Re: [Minitus - Lousy Homeopaths - Kerry
Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:22 am
Dear Paul,
I address six things in this message, A to F:
(A) "I've been misquoted" etc. -- talk about talk about talk
(B) Five contentions: do you continue to maintain them, or not?
(C) Let's get it right: apparent miscommunications on my part
(D) Grave confusions apparently underlying your assumptions
(E) Your final questions
First: Assuming that § 161 of the sixth edition applies only to Q potencies does not prove the truth of the assumption.
Second: Hahnemann refined the dosage form not to prevent remedies from acting immediately but in order to make more straightforward the avoidance of aggravations; the two are not the same.
Third: Hahnemann's 6th-edition description of the preparation of Q potencies in lieu of any description of the preparation of C potencies does not offer license to reinterpret everything else, or anything else, that he said in that edition as not applicable to C potencies.
Fourth: The impression that the fifth edition is more cautious than the sixth about C potencies arises only, I suspect, through reading the 6th-edition instructions concerning increasing potency and sufficiently small dosage as being inapplicable to the C potencies. To do so is a fundamental mistake.
(F) In summary
Arguments based on untrustworthy assumptions lead to untrustworthy conclusions.
(A) "I've been misquoted" etc. -- talk about talk about talk
I'm sorry to say that the argument "You've misquoted me" is a familiar one around here and doesn't much help anybody; so let's stop talking about talking about talking and just cut to the chase, shall we -- which is: what claims are you going to stick to, and where's the evidence for any of them?
(B) Five contentions
I believe that I've interpreted your contentions on this subject as charitably as I'm able to comprehend them. It's possible that your offence at my differences with you over them may have due to my misunderstanding your meaning despite reading your posts very carefully. In that case, we could perhaps short-circuit unnecessarily tedious discussion of what look like mutually contradictory claims by clarifying some of them.
Is it, or is it not -- a simple answer will suffice in each case -- the case that you continue to maintain:
(1) that "The 6th ed was about his experience with LM, the new method", and if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(2) that everything that appears in the 6th edition that does not appear in the 5th does not apply to centisimal potencies, and, if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(3) that "ther are certain changes in the 6th which apply to his observation about the LM's, and should not be interchanged to mean that the observations hold for centessimals, such as when you might observe aggravation" [my emphasis], and, if so, exactly which changes you imagine fall into that category, and on what basis you imagine it;
(4) that "when students read about dosing and agg. in the 6th ed, which many students are told to use (only), they think that the notes hold true for centessimals as well, but they don't", and, if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(5) that it is not possible to use the 6th edition to learn to use centesimal potencies, and, if so, on what basis you maintain it?
(C) Let's get it right: apparent miscommunications on my part
Let me briefly correct a couple of apparent miscommunications on my part.
First, regarding (your statements in red):
3. "that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies"
All cautions need to be heeded, where the aphorisms are the same. The cautions in the 6th, where the aphorisms differ (and only there) are usually because of the experience with the new dose. Or are you saying that hahnemann changed what he said in the 5th ed to 6th ed in those (differing aph.)? are you saying the 5th ed cautions for centessimals are superseded by the new aph in the 6th?
-- by removing the rest of the sentence, you have perhaps set yourself up for this misunderstanding. In its entirety,
"If we were to apply the precautionary principle here, we would have to say that unless and until there is compelling evidence (which I take to be a world away from assumption) that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying"
cannot be read as suggesting not applying the cautions of the 5th edition, now, can it? So in effect you are arguing with yourself. Should I have suggested that you read the entire sentence rather than a single phrase from it before taking offence? If you've found the construction of the sentence more complex than you're used to reading, then I can only apologise and offer to break it up into smaller sentences; if you'd prefer that I did so, please just let me know.
Second, regarding:
4. "that he did not say immediately and with violence; he said immediately but with violence."
Semantics John, they still act immediately.
You have nicely restated my point for me exactly. Both C potencies and Q potencies act immediately, and Hahnemann had no problem with the immediate action of the remedy. His problem was with the relative ease with which C potencies act with violence. My intent was not to dispute this but to point out that the immediacy, which you earlier claimed was a problem -- "he says the 1 in 100 (centessimals) act almost immediately and so you have to lower the number of succusions to 2. It would be a safe assumption that the LM's are better tolreated and do not act with such force immediately, because it would not make sense for him to increase the succussions to 100 if the LM's still acted 'immediately'" -- was not a problem: something we now appear to agree upon.
(D) Grave confusions apparently underlying your assumptions
This same paragraph of yours concerning semantics does raise some very serious concerns, however, regarding your interpretation of Hahnemann's meaning. Later in the paragraph, you say:
"The onset of LM action is less rapid, which allows more frequent dosing. You have a wider safety net with LM's. Hahnemann is clear on this. And let me be clear. I am not saying the LM's don't work quickly, as if they take time before they affect the VF. It is the aggravation, i.e. when the dose has overcome the disease state and now dominates the VF, that is what happens quicker with the centessimals. I am talking about the immediate agg of C versus the later agg with LM's. Once again, LM's can show agg immediately, if the balance of forces is such that the first doses overcome the disease state and already start to affect the VF."
This appears to me to be riddled with problematic assumptions and self-contradiction. First, it expresses deep confusion between primary action and aggravation and to be self-contradictory. Second, apparently regarding those two very different items as the same thing, you appear to have concluded, on the basis that they are more readily prescribed in a sufficient dose to aggravate, that C potencies aggravate sooner than Q potencies ["It is the aggravation, i.e. when the dose has overcome the disease state and now dominates the VF, that is what happens quicker with the centessimals"] -- which, even granted the confusion, appears to be pure presumption. Next, you contradict this, stating that Q potencies can aggravate immediately ["Once again, LM's can show agg immediately..."]. Fourth, you confuse overaction with an imbalance of forces, a minor matter of presumption as to the invisible mechanisms of medicinal action; this dovetails, though, into a deeper confusion. Here you state -- as you did at the passage's start confirming the remedy's action -- that the aggravation may occur immediately. But what follows -- "... LM's can show agg immediately, if the balance of forces is such that the first doses overcome the disease state and already start to affect the VF" -- expresses again a deep confusion, assuming as it does that if a remedy affects the patient's vital force -- i.e., if it acts to impose a medicinal state upon the patient -- then it necessarily entails aggravating the patient.
These two concepts -- of action, and of aggravation -- are distinct. One (action) concerns the remedy's ability to impose a dynamic medicinal state (or process) upon the patient -- which occurs most readily and most wholly, and occurs even in ultradilute form, if the remedy is homoeopathic to the patient's own dynamic state (or process).
The other concept differs from this utterly: it concerns the imposed state's representing an aggravation, a worsening, of the earlier state.
Paul, the case you then go on to describe, if you've described it accurately, appears to represent, amongst other things, the effects of two initial successive unchanged doses of Nux vom. LM1. Or did you omit to describe a change in potency between those two doses even though you described the solution to the problem as being to change the potency? Perhaps the case does illustrate the need to work with delicacy as you say.
(E) Your final questions
First:
"Consider:
§ 161 Fifth Edition
When I here limit the so-called homoeopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homoeopathic medicine that seems to increase somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, to the first or few hours, this is certainly true with respect to diseases of a more acute character and of recent origin, but where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of, considerable or of very long standing, where one dose, consequently, must continue to act for many days, we then occasionally see, during the first six, eight or ten days, the occurrence of some such primary actions, of the medicine, some such apparent increase of the symptoms of the original disease (lasting for one or several hours), while in the intervening hours amelioration of the whole malady is perceptible. After the lapse of these few days the amelioration resulting from such primary action of the medicine proceeds almost uninterruptedly for several days longer.
This is centessimal (right?)"
etc.
-- you again simply assume, despite everything I've pointed out, that the sixth edition is not intended to apply to any but Q potencies. Paul, the assumption is unjustified and frankly ludicrous.
Yes, Hahnemann refers in passing in §161 to § 247 -- by way of referring the reader to detail of how to achieve "proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamization".
Yes, § 247 describes that in greater detail.
Yes, § 247 then refers (in the Jain sixth edition) in passing to pages 269–270 of that edition, which happen to include most of §§ 269 and 270.
And yes, § 270 describes the preparation -- in order "to best obtain this development of power" -- of Q potencies.
But there is nothing there to support the presumption -- and without support it is only presumption -- on your part that what Hahnemann says in § 161, he would change one jot if § 270 described instead how to prepare centesimal potencies or how to walk on the ceiling.
The argument that assumes what you wish to conclude and uses that assumption to derive the conclusion is called a circular one, and can be used to "prove" anything at all, including any false statement you care to name. For that reason, it is not a valid form of argument.
Second:
"6. "Hahnemann had no express problem with the immediacy of the centesimals' action or even (again, despite the phrasing) with the greater immediacy of action of the higher centesimals."
Then why did he refine the dosage form?"
Clearly it was because of their greater readiness to cause aggravation. These are concepts worlds apart, Paul, and should never be confused. Action does not equal aggravation, and immediacy of action does not entail aggravation (and so does not entail immediacy of aggravation). This, I think, is the recurring confusion underlying what otherwise appear to be baseless presumptions: that Hahnemann was concerned to prevent immediacy of action (he wasn't), and that action = aggravation (it doesn't).
Again, though, I believe that we actually see eye to eye on almost all else in the Organon, including Hahnemann's emphasis on, and work to fulfill, § 2. (I think that you may have overinterpreted his concern as being the expenditure of VF by aggravations, but it's of little consequence.)
Third:
"... I must ask if you are not one of those students who see the 6th ed as perfectly applicable to study centessimals."
If you mean, do I believe that everything he says about how to prepare a Q potency should be read as applying to how to prepare a C potency, which is the implication of the context, then the question is beneath contempt: of course they're prepared differently.
If you mean, do I think that everything he says about potencies in general should be read as applying to potencies in general, then I think I've made plain my answer in previous messages: that Hahnemann wrote what he meant, and indulging in what lawyers like to call mindreading gets you only confusion.
I do agree with you about the importance of not imposing one part of Q-preparation instructions on the C-preparation instructions. It is an unnecessary confusion, as the two sets of instructions are entirely self-contained and distinct. It also has no bearing on your argument that everything new in the sixth edition must apply only to Q potencies.
Fourth:
"11. 'Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying.'
So which cautions do you feel apply to centessimals. the 6th ed or 5th ed. because generally the 5th ed is more cautitious."
Your heavy cropping of the quotation again confuses its intent. I did not state or intend that Hahnemann meant his sixth-edition cautions to be ignored in the use of C potencies! The full sentence read:
"If we were to apply the precautionary principle here, we would have to say that unless and until there is compelling evidence (which I take to be a world away from assumption) that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying".
Changes it just a tad, doesn't it!
I know that you will wish to apologise for these reversals of my meaning, and, in advance, I accept.
Now, to answer your question. Your impression that the fifth edition is more cautious than the sixth about C potencies arises only, I suspect, because you read the sixth edition instructions concerning increasing potency and sufficiently small dosage as being inapplicable to the C potencies. Instead read them as they are written -- to apply to all potencies -- and you will find that he has removed the problem entirely.
Again, yes, Hahnemann describes how to manufacture Q potencies and not how to manufacture C potencies in the sixth. And he obviously found them superior. But to derive from that a conclusion that "the 6th ed refers to homeopathy in general with teaching about the primary and secondary action of LM potencies" and not C potencies is nothing more than a mistake based on the other mistakes I hope I've now managed to shed a little light on.
(F) In summary
Even valid arguments from assumptions do not lead to conclusions that are trustworthy unless the assumptions themselves are trustworthy. Such is the sole express basis to date of your notion that those parts of the sixth edition that refer to potencies in general actually refer only to Q potencies. If you have evidence for the notion, it would be interesting to see it; none has appeared so far.
Cheers --
John
2009/12/8 Paul Booyse >
I address six things in this message, A to F:
(A) "I've been misquoted" etc. -- talk about talk about talk
(B) Five contentions: do you continue to maintain them, or not?
(C) Let's get it right: apparent miscommunications on my part
(D) Grave confusions apparently underlying your assumptions
(E) Your final questions
First: Assuming that § 161 of the sixth edition applies only to Q potencies does not prove the truth of the assumption.
Second: Hahnemann refined the dosage form not to prevent remedies from acting immediately but in order to make more straightforward the avoidance of aggravations; the two are not the same.
Third: Hahnemann's 6th-edition description of the preparation of Q potencies in lieu of any description of the preparation of C potencies does not offer license to reinterpret everything else, or anything else, that he said in that edition as not applicable to C potencies.
Fourth: The impression that the fifth edition is more cautious than the sixth about C potencies arises only, I suspect, through reading the 6th-edition instructions concerning increasing potency and sufficiently small dosage as being inapplicable to the C potencies. To do so is a fundamental mistake.
(F) In summary
Arguments based on untrustworthy assumptions lead to untrustworthy conclusions.
(A) "I've been misquoted" etc. -- talk about talk about talk
I'm sorry to say that the argument "You've misquoted me" is a familiar one around here and doesn't much help anybody; so let's stop talking about talking about talking and just cut to the chase, shall we -- which is: what claims are you going to stick to, and where's the evidence for any of them?
(B) Five contentions
I believe that I've interpreted your contentions on this subject as charitably as I'm able to comprehend them. It's possible that your offence at my differences with you over them may have due to my misunderstanding your meaning despite reading your posts very carefully. In that case, we could perhaps short-circuit unnecessarily tedious discussion of what look like mutually contradictory claims by clarifying some of them.
Is it, or is it not -- a simple answer will suffice in each case -- the case that you continue to maintain:
(1) that "The 6th ed was about his experience with LM, the new method", and if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(2) that everything that appears in the 6th edition that does not appear in the 5th does not apply to centisimal potencies, and, if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(3) that "ther are certain changes in the 6th which apply to his observation about the LM's, and should not be interchanged to mean that the observations hold for centessimals, such as when you might observe aggravation" [my emphasis], and, if so, exactly which changes you imagine fall into that category, and on what basis you imagine it;
(4) that "when students read about dosing and agg. in the 6th ed, which many students are told to use (only), they think that the notes hold true for centessimals as well, but they don't", and, if so, on what basis you maintain it;
(5) that it is not possible to use the 6th edition to learn to use centesimal potencies, and, if so, on what basis you maintain it?
(C) Let's get it right: apparent miscommunications on my part
Let me briefly correct a couple of apparent miscommunications on my part.
First, regarding (your statements in red):
3. "that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies"
All cautions need to be heeded, where the aphorisms are the same. The cautions in the 6th, where the aphorisms differ (and only there) are usually because of the experience with the new dose. Or are you saying that hahnemann changed what he said in the 5th ed to 6th ed in those (differing aph.)? are you saying the 5th ed cautions for centessimals are superseded by the new aph in the 6th?
-- by removing the rest of the sentence, you have perhaps set yourself up for this misunderstanding. In its entirety,
"If we were to apply the precautionary principle here, we would have to say that unless and until there is compelling evidence (which I take to be a world away from assumption) that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying"
cannot be read as suggesting not applying the cautions of the 5th edition, now, can it? So in effect you are arguing with yourself. Should I have suggested that you read the entire sentence rather than a single phrase from it before taking offence? If you've found the construction of the sentence more complex than you're used to reading, then I can only apologise and offer to break it up into smaller sentences; if you'd prefer that I did so, please just let me know.
Second, regarding:
4. "that he did not say immediately and with violence; he said immediately but with violence."
Semantics John, they still act immediately.
You have nicely restated my point for me exactly. Both C potencies and Q potencies act immediately, and Hahnemann had no problem with the immediate action of the remedy. His problem was with the relative ease with which C potencies act with violence. My intent was not to dispute this but to point out that the immediacy, which you earlier claimed was a problem -- "he says the 1 in 100 (centessimals) act almost immediately and so you have to lower the number of succusions to 2. It would be a safe assumption that the LM's are better tolreated and do not act with such force immediately, because it would not make sense for him to increase the succussions to 100 if the LM's still acted 'immediately'" -- was not a problem: something we now appear to agree upon.
(D) Grave confusions apparently underlying your assumptions
This same paragraph of yours concerning semantics does raise some very serious concerns, however, regarding your interpretation of Hahnemann's meaning. Later in the paragraph, you say:
"The onset of LM action is less rapid, which allows more frequent dosing. You have a wider safety net with LM's. Hahnemann is clear on this. And let me be clear. I am not saying the LM's don't work quickly, as if they take time before they affect the VF. It is the aggravation, i.e. when the dose has overcome the disease state and now dominates the VF, that is what happens quicker with the centessimals. I am talking about the immediate agg of C versus the later agg with LM's. Once again, LM's can show agg immediately, if the balance of forces is such that the first doses overcome the disease state and already start to affect the VF."
This appears to me to be riddled with problematic assumptions and self-contradiction. First, it expresses deep confusion between primary action and aggravation and to be self-contradictory. Second, apparently regarding those two very different items as the same thing, you appear to have concluded, on the basis that they are more readily prescribed in a sufficient dose to aggravate, that C potencies aggravate sooner than Q potencies ["It is the aggravation, i.e. when the dose has overcome the disease state and now dominates the VF, that is what happens quicker with the centessimals"] -- which, even granted the confusion, appears to be pure presumption. Next, you contradict this, stating that Q potencies can aggravate immediately ["Once again, LM's can show agg immediately..."]. Fourth, you confuse overaction with an imbalance of forces, a minor matter of presumption as to the invisible mechanisms of medicinal action; this dovetails, though, into a deeper confusion. Here you state -- as you did at the passage's start confirming the remedy's action -- that the aggravation may occur immediately. But what follows -- "... LM's can show agg immediately, if the balance of forces is such that the first doses overcome the disease state and already start to affect the VF" -- expresses again a deep confusion, assuming as it does that if a remedy affects the patient's vital force -- i.e., if it acts to impose a medicinal state upon the patient -- then it necessarily entails aggravating the patient.
These two concepts -- of action, and of aggravation -- are distinct. One (action) concerns the remedy's ability to impose a dynamic medicinal state (or process) upon the patient -- which occurs most readily and most wholly, and occurs even in ultradilute form, if the remedy is homoeopathic to the patient's own dynamic state (or process).
The other concept differs from this utterly: it concerns the imposed state's representing an aggravation, a worsening, of the earlier state.
Paul, the case you then go on to describe, if you've described it accurately, appears to represent, amongst other things, the effects of two initial successive unchanged doses of Nux vom. LM1. Or did you omit to describe a change in potency between those two doses even though you described the solution to the problem as being to change the potency? Perhaps the case does illustrate the need to work with delicacy as you say.
(E) Your final questions
First:
"Consider:
§ 161 Fifth Edition
When I here limit the so-called homoeopathic aggravation, or rather the primary action of the homoeopathic medicine that seems to increase somewhat the symptoms of the original disease, to the first or few hours, this is certainly true with respect to diseases of a more acute character and of recent origin, but where medicines of long action have to combat a malady of, considerable or of very long standing, where one dose, consequently, must continue to act for many days, we then occasionally see, during the first six, eight or ten days, the occurrence of some such primary actions, of the medicine, some such apparent increase of the symptoms of the original disease (lasting for one or several hours), while in the intervening hours amelioration of the whole malady is perceptible. After the lapse of these few days the amelioration resulting from such primary action of the medicine proceeds almost uninterruptedly for several days longer.
This is centessimal (right?)"
etc.
-- you again simply assume, despite everything I've pointed out, that the sixth edition is not intended to apply to any but Q potencies. Paul, the assumption is unjustified and frankly ludicrous.
Yes, Hahnemann refers in passing in §161 to § 247 -- by way of referring the reader to detail of how to achieve "proper small, gradually higher doses, each somewhat modified with renewed dynamization".
Yes, § 247 describes that in greater detail.
Yes, § 247 then refers (in the Jain sixth edition) in passing to pages 269–270 of that edition, which happen to include most of §§ 269 and 270.
And yes, § 270 describes the preparation -- in order "to best obtain this development of power" -- of Q potencies.
But there is nothing there to support the presumption -- and without support it is only presumption -- on your part that what Hahnemann says in § 161, he would change one jot if § 270 described instead how to prepare centesimal potencies or how to walk on the ceiling.
The argument that assumes what you wish to conclude and uses that assumption to derive the conclusion is called a circular one, and can be used to "prove" anything at all, including any false statement you care to name. For that reason, it is not a valid form of argument.
Second:
"6. "Hahnemann had no express problem with the immediacy of the centesimals' action or even (again, despite the phrasing) with the greater immediacy of action of the higher centesimals."
Then why did he refine the dosage form?"
Clearly it was because of their greater readiness to cause aggravation. These are concepts worlds apart, Paul, and should never be confused. Action does not equal aggravation, and immediacy of action does not entail aggravation (and so does not entail immediacy of aggravation). This, I think, is the recurring confusion underlying what otherwise appear to be baseless presumptions: that Hahnemann was concerned to prevent immediacy of action (he wasn't), and that action = aggravation (it doesn't).
Again, though, I believe that we actually see eye to eye on almost all else in the Organon, including Hahnemann's emphasis on, and work to fulfill, § 2. (I think that you may have overinterpreted his concern as being the expenditure of VF by aggravations, but it's of little consequence.)
Third:
"... I must ask if you are not one of those students who see the 6th ed as perfectly applicable to study centessimals."
If you mean, do I believe that everything he says about how to prepare a Q potency should be read as applying to how to prepare a C potency, which is the implication of the context, then the question is beneath contempt: of course they're prepared differently.
If you mean, do I think that everything he says about potencies in general should be read as applying to potencies in general, then I think I've made plain my answer in previous messages: that Hahnemann wrote what he meant, and indulging in what lawyers like to call mindreading gets you only confusion.
I do agree with you about the importance of not imposing one part of Q-preparation instructions on the C-preparation instructions. It is an unnecessary confusion, as the two sets of instructions are entirely self-contained and distinct. It also has no bearing on your argument that everything new in the sixth edition must apply only to Q potencies.
Fourth:
"11. 'Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying.'
So which cautions do you feel apply to centessimals. the 6th ed or 5th ed. because generally the 5th ed is more cautitious."
Your heavy cropping of the quotation again confuses its intent. I did not state or intend that Hahnemann meant his sixth-edition cautions to be ignored in the use of C potencies! The full sentence read:
"If we were to apply the precautionary principle here, we would have to say that unless and until there is compelling evidence (which I take to be a world away from assumption) that Hahnemann intended the cautions in the sixth edition to be ignored in the use of C potencies, those cautions should, for the sake of safety, be read as so applying".
Changes it just a tad, doesn't it!
I know that you will wish to apologise for these reversals of my meaning, and, in advance, I accept.
Now, to answer your question. Your impression that the fifth edition is more cautious than the sixth about C potencies arises only, I suspect, because you read the sixth edition instructions concerning increasing potency and sufficiently small dosage as being inapplicable to the C potencies. Instead read them as they are written -- to apply to all potencies -- and you will find that he has removed the problem entirely.
Again, yes, Hahnemann describes how to manufacture Q potencies and not how to manufacture C potencies in the sixth. And he obviously found them superior. But to derive from that a conclusion that "the 6th ed refers to homeopathy in general with teaching about the primary and secondary action of LM potencies" and not C potencies is nothing more than a mistake based on the other mistakes I hope I've now managed to shed a little light on.
(F) In summary
Even valid arguments from assumptions do not lead to conclusions that are trustworthy unless the assumptions themselves are trustworthy. Such is the sole express basis to date of your notion that those parts of the sixth edition that refer to potencies in general actually refer only to Q potencies. If you have evidence for the notion, it would be interesting to see it; none has appeared so far.
Cheers --
John
2009/12/8 Paul Booyse >