Minutus

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:

Hi Rik,
Which are the fundamental principles you think I have talked about seeing change in?
Which are the terms that you feel I am proposing to grossly alter?
And you are comparing this to...
You are making incorrect assumptions about what I am talking about.
Right. Now what do you *think* I am talking about?
Then I'll tell you what I *am* talking about.
I think you need to check that definition. I find this definition and comment at http://www.answers.com/topic/theoretical-physics :

"The description of natural phenomena in mathematical form. It is impossible to separate theoretical physics from experimental physics, since a complete understanding of nature can be obtained only by the application of both theory and experiment. ..."

Hm, so would we class e.g. Scholten as a "theoretical homeopath"? Yeah, I think that would work. Then we get to the field testing, data collection and analysis.

Shannon

I love the idea of 'theoretical physics' when they cant answer their own questions.
But when it comes the physics of homeopathy, the workings of this protocol are
considered nonsense. Talk about cognitive dissonance!!!!
tanya

Hello Tanya,
Could you point out where in any editions or his later work, in what are often referred to as the Paris Case Books, that Hahnemann changed his idea, much less his definition of 'like cures like'? Since that is a rhetorical question I guess we can now call Hahnemann a fundamentalist?
You go on in this post casting a wide generalized net to include everyone, again, that does not agree with you...It would be hard not to consider this to be a beautiful example of exactly what you are railing against. To be taken seriously please do put on the table some legitimate concerns in which you are calling the fundamentalists out. Without picking any specific point or points this is border line fundamentalist gibberish.

Thanks,
Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "tamarque@..." wrote: