Post 3

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

While walking the dog yesterday, he told me in his usual clever way to keep it even simpler, that there was no need for one long elaborated sentence when it can be done in a few short ones.....

Everybody, feel free to chime in and make changes:

"Homeopathy is a natural therapy that attempts to restore health to the whole patient without neglecting the actual presenting problems.
It does that by considering at the same time the main complaints while putting them into the perspective of everything else happening to the patient during his life, taking into account all aspects, physical, mental, emotional and psychological.
The treatment is done essentially by offering remedies made of substances that, given to a healthy person, could create the same symptoms and signs presented by the patient, prepared in such a way that all toxicity is removed."

It takes 30 second to read those sentences in a normally paced voice.
I think it is clear enough while avoiding being too specific and using terms that can be misinterpreted.

Comments?

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com

[Sheri Nakken]

that is excellent
thanks for that.
It has always been a difficult thing to make homeopathy simple in a short explanation and that is a good one.
Just doesn't fit acute illness - a little tweeking to mention that?
Sheri

At 12:42 PM 2/19/2014, you wrote:
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases and Child Health
Next classes start February 13 and 14

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Well....when there is an acute situation, we still take into account the modalities and concomitants, as well as the emotional changes. No matter what the acute is, the remedy will be different if the patient is agitated, fearful, lethargic, etc....therefore, I feel it is the same process, the same definition, albeit shortened.

What would you change or add?

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

Your dog is very wise. This is a great explanation of homoeopathy (though its use of a single substance capable of invoking a similar set of symptoms could be clearer).

It is, however, a description; not, by any stretch, a definition. If you begin with the sentence "Homoeopath is…" and finish that with a single noun phrase, that will be the form that a definition of homoeopathy has to take. That's why it can be a little tricky. (But dictionary-makers, who practise this art all the time, do it with ease.)

The task of defining it comes down to specifying what is required and what is not in order for some practice to be homoeopathy. Your description here does that job pretty well and accurately, I think, particularly the last part -- my only reservation -- for the purposes of shovelling it into the form of a definition -- being that in fact an otherwise toxic prescription not "prepared" as mentioned may still be perfectly accurately homoeopathic. I understand perfectly why you included that and the value of including it in a description of how we work in practice; but anybody who prescribes a toxic quantity of arsenic for a person suffering from evidently arsenic-like symptoms, lunatic though he may be, still has prescribed it on a homoeopathic basis, and his prescription must be a (poor) act of homoeopathy.

Again, naturally, informed homoeopathic practice will always take account of toxicity and, even in using a crude medicine, will use a suitably small dose (such efforts constituting the path, of course, of Hahnemann's discovery of the potency phenomenon). But let's remember that all of Hahnemann's early, accurate, but crude prescriptions of a substance with a homoeopathic relationship to the patient -- unfortunate though they may have been in their initial aggravation of the patient's problems through their toxic effects -- were indubitably homoeopathic ones.

Cheers!

John

[John Harvey]

Yes, to all of that; great descriptions. The first suggests the form of a definition, without actually defining it very closely; the second adds some sidelines; the third comes close to summing up the entirety of what homoeopathy is (without actually saying this is what it is). This clarity of understanding (particularly as the third represents it) needs only -- as Joe's does -- to be put in definition form: homoeopathy is [exactly what it requires and nothing that it does not -- including potency and non-toxicity].

Cheers!

John

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

How would you re-write it, keeping in mind that it should be precise enough for the general public and wide and vague enough for the more professional?

Looking at dictionaries, there are often 4-5 or more definitions for the same word....

And remember, English is not my mother tongue, so your differentiation between description and definition is not clear to me.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

It would be something like this:

"offering a remedy made of a substance that, given to a healthy person, could create the same symptoms and signs presented by the patient".

"Offering" would need replacement by a real noun (such as I offered in "use of"): "application of", "prescription of", "medical use of"; something like that.

The beauty of your words here is that they'd be so readily adapted too to the adjective, by deleting whatever precedes "of".

Cheers!

John

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

I must be hypoglycemic, but the only change I can perceive is "offering" instead of "giving".....what is the difference??

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

I didn't change "giving" to "offering", Joe; if anything, I'd suggest the reverse change. "Offering" was your word. And although I did amend the words slightly (principally, making remedies singular and removing the indirect reference to potentisation), the point is that I took from your sentence the phrase that would stand as a definition. My primary purpose wasn't to change it but to give it back in definition form, which is what I thought you were asking me to do.

In this form, you can substitute it for the word "homoeopathy" in any sentence, and it should retain the accuracy in meaning and in grammar of the original sentence. If its meaning is inaccurate, then we still have some adjusting to do.

Does that make sense?

Cheers --

John

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Not really....could you please do this: write the whole definition/description with your changes in it, without omitting any word?

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind" www.naturamedica.webs.com