Organon 5th and 6th editions give details for "advanced" practice of
homeopathy- these are not where the "very basic essentials" are. We
also know what is the best practice of homeopathy and our approach
in practice is probably similar to yours at least in some ways and
to countless homeopathic professionals on earth.
We are not talking about the best approach, classical approach etc. -
What is the barest minimum, bare-bones skeleton approach.
Do you consider Burnett and Clarke when they are giving 3x or 6c
remedies good homeopaths or not?
Is Homeopathy Bleeding To Death??
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Is Homeopathy Bleeding To Death??
"Does one dare discuss these things ... with the skeptics..." Sigh,
why bother discussing it with skeptics--unless they are among the
*SMALL* number of self-named skeptics who actually *want* to know the
facts, as opposed to the larger (or at least louder) number that have
already made up their minds, and are in "don't bother me with the
facts" mode.
The bigger question lately seems to be, "Does one dare discuss things
things beween colleagues and friends on a
public-even-tho-we-forget-that-part list?" The answer, if one follows
John's observations, would be "no". Sad...
Shannon
why bother discussing it with skeptics--unless they are among the
*SMALL* number of self-named skeptics who actually *want* to know the
facts, as opposed to the larger (or at least louder) number that have
already made up their minds, and are in "don't bother me with the
facts" mode.
The bigger question lately seems to be, "Does one dare discuss things
things beween colleagues and friends on a
public-even-tho-we-forget-that-part list?" The answer, if one follows
John's observations, would be "no". Sad...
Shannon
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Is Homeopathy Bleeding To Death??
Dear Shannon,
Critical discussion is not the problem; it is the solution.
In the scientific world there is a difference between findings and
random speculations. To maintain confusion between the two requires
social pressures that value agreement over learning. Science
inherently values learning more highly of the two.
Real science has its criteria and methods -- criteria such as whether
an explanation for the facts is the simplest possible; methods that
nevertheless investigate other possibilities for greater certainty.
Only in forums in which casual ignorance of such criteria and methods
is acceptable are the most complex, least likely explanations for
otherwise explicable single events blithely discussed as though
they're established fact.
Such is the case among cult believers in alchemy, divination, and
divinities. Such also is the case unfortunately in odd corners of the
homoeopathic world that are wide open to public view and justified
criticism.
Yes, some practitioner with a good imagination once notated, onto the
dried pulp of a certain tree, in happenstantially Arabic notation, the
graphite markings representing the English pronunciation of the latin
name arbitrarily assigned to a substance he'd foolishly run short of.
He placed this symbolic notation beneath a silicon dioxide tube
decorated with certain other arbitrary markings in unknown chemicals,
within which he'd placed water and an extraordinary number of other
and unknown substances.
And, after imbibing said water and contaminants, the patient
miraculously "improved".
Wow.
Does a rational mind educated in scientific reasoning deduce from this
that the best possible explanation for this phenomenon is that some
property of the missing substance -- never even in contact with the
graphite, the wood pulp, or the silicon dioxide, let alone the water
-- medicinally influenced the hapless patient?
The rational mind might ask how many times such a "method" succeeds in
comparison with how many times it fails, and what the criteria for
success are.
The rational mind might compare such rates of "success" with those of
other "methods".
The rational mind might even guess at possibilities with greater
explanatory (and predictive) power without having to do more than
engage in real thought: explanations such as the tendency for people
to "improve" with a little social contact and attention; explanations
such as the tendency for patients to see homoeopaths when they (the
patients) are at their worst -- i.e. just before they improve again,
at least for a little while; explanations such as pure chance.
That any significant number of homoeopathic practitioners should be
incapable of such critical thinking is cause for grave concern. That
critical thinking is regarded by any of us as divisive is alarming.
That it consistently fails to overcome cultish pressures to accept
irrational explanations for rationally explicable events is tragic.
The day may come when there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the
most likely explanation for certain phenomena observed repeatedly is
the mystical transfer of health by intent or of identity by graphite
or telephone wire.
In the meantime, what of the hundred other explanations available to
anybody with a working mind?
Is it any wonder that somebody investigating homoeopathy with an open
mind and working intelligence takes about two minutes to distance
himself from the entire question of homoeopathic potency?
For as long as we insist on discussing homoeopathy on a basis of
paucity of evidence, absence of thought, unacceptability of questions,
and poverty of imagination, for that long will those discussions
continue to alienate almost every newcomer to the field able to wield
an ounce of common sense.
We are our own worst enemies -- not because we dare critically discuss
the phenomena of our craft as they do who respect science, but because
we dare not. The sorrowful state of homoeopathic practice today and
the pitiful level of discussion and debate are no accident. And they
have not been imposed on us from without, except inasmuch as our
educational institutions have failed us. They have come to pass
through lack of the courage to think differently and to subject
everything to question. They are the result of intellectual laziness.
The comforting myth of blazing trails through the technology of
homoeopathic treatment, boldly going where no scientist (even
Hahnemann, it would seem!) has gone before, serves as cardboard
against the glare of an uncomfortable reality. We lack the training
to understand anything beyond our sphere of comfort. We lack the
courage to question ourselves and each other. And we lack the wisdom
to discern evidence from fairy tale. Homoeopathic formal education is
inadequate; continuing education is little more than a joke; and some,
perhaps most, homoeopathic journals and forums clearly advertise
ignorance and gullibility as qualities we not only respect but
actually expect in each other.
In such an environment, what chance has the certainty of homoeopathic
practice to impress the newcomer or the genuine skeptic, let alone to
overcome even the most facile arguments discounting homoeopathic
potency?
The beginning of wisdom is discernment. Let's have the courage to
discern speculation from fact.
If we wish to survive the onslaught that the forces of big money have
mounted against us, it will not be enough to impress ourselves and
each other with our fancy terminology and our fanciful explanations.
We must begin to use our minds to acquire the tools of critical
thinking and scientific method; the skilled use of our craft; and a
passing knowledge of the universe in which we practise it.
Unless we do, we're easy targets for extinction.
Kind regards,
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
Critical discussion is not the problem; it is the solution.
In the scientific world there is a difference between findings and
random speculations. To maintain confusion between the two requires
social pressures that value agreement over learning. Science
inherently values learning more highly of the two.
Real science has its criteria and methods -- criteria such as whether
an explanation for the facts is the simplest possible; methods that
nevertheless investigate other possibilities for greater certainty.
Only in forums in which casual ignorance of such criteria and methods
is acceptable are the most complex, least likely explanations for
otherwise explicable single events blithely discussed as though
they're established fact.
Such is the case among cult believers in alchemy, divination, and
divinities. Such also is the case unfortunately in odd corners of the
homoeopathic world that are wide open to public view and justified
criticism.
Yes, some practitioner with a good imagination once notated, onto the
dried pulp of a certain tree, in happenstantially Arabic notation, the
graphite markings representing the English pronunciation of the latin
name arbitrarily assigned to a substance he'd foolishly run short of.
He placed this symbolic notation beneath a silicon dioxide tube
decorated with certain other arbitrary markings in unknown chemicals,
within which he'd placed water and an extraordinary number of other
and unknown substances.
And, after imbibing said water and contaminants, the patient
miraculously "improved".
Wow.
Does a rational mind educated in scientific reasoning deduce from this
that the best possible explanation for this phenomenon is that some
property of the missing substance -- never even in contact with the
graphite, the wood pulp, or the silicon dioxide, let alone the water
-- medicinally influenced the hapless patient?
The rational mind might ask how many times such a "method" succeeds in
comparison with how many times it fails, and what the criteria for
success are.
The rational mind might compare such rates of "success" with those of
other "methods".
The rational mind might even guess at possibilities with greater
explanatory (and predictive) power without having to do more than
engage in real thought: explanations such as the tendency for people
to "improve" with a little social contact and attention; explanations
such as the tendency for patients to see homoeopaths when they (the
patients) are at their worst -- i.e. just before they improve again,
at least for a little while; explanations such as pure chance.
That any significant number of homoeopathic practitioners should be
incapable of such critical thinking is cause for grave concern. That
critical thinking is regarded by any of us as divisive is alarming.
That it consistently fails to overcome cultish pressures to accept
irrational explanations for rationally explicable events is tragic.
The day may come when there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the
most likely explanation for certain phenomena observed repeatedly is
the mystical transfer of health by intent or of identity by graphite
or telephone wire.
In the meantime, what of the hundred other explanations available to
anybody with a working mind?
Is it any wonder that somebody investigating homoeopathy with an open
mind and working intelligence takes about two minutes to distance
himself from the entire question of homoeopathic potency?
For as long as we insist on discussing homoeopathy on a basis of
paucity of evidence, absence of thought, unacceptability of questions,
and poverty of imagination, for that long will those discussions
continue to alienate almost every newcomer to the field able to wield
an ounce of common sense.
We are our own worst enemies -- not because we dare critically discuss
the phenomena of our craft as they do who respect science, but because
we dare not. The sorrowful state of homoeopathic practice today and
the pitiful level of discussion and debate are no accident. And they
have not been imposed on us from without, except inasmuch as our
educational institutions have failed us. They have come to pass
through lack of the courage to think differently and to subject
everything to question. They are the result of intellectual laziness.
The comforting myth of blazing trails through the technology of
homoeopathic treatment, boldly going where no scientist (even
Hahnemann, it would seem!) has gone before, serves as cardboard
against the glare of an uncomfortable reality. We lack the training
to understand anything beyond our sphere of comfort. We lack the
courage to question ourselves and each other. And we lack the wisdom
to discern evidence from fairy tale. Homoeopathic formal education is
inadequate; continuing education is little more than a joke; and some,
perhaps most, homoeopathic journals and forums clearly advertise
ignorance and gullibility as qualities we not only respect but
actually expect in each other.
In such an environment, what chance has the certainty of homoeopathic
practice to impress the newcomer or the genuine skeptic, let alone to
overcome even the most facile arguments discounting homoeopathic
potency?
The beginning of wisdom is discernment. Let's have the courage to
discern speculation from fact.
If we wish to survive the onslaught that the forces of big money have
mounted against us, it will not be enough to impress ourselves and
each other with our fancy terminology and our fanciful explanations.
We must begin to use our minds to acquire the tools of critical
thinking and scientific method; the skilled use of our craft; and a
passing knowledge of the universe in which we practise it.
Unless we do, we're easy targets for extinction.
Kind regards,
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
Re: Is Homeopathy Bleeding To Death??
Hi, Soroush
You expressed interest some time back in a project I was organizing to treat returning Iraqi war vets. It took awhile to find an organization willing to ally with us, but a group of psychotherapists who volunteer an hour a week to help vets and their families has welcomed the idea of including homeopaths on their website. (They require licensure and malpractice insurance but are willing to waive these as they don't apply to most homeopaths.)
I realize that you're in the UK whereas we're all in the US, but there may be vets in the UK, British or American, in need of help. If you're still interested in participating, please send me your contact information. If you're interested in checking out the organization, it's called "Give an Hour":
http://www.giveanhour.org/skins/gah/home.aspx
May you have a wonderful holiday season!
Peace,
Dale
You expressed interest some time back in a project I was organizing to treat returning Iraqi war vets. It took awhile to find an organization willing to ally with us, but a group of psychotherapists who volunteer an hour a week to help vets and their families has welcomed the idea of including homeopaths on their website. (They require licensure and malpractice insurance but are willing to waive these as they don't apply to most homeopaths.)
I realize that you're in the UK whereas we're all in the US, but there may be vets in the UK, British or American, in need of help. If you're still interested in participating, please send me your contact information. If you're interested in checking out the organization, it's called "Give an Hour":
http://www.giveanhour.org/skins/gah/home.aspx
May you have a wonderful holiday season!
Peace,
Dale