Minutus

How does that compare with IDEM?
Soroush

So which "science" is indeed exact, can you name one?

yeah Joy -remember wee not talking about whether we're exact n
homeopathy here but whether H is scientific
Simon
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

Any really where you don't introduce a variable that isn't in the
equation.

the variable that isn't in te equation here is the homepaths themselves,
te variable tat is in te equation is the results gained by te Pxs
Simon
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

(In general response to the science thread):

The practice of science involves a great deal of creativity. Scientists
don't always get the results they were expecting, and repeatability
isn't guaranteed. That's after the experiment has been set up and the
scientist thinks they know what they're measuring. The idea of science
and the practice of science may be two different things. Similarly with
the idea and practice of Homeopathy.

If you just consider the philosophy of Homeopathy, probably most of us
with a classical orientation regard it as the near-perfect medicine
(allowing for the fact that nothing of this world is totally perfect.)
And that's how we think of it. This system of medicine seems to have
the potential to cure most of the worlds ills, if only... (unless you
subscribe to the spiritual block theory.)

The practice of homeopathy, however, is fraught with unknowns, not
unlike the practice of science. In both cases, we use experimentation
to try to approach a more complete understanding of what we are dealing
with (life, the universe, and everything?), but in both cases the
closer we get to the core of the matter (quantum physics, abstract
mental and emotional symptoms, etc.) the greater the significance of
the "observer". The ideas are clean and perfect, but the practice is
messy and greatly effected by the influence of the
scientist/practitioner.

If something that's "scientific" is supposed to be fool-proof, then
even science isn't "scientific". Nothing is. What if the lab-tech
wasn't conscientious and the beakers were contaminated before the
experiment began?

I'm in favor of continuing to develop homeopathy, both the theory and
practice (in a scientific way , and in keeping with the foundation
laid-down by Hahnamann, of course), and making it accessible to as many
people as possible. And if someone comes out with new ideas and
theories, based on their experience, about how to work with subtler
symptom pictures, or how to use one's intuition to become a better
practitioner, that's great! In any case, we can't control the response
of the uneducated masses. We can't control whether someone, somewhere
will be misguided, or skew the information, or take it as their license
to use the Organon for toilet paper and start prescribing hourly
repetitions of high-potency, dry, combination remedies!

It is up to each person to evaluate the new contributions and determine
if they think they're 1) bunk, through and through, or 2) the best
thing since sliced bread, or 3) good for someone else, but not for me
(for whatever reasons). It is critical that we remember the third
category! This is individualizing; It's what makes homeopathy
different. We realize that what works for me, may not work for you,
etc.

I sat on my hands through most of this thread, but in the end, I just
couldn't help myself.

If you vehemently disagree with something I wrote, or think I'm totally
unfounded, an ignoramus, completely offensive, or whatever, please,
tell me nicely.

Thanks in advance.

Keep up the good work.

Satya
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What this brings me to wondering now is what Chris was aiming at when
stating vehemetly that homeopathy was scientific?
Simon
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

I can't write for Chris and I know she will bring clarification as
always but I also say, have said, that Homeopathy is scientific but
with a splash of intuition and instinct that most scientific practices
utterly depend upon to create ideas to explore if nothing else.

You are asking a lot of questions Simon but not sure you are giving any
answers - where is all this going? Where do you want this to go? I also
think the post you replied to below IS also saying that Homeopathy is
scientific. The fact that it may have flaws doesn't mean that it isn't
scientific. Best, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
edited
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joy,

I meant to say that Homeopathy is about as scientific as science is,
but that the way people seem to be using the word scientific seems
problematic. Science isn't necessarily concrete, fool-proof, or clean
of human influence. It's not pure or sterile, that's just it's media
image.

Homeopathy does seem to be grounded in scientific method, but doesn't
cooperated with the mechanistic assumptions of a lot of (non-quantum)
science. This makes translating Homeopathy into "scientific" terms,
according to the popular assumptions about science, a difficult, if
not futile, task. That effectively reduces the meaning of calling
Homeopathy scientific. It may be the most scientific medicine around
(I think so), but until the popular assumptions about science, and the
nature of reality, shift, I'm not sure how useful it is to use the
word "scientific".

Personally, if I wish to convert a non-believer, and I patiently and
systematically explain the concepts of holistic, dynamic medicine from
the ground up, starting with hard-to-refute examples of a mind-body
connection based on common experiences, I rarely make it to the end of
my schpiel since the resistance is so deep that it defies logic. (Even
convincing someone who already accepts the principles of holistic
medicine to visit a homeopath can be quite difficult. Everyone in
their own time, I guess.)

Shalom,
Satya
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
as
practices
any
also
is
isn't
when

"Science is not pure or sterile" is what many of us have been saying
but if you are going to put import into "popular assumptions" or
"mechanistic assumptions" then you are treading on very shaky ground.
We don't need homeopathy to be defined by populist theories. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
cut
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Right, but I thought part of the point was how to communicate
homeopathy to the broader world. In that case popular assumptions are
very relavent, since it helps to speak in a language that the listner
can understand.

Even on this list, which is supposed to be discussion among the
insiders, assumptions seem to be very significant. We're all starting
with different assumptions, and so things sometimes get hairy.

Speaking of assumptions, I just replied to your message without really
undearstanding what you meant. What is the shaky ground that you are
referring to. I could try to guess, but I want to know what you mean.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
and the