Minutus

So homeopathy is a science with a dash of intuition and instinct ?
- It sounds contradictory to me then to state that H is scientific in
the context of the original assertion,wwhich as I understood was
declared scientific to divorce it from instinct, intuiton and any
other non logical process.
Surely Chris's point was that it does not require anything but logical
deduction, i.e. match A to B and get a predictable solution?
From Chris's own definitions of scientific that is what I understood.
Perhaps that's not what was meant at all?

I have no idea - I have a completely open mind - I am just asking
questions, because I cannot reconcile an assertion that the process is
pure deduction, with it being simultaneously intuitive and instinctual.

I have no problem whatsoever if it can be incontrovertibly stated that
homeopathy is scientific (properly, in its' entirety, as practiced by
homeopaths) - So far I am unconvinced as it doesn't appear that way to
me.
I have no agenda
I am not saying that science doesn't have flaws.
You already agreed in a previous post homeopathic practice itself isn't
scientific.
So my question is , if that is so, how can it correctly be said that
homeopathy 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.

Agree
Simon

No, I said it probably wasn't 100% scientific because of the element
of intuition. I become uninterested when misquoted. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I cannot even begin to imagine what part popular assumption plays in
any aspect of homeopathy. Perhaps you would like to say what you think
it does play - assumption being the shaky ground in question. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joy the post of yours I refer to is :

"So I would still say that the practice of homeopathy is not scientific
in toto. I think for it to be so our clients cases would have to be
considered to be scientific also and I can't imagine how that might be.
But a great deal of homeopathy is scientific. How's that for sitting on
the fence "

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.

Now you're talking math, not science. Math is more tightly tied to
"the laws of nature", but more loosely linked to perception (visualize
an electron, anyone?).

"Science" is a much looser term, includes both "soft sciences" such as
biology and psychology, and also "hard sciences" such as physics. I'd
have to say homeopathy goes more on the "soft" side! But only
for the same reasons as biology and psychology; all of them have plenty
of "variables", and I'm not sure what the "equation" would be!
Shannon

Hi Satya,
What are you finding them resistant to--the idea of energy medicines,
or something else?

Shannon

Hi Simon,
In what way is homeopathy less scientific than biology? Look at all
the re-classifications and arguments (oldest fossil; which ones are or
aren't related or the same, etc.) *they* have going on! Isn't that a
science either?
Shannon

If one doesn't *understand* his/her audience's popular assumptions,
then one can't effectively speak toward them (are they right / wrong,
relevant / irrelevant?). Also, people are more apt to listen to
someone who they feels "understands them", "speaks their language", has
understood their doubts and etc.
Shannon

But you can't possibly begin to entertain every single assumption that
an audience might have - when does that ever happen in socio,
political, scientific, artistic worlds etc. If we are the objective
persona (and we should be) then bouncing around assumptions shouldn't
really need to happen. Whether this is done subconsciously or not is
another matter. Best, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]