Minutus

Well I really don't know - as I said before, I'm no scentist and I'm
certainly not amathematician
The point is not really what is and isn't science by definition but
what was meant by calling homeopathy that
If we are to say that H is scientific inc allowing for H's practice in
all its unknowns and intuitionand instinct, then the question remains
whatwas Chris trying to specify about H that was different to what
others were saying it was when she first posted that it 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.

Biology isn't therapy

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.

OK got it - you mean the method and the laws, not the results of
practitioners

On Sep 23, 2005, at 06:59, Chris Gillen wrote:

you don't have the strength to continue this discussion?
Stop at any time, take a breather, relax....
That was something I asked for a while back. It might have been helpful
if it was stated t he outset.
Now that I know what meaning you assign to your term I can agree with
you.

From Hahneman's POV H is scientific. Yes. Agree.
No such thing.
Fine no problem with that.
It is clear that you are only accountable for your own practice.
What was the original point you were trying to malke, that some were
not practicing in a right (scientific) way, or that they thought it
was not scientific? Why make the assertion i the first place, can you
remember back that far?

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.

OK - Which therapy is Scientific?
Rgds
Soroush

Allopathy
LOL!

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 sure what the resistance is about, since usually the
non-believer in question professes to be a rational thinker. I guess
it usually breaks down around accepting experiences of mind-body
connection as evidence for a holistic theory of health and disease.
It's so maddening, since everyone knows that a stressful day at work
can send you home with a headache, depressed appetite, increased
appetite, whatever. There are millions of examples that "rational"
people take for granted, so why not connect the dots?!? This issue
really tries my patience. (Not to mention the lack of coherence in
allopathic medicine, which seems to have the stamp of rational approval.)

Assuming that I can construct a reasoned argument, which you don't
have to take for granted, I can only guess that the stated reason for
the resistance has little or nothing to do with the actual reason.
Usually, I'm left thinking that the person is too afraid of the
implications of changing their world-view and therefore just digs in
their heels in a sub-conscious way.

What do you think? Do you have a different experience? Did I answer
your question?

Satya

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:

Joy,

Shannon put it well. I would just emphasize that the question of PR
comes up here regularly: how to spread the good word, minimized damage
of negative reporting, prevent possible misunderstandings created by
"innovative" practitioners, etc. If I recall (and I don't) I think PR
was an issue at the beginning of this thread. I'm definitely in the
camp that thinks an active, positive PR campaign on behalf of
Homeopathy would benefit the profession and the world. (It would
probably stir up lots of muck, too, but progress isn't necessarily
neat.) I would do it, but I'm not qualified, yet.

Satya
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
assumptions are
listner
starting
mean.

Hi Joy,
I think I'm losing track of the thread... I don't recall saying
anything about "bouncing around assumptions". I had said--and I
*think" Satya also meant, tho I could be mistaken--that it's useful,
even necessary in the interests of communication, to have awareness of
the assumptions of our audience, and to speak accordingly. That's sort
of Communication Skills 101, so let's not beat it to death! If
it sounded like I meant something else, I apologize...
Shannon

Well, I think we are all agreed that the successful practice of
"classical" homeopathy requires (tho some emphasize one side more, and
others the other) some ability with both aspects: its "science"
(materia medica, rules and expectations re prescribing and patient
management, knowledge of disease, healing, health, etc.) and its "art"
(which can certainly embrace intuition, creativitiy, innovation, and
all that). The only quibble seems to be whether we *call* it a
"science" or an "art". I'm kind of flummoxed about why it matters,
actually... It is what it is, and if someone wants to know whether
it's "scientific", they can (a) get clear about what "scientific" means
to "them" (since no one is ever convinced by someone else's
definition), and (b) find out about homeopathy. Then they can decide
for themselves whether or not the two pictures seem to *them* to
overlap. To me there seems a generous tho partial overlap, not really
too different from many other branches of "science"--but maybe that's
just because I "like science" and I "like homeopathy", and don't tend
to get too attached to absolutes.
Cheers,
Shannon