Minutus

Hi Chris,
As a positive and helpful conclusion to this thread - since I feel you are the right person for such a task - can you please summarize for all of us a good [no-bullshit, but still polite and encouraging] answer to all those intimidated people [not homeopaths - I mean potential patients], except for: 'it works and we have examples - so what else matters?', or: 'just try it and see yourself' [they don't buy this - it only strengthens their intimidation].
TIA
Maly

Chris Gillen wrote:
[snip]
I have patients who are bullied into stopping treatment by their partners
because of Randy-type programs and Lancet reports. These are adults, and
children, whose lives could be changed for the better through homoeopathic
treatment! When a patient of mine wanted to study homoeopathy and her spouse
baulked at the idea of spending $15,000+ on a load of alternative hooey I
knew it was time to get beyond the "oh well we don't really know how it all
works", and searching for totally inadequate lab trials that can only prove
"homoeopathy is placebo".
It's time to stop apologizing for our own scientific methodology because
allopathy can't get it to fit into a square box. Homoeopathy has stood the
test of time. We need to be able to answer difficult questions and speak
confidently about our own scientific methods, our own philosophical
influences, and why we know it as a scientific fact that homoeopathy can
cure. When you start ranting that the very foundational definitions of our
scientific truth are not what they are, then sir, I take exception to that.

That's it.

[snip]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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

I haven't really been following this discussion lately but am intrigued
by the notion that homeopathy is 'scientific'

Intrigued because this term 'scientific means different things to
different people , and it is a term oft bandied about on the assumption
that we all know what it means

I know that my understanding of it is somewhere between a popular
conception that encompasses all that is done by persons with white
coats and what my physicist friend explains to me.

Either way it is difficult to call homeopathy 'scientific' when so much
its application is based on the MM or Reps composed themselves from
such varied (and sometimes questionable) sources

To define homepathy as scientific we would surely first have to take a
cured case and ask 'How was homeopathy applied i this instance'?
i.e. work fro back to front
also many parameters would have to be predetermined:
How would the situation where the Px was curd but by the 10th remedy
not the first fir t into the model?
How to differentiate between acute and chronic cases, e.g. does an
acute become chronic after the failure of one remedy, two, three, ten,
or did it resolve itself without remedies ?
How to incorporate the requirement of more than one remedy where in the
course of treatment different remedies are indicated?

As homeopaths we may understand all the above but how to incorporate it
into a 'scientific' definition. one that would be accepted by tose that
call themselves ' The scientists'? It would have to be a definition
surely that falls outside the populist understanding of scientific?

So what do we mean when we say homeopathy is scientific? Whose
definition of scientific are we using?
Simon

ps
Excerpted From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific


What is science?
There are different theories of what science is.
According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically
testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be
checked and possibly contradicted.
In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology:
science attempts to identify phenomena and entities in the environment,
their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those
powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's
structure or internal nature.
Even in the empiricist tradition, we must be careful to understand that
"prediction" refers to the outcome of an experiment or study, rather
than to literally predicting the future. For example, to say, "a
paleontologist may make predictions about finding a certain type of
dinosaur" is consistent with the empiricist's use of prediction. On the
other hand, sciences like geology or meteorology need not be able to
make accurate predictions about earthquakes or the weather to qualify
as sciences. Empiricist philosopher, Karl Popper also argued that
certain verification is impossible and that scientific hypotheses can
only be falsified (falsification).
Positivism, a form of empiricism, advocates using science, as defined
by empiricism, to govern human affairs. Because of their close
affiliation, the terms "positivism" and "empiricism" are often used
interchangeably. Both have been subjected to criticisms:
observation language, so the very notion of testing theories with facts
is problematic.
science always involves "paradigms," sets of (often unstated)
assumptions, rules, practices, etc. and that transitions from one
paradigm to another generally does not involve verification or
falsification of scientific theories. Moreover, he argued that science
has not proceeded historically as the steady accumulation of facts, as
the empiricist model implies.

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

"You too Simon?"

How dare you question a science based on pure observation? Your
observation sounds impure...Einstein borrowed heavily from Organon
to come up with Theory of Relativity and that is why he was chased
from Europe to US because he did not want to repay his debts. you
should not even say Homeopathy follows quantum theories or systems
theories. Then you are playing right into the hands of homeophobes
and prevent some poor person from learning homeopathy because Lancet
is going to publish your views.

Even now it is not too late- bow your head to the high inquisitor
and repeat loudly "oh yes, I see what you mean, I'll
reconsider my statements because they don't suit our collective
purpose" and this might - just might - save your slanderous skin
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Simon King wrote:
intrigued
assumption
much
from
take a
remedy
ten,
in the
incorporate it
that
definition
empirically
can be
ontology:
environment,
those
that
rather
of
On the
to
qualify
can
defined
used
theory-independent
facts
argued that
science
facts, as
they
reply to
opinions
damage

Hi Simon,
Always the gadfly!
Would you say that the process of performing provings to generate
symptom pictures, and then matching patients' pictures to remedy
pictures is "scientific"? (And of course I realize that not all
prescribing is done on this basis, but I'm just looking for a starting
point...)
Shannon

Thank you! I'm sure it is worth waiting.
Maly

Chris Gillen wrote:

Erm. not quite sure how you took that......
?
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'm NOT saying that the principles of homeopathy aren't scientific,
merely questioning whether the PRACTICE is, and if so by what
definition
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.