that not too a form of discovery? When you use the word "science" as narrowly as the rest of us do, aren't you limiting science's potential?
Surely you deign to use the word "science" in the same way in which the rest of us do precisely because the ability of the process of science to advance and to produce new knowledge is completely unhampered by retaining our understanding of what it is. We do not have to redefine "science" with every new discovery or new technique, precisely because science is a meta-method whose definition clearly encompasses use of those techniques -- and because we may continue to use any "unscientific" manner of acquiring knowledge regardless.
Just so is "homoeopathy" a meta-method: it may encompass many techniques; many new medicines; many new patients, practitioners, locations, dosages, discoveries, and rules of thumb.
The potential of science is not limited by retaining an understanding that science seeks to advance knowledge with the certainty that comes of reproducing experiments and observations, testing explanations of their results, and seeking alternative explanations.
The potential of homoeopathy is not limited by retaining an understanding that it seeks to advance cure by applying to the patient the medicine best able to reproduce his symptoms in the healthy.
When we wish to acquire knowledge in a manner that fall outside the boundaries of science -- for instance, by asking somebody a question, or by thinking a problem through, or by clairvoyance or precognition -- is our ability to do so compromised one whit by the exclusion of that manner from the realm of scientific advance?
Of course it isn't -- otherwise surely you would be out there campaigning tirelessly on the science lists for "science" to include asking others for advice!
When you wish to try healing somebody through prayer, or magic, or psychotherapy, or giving him two medicines together, is your ability to succeed in doing so compromised one whit by the exclusion of your techniques from the realm of acupuncture?
The reason you are not out there campaigning on the acupuncture lists to have acupuncturists buy into prayer or shouting or psychotherapy as a form of acupuncture is not, of course, that you recognise that they are not forms of acupuncture. But that would be reason enough, wouldn't it?
Your ability to practise whatever you like is not compromised by its exclusion, by definition, from anything else, be it acupuncture, science, homoeopathy, or farming. But the ability for practitioners of acupuncture, or science, or homoeopathy to have sensible conversations would be forever frustrated by endless campaigns for practitioners to buy into "non-discriminatory" definitions in which everything must include everything else.
Science is science; clairvoyance and asking for help are something else altogether; and the fact that we're able to distinguish them one from another can only be useful, can't it.
Homoeopathy is homoeopathy; polypharmacy and other prescribing without knowledge of the effects of the medicine on the healthy, the state of the patient, etc., are something else altogether; and the fact that we're able to distinguish them one from another hurts nobody. Rather, it lets us communicate and even think clearly.
Without debate ad nauseam as to why the word "homoeopathy" can, could, and by rights should mean everything we wish to practise -- we could actually discuss homoeopathy!
Kind regards,
John
--
"Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their airways simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis vaccines stop vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis bacteria to other people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from society once vaccination rates are high? No.
"Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in. The presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in no way affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
—Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011",
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Whew, okay, never mind... Once again you are departing from what I have *said* and wandering through vast swamps of things I have not said.
My basic question is this:
If we begin with the viewpoint that "homeopathy" means only and precisely that method taught by Hahnemann in the Organon (6th ed. only, or can we include the five prior editions too?), then one has to ask why it is that *this* art (and no other), or *this* science (and no other) is fully delineated, and any departure from that is (by definition) not-homeopathy?
I'm not interested in your analogies below, because they are irrelevant to my question.
Shannon
My basic question is this:
If we begin with the viewpoint that "homeopathy" means only and precisely that method taught by Hahnemann in the Organon (6th ed. only, or can we include the five prior editions too?), then one has to ask why it is that *this* art (and no other), or *this* science (and no other) is fully delineated, and any departure from that is (by definition) not-homeopathy?
I'm not interested in your analogies below, because they are irrelevant to my question.
Shannon
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Shannon, YOU raised the analogy with art as defined by Rembrandt's brushstrokes -- which illustrates perfectly your incomprehension of what homoeopathy is -- and the analogy with the meaning of science. If you can't understand your own analogy, then perhaps you need to think before posing the analogy. Of course I didn't simply repeat what you'd said; if I stuck to that, how could I answer you? Try making some sense.
Now that you put the question again without an analogy, you find that you have to set up your usual straw man more plainly: that if homoeopathy means what Hahnemann said it means, then it must also mean following his every direction as to how best to practise it.
You can see, can't you, that the second does NOT follow from the first? And you know very well, don't you, that nobody (least of all I) claims that homoeopathy practised in any way that departs from Hahnemann's particular directions is not homoeopathy. You think it's an insoluble confusion to throw into the pot, do you?
Try posing the question you really want addressed, without misrepresenting the case being presented to you -- which is that the unchanged nature of homoeopathy's meaning does not stop you from doing whatever else you like, but merely stops you from calling it homoeopathy.
Then maybe you'll understand the answer you get.
John
--
"Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their airways simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis vaccines stop vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis bacteria to other people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from society once vaccination rates are high? No.
"Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in. The presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in no way affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
—Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011",
Now that you put the question again without an analogy, you find that you have to set up your usual straw man more plainly: that if homoeopathy means what Hahnemann said it means, then it must also mean following his every direction as to how best to practise it.
You can see, can't you, that the second does NOT follow from the first? And you know very well, don't you, that nobody (least of all I) claims that homoeopathy practised in any way that departs from Hahnemann's particular directions is not homoeopathy. You think it's an insoluble confusion to throw into the pot, do you?
Try posing the question you really want addressed, without misrepresenting the case being presented to you -- which is that the unchanged nature of homoeopathy's meaning does not stop you from doing whatever else you like, but merely stops you from calling it homoeopathy.
Then maybe you'll understand the answer you get.
John
--
"Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their airways simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis vaccines stop vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis bacteria to other people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from society once vaccination rates are high? No.
"Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in. The presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in no way affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
—Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011",
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Shannon,
This discussion is another ridiculous one on minutus that goes on ad nauseum.
Fundamentalists are fundamentalists regardless of the subject. Their effort is to
reduce 'facts' down to very narrow, rigid statements. The reality that history changes
as new information is gleaned does not compute with fundamentalists. If they do
accept change, it will only be if they decide on what that change can/will be and then
they will twist it to conform to their rigid concepts.
Look at the fundamentalists with the rigid, narrow concept of what the Constitution is
about. They would undo most ammendments to the Constitution and return this country
to the days of slave holding and woman not being allowed to vote. Their concept of
Purity is more a reflexion of their own biases, prejudices, and subjective belief systems.
Belief systems are just that and it is impossible to argue with deeply held belief systems.
Religion is not the only belief system that holds reality hostage.
I support homeopathy and Hahnemann's teachings. But reading on this genius teaches
us that he was never rigid. If something looked different than what he practiced, he spent
hours researching it to find its truth. He was autocratic in his own way and not very pleasant
a person which probably cost homeopathy down the line, but he was an open-minded person
and used his powers of observation to lead him towards an ever growing body of information.
He changed the Organon 6x in his life as he made changes to his system of healing. Why
would anyone think that if he had the lifespan of Methusela that there would not have been
at least another 6 versions of the Organon before us today.
tanya
This discussion is another ridiculous one on minutus that goes on ad nauseum.
Fundamentalists are fundamentalists regardless of the subject. Their effort is to
reduce 'facts' down to very narrow, rigid statements. The reality that history changes
as new information is gleaned does not compute with fundamentalists. If they do
accept change, it will only be if they decide on what that change can/will be and then
they will twist it to conform to their rigid concepts.
Look at the fundamentalists with the rigid, narrow concept of what the Constitution is
about. They would undo most ammendments to the Constitution and return this country
to the days of slave holding and woman not being allowed to vote. Their concept of
Purity is more a reflexion of their own biases, prejudices, and subjective belief systems.
Belief systems are just that and it is impossible to argue with deeply held belief systems.
Religion is not the only belief system that holds reality hostage.
I support homeopathy and Hahnemann's teachings. But reading on this genius teaches
us that he was never rigid. If something looked different than what he practiced, he spent
hours researching it to find its truth. He was autocratic in his own way and not very pleasant
a person which probably cost homeopathy down the line, but he was an open-minded person
and used his powers of observation to lead him towards an ever growing body of information.
He changed the Organon 6x in his life as he made changes to his system of healing. Why
would anyone think that if he had the lifespan of Methusela that there would not have been
at least another 6 versions of the Organon before us today.
tanya
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Thank you, Tanya -- couldn't have asked for a better illustration!
John
--
"Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their airways simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis vaccines stop vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis bacteria to other people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from society once vaccination rates are high? No.
"Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in. The presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in no way affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
—Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011",
John
--
"Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their airways simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis vaccines stop vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis bacteria to other people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from society once vaccination rates are high? No.
"Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in. The presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in no way affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
—Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011",
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Thanks Tanya, good points.
I guess it especially comes to "Belief systems are just that and it is impossible to argue with deeply held belief systems." Yet unless the community can--somehow--gain some sort of greater unity, we'll remain as powerless and at-risk as we have been all along--in the US, at least. And this is a time of so much risk, so much in need of "plays well with others". What to do...
Shannon
I guess it especially comes to "Belief systems are just that and it is impossible to argue with deeply held belief systems." Yet unless the community can--somehow--gain some sort of greater unity, we'll remain as powerless and at-risk as we have been all along--in the US, at least. And this is a time of so much risk, so much in need of "plays well with others". What to do...
Shannon
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Agree. Having worked on many issues that required coalition building, it seems that
if we are to come together as a professional community, people will have to stop arguing
internally and figure out the core issues of our survival. Coalitions work when people can
agree to some core points and stay focused on them. A couple of years ago one such
coalition defeated a $50 million bond in our school district. I found myself working with
such diametrically politically opposition people but we came to core agreements of what
to talk about, what to not talk about publically, and to stay focused. We had the biggest
ever voter turnout in our district due to this activity. And even tho our group has pretty
much disbanded, the district still quakes when any of us gets up to speak because they
have felt the power we were able to wield.
The Occupy Movement is working on this type of coalition building.
Tahrir Square in Egypt did that.
Many other historical examples for homepaths to learn from
tanya
if we are to come together as a professional community, people will have to stop arguing
internally and figure out the core issues of our survival. Coalitions work when people can
agree to some core points and stay focused on them. A couple of years ago one such
coalition defeated a $50 million bond in our school district. I found myself working with
such diametrically politically opposition people but we came to core agreements of what
to talk about, what to not talk about publically, and to stay focused. We had the biggest
ever voter turnout in our district due to this activity. And even tho our group has pretty
much disbanded, the district still quakes when any of us gets up to speak because they
have felt the power we were able to wield.
The Occupy Movement is working on this type of coalition building.
Tahrir Square in Egypt did that.
Many other historical examples for homepaths to learn from
tanya
-
Edouard Broussalian
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 11:00 pm
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Brillant answer, thanks
________________________________
De : "tamarque@earthlink.net"
À : minutus@yahoogroups.com
Envoyé le : Lundi 9 Janvier 2012 11h04
Objet : Re: [Minutus] Ducking now [was: Re: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Shannon,
This discussion is another ridiculous one on minutus that goes on ad nauseum.
Fundamentalists are fundamentalists regardless of the subject. Their effort is to
reduce 'facts' down to very narrow, rigid statements. The reality that history changes
as new information is gleaned does not compute with fundamentalists. If they do
accept change, it will only be if they decide on what that change can/will be and then
they will twist it to conform to their rigid concepts.
Look at the fundamentalists with the rigid, narrow concept of what the Constitution is
about. They would undo most ammendments to the Constitution and return this country
to the days of slave holding and woman not being allowed to vote. Their concept of
Purity is more a reflexion of their own biases, prejudices, and subjective belief systems.
Belief systems are just that and it is impossible to argue with deeply held belief systems.
Religion is not the only belief system that holds reality hostage.
I support homeopathy and Hahnemann's teachings. But reading on this genius teaches
us that he was never rigid. If something looked different than what he practiced, he spent
hours researching it to find its truth. He was autocratic in his own way and not very pleasant
a person which probably cost homeopathy down the line, but he was an open-minded person
and used his powers of observation to lead him towards an ever growing body of information.
He changed the Organon 6x in his life as he made changes to his system of healing. Why
would anyone think that if he had the lifespan of Methusela that there would not have been
at least another 6 versions of the Organon before us today.
tanya
________________________________
De : "tamarque@earthlink.net"
À : minutus@yahoogroups.com
Envoyé le : Lundi 9 Janvier 2012 11h04
Objet : Re: [Minutus] Ducking now [was: Re: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Shannon,
This discussion is another ridiculous one on minutus that goes on ad nauseum.
Fundamentalists are fundamentalists regardless of the subject. Their effort is to
reduce 'facts' down to very narrow, rigid statements. The reality that history changes
as new information is gleaned does not compute with fundamentalists. If they do
accept change, it will only be if they decide on what that change can/will be and then
they will twist it to conform to their rigid concepts.
Look at the fundamentalists with the rigid, narrow concept of what the Constitution is
about. They would undo most ammendments to the Constitution and return this country
to the days of slave holding and woman not being allowed to vote. Their concept of
Purity is more a reflexion of their own biases, prejudices, and subjective belief systems.
Belief systems are just that and it is impossible to argue with deeply held belief systems.
Religion is not the only belief system that holds reality hostage.
I support homeopathy and Hahnemann's teachings. But reading on this genius teaches
us that he was never rigid. If something looked different than what he practiced, he spent
hours researching it to find its truth. He was autocratic in his own way and not very pleasant
a person which probably cost homeopathy down the line, but he was an open-minded person
and used his powers of observation to lead him towards an ever growing body of information.
He changed the Organon 6x in his life as he made changes to his system of healing. Why
would anyone think that if he had the lifespan of Methusela that there would not have been
at least another 6 versions of the Organon before us today.
tanya
Re: Ducking now [was: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Hello Shannon,
After giving your question some thought, I was hard pressed to find an example in any given legitimate science in which the fundamental principles in which it is based on natural law have changed or been asked to change or when some have interjected that we grossly alter the terminologies and meanings of said terms.
Take for example Democritus whom we could call the first chief atomist. This eventually led to the work of John Dalton and then finally to JJ Thomson and Max Planck who handed everything over to Einstein. Although numerous new discoveries were made, none of them began calling electrons pollywogs nor did they ever add anything to the current mix of physics that could not be repeated. They only evolved physics by adding to it events with accompanying terms, that could, through the scientific method, be repeated by second and third parties. When a science sticks to natural, repeatable principles it evolves into something spectacular, like Homeopathy. There is no need to add to Homeopathy several new elements that lack peer review much less are so lacking in repeatability. It was and is to this moment also of great significance to note that, in the field of physics, they have a place for the unrepeatable elements of their field, it's called "theoretical" physics.
Best regards,
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote:
After giving your question some thought, I was hard pressed to find an example in any given legitimate science in which the fundamental principles in which it is based on natural law have changed or been asked to change or when some have interjected that we grossly alter the terminologies and meanings of said terms.
Take for example Democritus whom we could call the first chief atomist. This eventually led to the work of John Dalton and then finally to JJ Thomson and Max Planck who handed everything over to Einstein. Although numerous new discoveries were made, none of them began calling electrons pollywogs nor did they ever add anything to the current mix of physics that could not be repeated. They only evolved physics by adding to it events with accompanying terms, that could, through the scientific method, be repeated by second and third parties. When a science sticks to natural, repeatable principles it evolves into something spectacular, like Homeopathy. There is no need to add to Homeopathy several new elements that lack peer review much less are so lacking in repeatability. It was and is to this moment also of great significance to note that, in the field of physics, they have a place for the unrepeatable elements of their field, it's called "theoretical" physics.
Best regards,
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote: