Couldn't agree more with Grace. To me, homeopathy is alive and well and kicking. If you want to put homeopathy on par with the other systems, there has got to be R&D for without it homeopathy is surely doomed to fall. And it is the responsibility of all practicing / non-practicing homeopathic doctors, classical and modern alike, to provide whichever form of support required.
Another, if the number of clinic attendance declines, there must be something not right somewhere... and normally this has got something to do with the prescription. But then again, I might be wrong.
bty17859616 wrote:
________________________________
Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.
A kind of magic?
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
Hi Luise,
You make a very good point, that some of the skepticism is genuine,
simple incomprehension, and to treat such a person as tho they were
dishonest, does not move the discussions forward!
In fact, whether they uncomprehending-but-curious or
uncomprehending-and-derisive--or anything else--the most productive
approach to any discussion would be respectful, and "acting as if" the
discussion is an honest exploration--whether you believe it to be that,
or not.
Still I feel it would be a mistake--a huge mistake--to overlook the
fact that politics, power and profit have come to be very powerful
drivers in the field of health care, and are not currently working in
the interests of "alternative" health care in general or homeopathy in
particular. Some of the "skeptics" are not truly "skeptical", but
simply serving vested interests.
Thoughtful discussion with a true "skeptic" should be educational all
around; but discussion with someone who only wants to criticize and
ridicule, is likely not to be useful. (And I do mean "not likely",
rather than "absolutely could never be"... )
Don't have to--I was able to watch! He thought it was a little nutty,
until he saw its effectiveness. Entirely understandable reaction, IMO!
I quite agree!
Yet this applies only to people who are interested in, or at least open
to, the exploration.
Yes, I agree!
No argument from me.
I wish I had the time to read on studies etc.; at some point I will.
Shannon
You make a very good point, that some of the skepticism is genuine,
simple incomprehension, and to treat such a person as tho they were
dishonest, does not move the discussions forward!
In fact, whether they uncomprehending-but-curious or
uncomprehending-and-derisive--or anything else--the most productive
approach to any discussion would be respectful, and "acting as if" the
discussion is an honest exploration--whether you believe it to be that,
or not.
Still I feel it would be a mistake--a huge mistake--to overlook the
fact that politics, power and profit have come to be very powerful
drivers in the field of health care, and are not currently working in
the interests of "alternative" health care in general or homeopathy in
particular. Some of the "skeptics" are not truly "skeptical", but
simply serving vested interests.
Thoughtful discussion with a true "skeptic" should be educational all
around; but discussion with someone who only wants to criticize and
ridicule, is likely not to be useful. (And I do mean "not likely",
rather than "absolutely could never be"... )
Don't have to--I was able to watch! He thought it was a little nutty,
until he saw its effectiveness. Entirely understandable reaction, IMO!
I quite agree!
Yet this applies only to people who are interested in, or at least open
to, the exploration.
Yes, I agree!
No argument from me.
I wish I had the time to read on studies etc.; at some point I will.
Shannon
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
Dear Luise,
My apologies: unaware that you didn't understand what Newtonian physics or a laser is, I didn't predict that you might misinterpret the term "incoherent laser" as meaningful rather than as nonsense.
Newtonian physics is not a practice confined to the technologies available in Newton's time. It is a model for understanding how everything works: even light bulbs; even lasers.
The reasons for using quantum physics in place of Newtonian physics in certain fields are not technological in nature. They concern rather the limitations of the Newtonian model's explanatory and predictive power. Subtle aspects of the behaviour of gravity (a pre-Newtonian phenomenon), for instance, inexplicable in the Newtonian physics are predictable by quantum physics. But the behaviour of the emissions of light bulbs (a post-Newtonian phenomenon) is wholly explicable in the Newtonian model.
The nonsense of incoherent lasers can be understood in this way: a laser is not just any source of light. The light a laser emits is all of one frequency, all in the one direction, and all in phase (crests together, troughs together). Such light is called "coherent" light.
There can be no such thing as an "incoherent" laser.
This is why it would be nonsense to treat, in one's science "practice", ordinary light bulbs -- which emit a mixture of many frequencies, in a mixture of phases, in all directions -- as lasers of any kind ( e.g. "incoherent lasers"). Yes, somebody might, who was desperate enough to have her light bulb called a laser; but her only possible reason for doing so would be to confuse light bulbs with lasers.
She would be doing no favour to physics or its students.
If science were as susceptible to the endless shiftiness in meaning that you propose for a single precisely defined word, it would long ago have collapsed into the kind of nonsense that passes for discussion between homoeopaths here. This "discussion" eternally circles the black hole of wilful ignorance by the few who insist on calling everything with a handle a spade.
Only a grave misunderstanding of the precise definitions of physics -- or a bloody-mindedness straining all credibility -- will allow someone to depict a light bulb as a laser. Similarly, only a fundamental misunderstanding of homoeopathy, or similar bloody-mindedness, will allow someone to depict as homoeopathic in method the prescription of an unproven substance, a mixture of potentised substances, or a potency of mixed medicines.
The word "laser" inherently allows for a range of meaning. A laser may be constructed of gases or solids. Its emissions may be red, blue, or any other single colour, and pulsed or continuous. New lasers will doubtless be invented, with new emission colours, for as long as society can support scientific endeavour.
"Homoeopathic method" too allows for variation and invention. Its tools are updated and expanded. Its technologies advance.
But no serious suggestion will ever come from an educated scientist that other scientists should relax and regard household light bulbs as a "kind" of laser. Its publication would be the cause of much merriment in scientific circles, whose practitioners, students, and adherents understand the meaning of "laser" and what it excludes: mixtures of frequencies, mixtures of phases, mixtures of directions.
Similarly, homoeopathic method inherently excludes some things, including unproven medicines, mixtures of potentised substances, potentised multiple medicines, and prescription on any basis other than symptom similarity.
The failure of some of its purported practitioners to understand such exclusions reflects poorly either on their education or on their capacity and willingness to learn.
Such failure could, of course, rouse merriment in the homoeopathic community too -- or compassion and correction. That it does not do either reflects our reverence for agreement over factualness and truthfulness. It does no favour to homoeopathy or its students, and it results in misdirection of outside observers' merriment toward homoeopathic practitioners, students, and patients.
Any reasonably generous-hearted scientist will forgive us for fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of "Newtonian physics" and "laser"; we're not, after all, pretending to be physicists. But those purporting to be homoeopaths should attempt to understand the terms "homoeopathy" and "homoeopathic method" at least as well as any ignoramus capable of opening a dictionary.
A "physicist" who showed his ignorance of the necessity for a laser to emit coherent light would lose all credibility in the physics community. His further misrepresentation of physics as a whole as equally "flexible" ( i.e. meaningless) would earn him the rounds of the kitchen.
Yet somebody calling herself a homoeopath will expect to remain unaccountable for misusing the word "homoeopathy" to include anything at all: unproven medicines; mixtures; elicitation of a single symptom as a case-taking effort; prescription according to superstition; substitution of ritual for medicine. In fact, she will be offended at criticism for basing her understanding of the word on mere wishful thinking untrammelled by comprehension or education.
It won't be any surprise, then, that such a person will be unable to understand the cause of the derision with which this "homoeopathy" is treated by anybody with two neurons to rub together.
Kind regards,
John
My apologies: unaware that you didn't understand what Newtonian physics or a laser is, I didn't predict that you might misinterpret the term "incoherent laser" as meaningful rather than as nonsense.
Newtonian physics is not a practice confined to the technologies available in Newton's time. It is a model for understanding how everything works: even light bulbs; even lasers.
The reasons for using quantum physics in place of Newtonian physics in certain fields are not technological in nature. They concern rather the limitations of the Newtonian model's explanatory and predictive power. Subtle aspects of the behaviour of gravity (a pre-Newtonian phenomenon), for instance, inexplicable in the Newtonian physics are predictable by quantum physics. But the behaviour of the emissions of light bulbs (a post-Newtonian phenomenon) is wholly explicable in the Newtonian model.
The nonsense of incoherent lasers can be understood in this way: a laser is not just any source of light. The light a laser emits is all of one frequency, all in the one direction, and all in phase (crests together, troughs together). Such light is called "coherent" light.
There can be no such thing as an "incoherent" laser.
This is why it would be nonsense to treat, in one's science "practice", ordinary light bulbs -- which emit a mixture of many frequencies, in a mixture of phases, in all directions -- as lasers of any kind ( e.g. "incoherent lasers"). Yes, somebody might, who was desperate enough to have her light bulb called a laser; but her only possible reason for doing so would be to confuse light bulbs with lasers.
She would be doing no favour to physics or its students.
If science were as susceptible to the endless shiftiness in meaning that you propose for a single precisely defined word, it would long ago have collapsed into the kind of nonsense that passes for discussion between homoeopaths here. This "discussion" eternally circles the black hole of wilful ignorance by the few who insist on calling everything with a handle a spade.
Only a grave misunderstanding of the precise definitions of physics -- or a bloody-mindedness straining all credibility -- will allow someone to depict a light bulb as a laser. Similarly, only a fundamental misunderstanding of homoeopathy, or similar bloody-mindedness, will allow someone to depict as homoeopathic in method the prescription of an unproven substance, a mixture of potentised substances, or a potency of mixed medicines.
The word "laser" inherently allows for a range of meaning. A laser may be constructed of gases or solids. Its emissions may be red, blue, or any other single colour, and pulsed or continuous. New lasers will doubtless be invented, with new emission colours, for as long as society can support scientific endeavour.
"Homoeopathic method" too allows for variation and invention. Its tools are updated and expanded. Its technologies advance.
But no serious suggestion will ever come from an educated scientist that other scientists should relax and regard household light bulbs as a "kind" of laser. Its publication would be the cause of much merriment in scientific circles, whose practitioners, students, and adherents understand the meaning of "laser" and what it excludes: mixtures of frequencies, mixtures of phases, mixtures of directions.
Similarly, homoeopathic method inherently excludes some things, including unproven medicines, mixtures of potentised substances, potentised multiple medicines, and prescription on any basis other than symptom similarity.
The failure of some of its purported practitioners to understand such exclusions reflects poorly either on their education or on their capacity and willingness to learn.
Such failure could, of course, rouse merriment in the homoeopathic community too -- or compassion and correction. That it does not do either reflects our reverence for agreement over factualness and truthfulness. It does no favour to homoeopathy or its students, and it results in misdirection of outside observers' merriment toward homoeopathic practitioners, students, and patients.
Any reasonably generous-hearted scientist will forgive us for fundamentally misunderstanding the meaning of "Newtonian physics" and "laser"; we're not, after all, pretending to be physicists. But those purporting to be homoeopaths should attempt to understand the terms "homoeopathy" and "homoeopathic method" at least as well as any ignoramus capable of opening a dictionary.
A "physicist" who showed his ignorance of the necessity for a laser to emit coherent light would lose all credibility in the physics community. His further misrepresentation of physics as a whole as equally "flexible" ( i.e. meaningless) would earn him the rounds of the kitchen.
Yet somebody calling herself a homoeopath will expect to remain unaccountable for misusing the word "homoeopathy" to include anything at all: unproven medicines; mixtures; elicitation of a single symptom as a case-taking effort; prescription according to superstition; substitution of ritual for medicine. In fact, she will be offended at criticism for basing her understanding of the word on mere wishful thinking untrammelled by comprehension or education.
It won't be any surprise, then, that such a person will be unable to understand the cause of the derision with which this "homoeopathy" is treated by anybody with two neurons to rub together.
Kind regards,
John
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
Hi Shannon,
I fully agree!
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
I fully agree!
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
On Nov 18, 2007, at 9:10 PM, John Harvey wrote:
Yes, and here is another nice use of this analogy!
Why is it that we continue to use Newtonian physics to work out
"everyday" matters, e.g. in building, calculating motion, etc., rather
than the "more powerful" quantum physics? Sometimes "simpler" has the
upper hand over "more powerful"; discernment is needed.
Shannon
Yes, and here is another nice use of this analogy!
Why is it that we continue to use Newtonian physics to work out
"everyday" matters, e.g. in building, calculating motion, etc., rather
than the "more powerful" quantum physics? Sometimes "simpler" has the
upper hand over "more powerful"; discernment is needed.
Shannon
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
True.
But my point was that all the methods I mentioned are still
named/defined as physics.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
True.
But my point was that all the methods I mentioned are still
named/defined as physics.
Regards
Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
Hi Luise,
Ah, sorry, I should not have missed that...
I agree.
Ruminating onward: IMO quantum and Newtonian physics share the same
"umbrella" because both deal with relationships among physical objects
(and at the quantum "edges" the subject veers somewhat crazily and
oh-so-intriguingly into blurred boundaries [matter/energy;
determinate/indeterminate; etc.]); somewhat similarly, the different
practices (or I should say "many of" them) called homeopathy may
reasonably (IMO) share the same "umbrella" (being called [some type of]
homeopathy) because both turn on basis of "like cures like"; and at the
combo-and-other "edges" the subject can veer somewhat crazily into all
sorts of other things, as frequently ranted about in these pages! :oD
).
The idea of claiming the term "homeopathy" as applying strictly and
only to those practices developed and "approved" by Hahnemann has an
appeal I can definitely relate to; after all, he *coined* the term and
invented a system to apply it, so why not let his definition be the one
that stands? But practical considerations aside (and that's quite an
elephant we are shoving into the corner), there are obviously all sorts
of philosophical problems with that approach--again, as frequently and
energetically ranted about here--which edition? What about his
non-Organon practices? What about his apparently "approved" disciples
whose practices deviated--which parts do we shove out from under the
umbrella? And if it's purely a semantic thing, then it becomes pretty
much of a "who cares"...
OTOH what if we see it as an *honor*--which I believe it is--that "our
founder" (trumpets in the background ) has given us work so
broadly useful that it's given rise to all of these variations? And
from there we could specify and explore which "tools" (non-Organon
methods) are appropriate to which tasks, pitfalls, etc.
Fighting over the terminology will not stop these other "developments",
and will not stop people from using them; it only distracts us from IMO
more useful matters and puts us into an adversarial framework which
serves no one--except perhaps the "quackbusters" and allopaths.
Holding tight to the "purity of the teaching" is IMO a wonderful thing;
but it should not displace the fact that "the teaching" is a living
thing, in a changing world. If we want our "roots" to continue to
nourish the entire "plant" (e.g. understanding of basic principles even
among people using "variations" such as combos), all the "exclusivity"
does not IMO seem to be very useful.
Shannon
Ah, sorry, I should not have missed that...
I agree.
Ruminating onward: IMO quantum and Newtonian physics share the same
"umbrella" because both deal with relationships among physical objects
(and at the quantum "edges" the subject veers somewhat crazily and
oh-so-intriguingly into blurred boundaries [matter/energy;
determinate/indeterminate; etc.]); somewhat similarly, the different
practices (or I should say "many of" them) called homeopathy may
reasonably (IMO) share the same "umbrella" (being called [some type of]
homeopathy) because both turn on basis of "like cures like"; and at the
combo-and-other "edges" the subject can veer somewhat crazily into all
sorts of other things, as frequently ranted about in these pages! :oD
).
The idea of claiming the term "homeopathy" as applying strictly and
only to those practices developed and "approved" by Hahnemann has an
appeal I can definitely relate to; after all, he *coined* the term and
invented a system to apply it, so why not let his definition be the one
that stands? But practical considerations aside (and that's quite an
elephant we are shoving into the corner), there are obviously all sorts
of philosophical problems with that approach--again, as frequently and
energetically ranted
about here--which edition? What about his non-Organon practices? What about his apparently "approved" disciples
whose practices deviated--which parts do we shove out from under the
umbrella? And if it's purely a semantic thing, then it becomes pretty
much of a "who cares"...
OTOH what if we see it as an *honor*--which I believe it is--that "our
founder" (trumpets in the background
) has given us work so broadly useful that it's given rise to all of these variations? And
from there we could specify and explore which "tools" (non-Organon
methods) are appropriate to which tasks, pitfalls, etc.
Fighting over the terminology will not stop these other "developments",
and will not stop people from using them; it only distracts us from IMO
more useful matters and puts us into an adversarial framework which
serves no one--except perhaps the "quackbusters" and allopaths.
Holding tight to the "purity of the teaching" is IMO a wonderful thing;
but it should not displace the fact that "the teaching" is a living
thing, in a changing world. If we want our "roots" to continue to
nourish the entire "plant" (e.g. understanding of basic principles even
among people using "variations" such as combos), all the "exclusivity"
does not IMO seem to be very useful.
Shannon
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
Shannon, have you truly forgotten the difference between the definition (boundaries) of homoeopathy and the variety of ways in which it might be practised?
After all this discussion, do you truly have no conception of the difference between the meaning of homoeopathy and the "teaching" of how best to do it?
Besides Shannon, Luise, and Irene, is anybody else on this list incapable of distinguishing between what a thing is and what varieties of it are possible?
That is, would anybody else on this list find valid a form of argument that says that since a deck of cards is built on suits and values, a men's clothing shop is also a deck of cards -- or that since a pig has four legs and a tail, it must be a kind of horse -- or that anything involving potencies and the word "similar" must be homoeopathy?
As you, Shannon, have yourself pointed out in echoing Irene and Luise, the practice of homoeopathy varied considerably in Hahnemann's lifetime. Why is it, do you suppose, that in his lifetime not a single person accused him of altering the meaning of homoeopathy, of not understanding what it is, of conveniently changing his mind about what it was, of hedging his definitions, or of not understanding what else it could be? Have you given this any thought? Can you guess the answer?
Is anybody here unable to guess why Hahnemann was not accused of any of these things in his lifetime, when he was accused of so much else -- why each new edition, with its new methods, new instructions, and newly perfected methods, did not bring forth these particular accusations? Is anybody here besides Irene, Luise, and Shannon having trouble distinguishing between the limits of homoeopathy (or anything) and a description of its types?
If you too are having this trouble, please say so. Understanding of this difference is an important aspect of logic and argument, and if its absence as part of a homoeopath's tools of reasoning is common to more than a few, and is as resistant to reasoning as it seems to be in Shannon, Luise, and Irene, then it's something that needs addressing urgently.
The incapability of perceiving such distinctions by a few odd adherents won't affect homoeopathy's survival, but if it comes to be commonly perceived as reflecting the quality of its practices and practitioners, it will be its downfall, leading to loss of all respect for "homoeopathy" and replacing homoeopathy with anything-goes. Just how common is this problem in distinguishing between what something is and what varieties it may take? Anyone else having trouble here?
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use of vigorous criticism."
-- Carl Sagan
After all this discussion, do you truly have no conception of the difference between the meaning of homoeopathy and the "teaching" of how best to do it?
Besides Shannon, Luise, and Irene, is anybody else on this list incapable of distinguishing between what a thing is and what varieties of it are possible?
That is, would anybody else on this list find valid a form of argument that says that since a deck of cards is built on suits and values, a men's clothing shop is also a deck of cards -- or that since a pig has four legs and a tail, it must be a kind of horse -- or that anything involving potencies and the word "similar" must be homoeopathy?
As you, Shannon, have yourself pointed out in echoing Irene and Luise, the practice of homoeopathy varied considerably in Hahnemann's lifetime. Why is it, do you suppose, that in his lifetime not a single person accused him of altering the meaning of homoeopathy, of not understanding what it is, of conveniently changing his mind about what it was, of hedging his definitions, or of not understanding what else it could be? Have you given this any thought? Can you guess the answer?
Is anybody here unable to guess why Hahnemann was not accused of any of these things in his lifetime, when he was accused of so much else -- why each new edition, with its new methods, new instructions, and newly perfected methods, did not bring forth these particular accusations? Is anybody here besides Irene, Luise, and Shannon having trouble distinguishing between the limits of homoeopathy (or anything) and a description of its types?
If you too are having this trouble, please say so. Understanding of this difference is an important aspect of logic and argument, and if its absence as part of a homoeopath's tools of reasoning is common to more than a few, and is as resistant to reasoning as it seems to be in Shannon, Luise, and Irene, then it's something that needs addressing urgently.
The incapability of perceiving such distinctions by a few odd adherents won't affect homoeopathy's survival, but if it comes to be commonly perceived as reflecting the quality of its practices and practitioners, it will be its downfall, leading to loss of all respect for "homoeopathy" and replacing homoeopathy with anything-goes. Just how common is this problem in distinguishing between what something is and what varieties it may take? Anyone else having trouble here?
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use of vigorous criticism."
-- Carl Sagan
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
Hi John,
Um... "What a thing is" is surely *all* about definition; it is the
definition that we have been disputing.
I've said all I have to say about it. If you're not clear on what I
was saying, please re-read those posts.
Best wishes,
Shannon
Um... "What a thing is" is surely *all* about definition; it is the
definition that we have been disputing.
I've said all I have to say about it. If you're not clear on what I
was saying, please re-read those posts.
Best wishes,
Shannon
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: A kind of magic?
Dear John
I am in very broad agreement with what you have been saying.
In studying the writings of those who are against homoeopathy, I find that their knowledge of homoeopathy is poor and they usually zoom in on one area usually dilution and build the whole structure of their arguments on that.
We must therefore ensure that our understanding of Homoeopathy has VERY strong and deep foundations.
And unless we protect the corner stones of Homoeopathy, it will soon be washed away.
From the teachings of Sheilagh Creasy
The Principle of Homoeopathy are the concepts of:
Vital Force
Symptom Similarity
Single Remedy
Dilution and Potentisation
Provings
Susceptibilty
Miasms
Direction of Cure
If we study the Organon, we find that in Aph 3 Hn describes what the True practitioner of the healing art needs to know or do.
He then spends the rest of the Organon to explain these points in great detail.
In terms of arguing the points with opponents, we must study their web sites and understand their arguments and develop easily understandable concepts and back them up with data and logic. In boy-scout tradition, we must be prepared. This means studying and hard work and of course discussing the points among ourselves - but not to the point of how many angels dance on the end of a pin.
Regards
Soroush
I am in very broad agreement with what you have been saying.
In studying the writings of those who are against homoeopathy, I find that their knowledge of homoeopathy is poor and they usually zoom in on one area usually dilution and build the whole structure of their arguments on that.
We must therefore ensure that our understanding of Homoeopathy has VERY strong and deep foundations.
And unless we protect the corner stones of Homoeopathy, it will soon be washed away.
From the teachings of Sheilagh Creasy
The Principle of Homoeopathy are the concepts of:
Vital Force
Symptom Similarity
Single Remedy
Dilution and Potentisation
Provings
Susceptibilty
Miasms
Direction of Cure
If we study the Organon, we find that in Aph 3 Hn describes what the True practitioner of the healing art needs to know or do.
He then spends the rest of the Organon to explain these points in great detail.
In terms of arguing the points with opponents, we must study their web sites and understand their arguments and develop easily understandable concepts and back them up with data and logic. In boy-scout tradition, we must be prepared. This means studying and hard work and of course discussing the points among ourselves - but not to the point of how many angels dance on the end of a pin.
Regards
Soroush