Scientific medicine, was: Ancient Wisdom and Acute diseases- the Paradox - PLEASE READ

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Dimitri,
Hahnemann was a scientist because he observed phenomena and tried to
explain them.

This is really the kernel of science, it is what science is about. All
progress in science has been based on this.

To-day's science no longer is that way basically, or they would
accept the phenomena of homeopathy's being able to cure illness and
would be eager to find out why.

Hahnemann 200s's "science" is also no science - because it is also not
eager to accept the phenomena, i.e. that approaches like those of
Sehgal, Sankaran, Scholten etc. do work, although they may contradict his
"science". Acceptance of well-observed phenomina comes first ins
scinece, defines it.

There is great wisdom in the Mandala of Tibetan Buddhism:

There are, in a circle, the Meditation Buddhas representing the 5
Wisdoms. You have to walk that circle starting at the "Wisdom of the
Mirror" - which means unbiased observation.

Then you pass to the Buddha representing acceptance - you have to
accept your observations "as they are". Then only you come to the
great Amitabha, representing the Wisdom of Analysis - to-day's
so-called science starts with that. It analyses first what is to be
analysed;-) -

Only then you come to the wisdom, that you have to act on what you
have found out, and that you have the courage to do so. Fight for it,
die for it- this is what many of the true scientists have done.

All this together is the complete wisdom - just as it is the
complete science.

Hahnemann, of course, was not a really true scientist. He refused to
listen objectively to the group around Moritz Mueller, he did not
accept it and only then analyse etc. As a consequence, much energy was
spent in fighting between the two groups right from the beginning -
energy that was pure waste at the best and hurting homeopathy badly at
the worst.

But at least Hahnemann, while not accepting anything other might have
found out when it was contrary to his own opinions, did accept
evidence he found for himself.

He found that homeopathy did not work the way he had thought to begin
with and which he had proclaimed so loudly - and he tried to find out
why -- which resulted in his miasm theory, and thus he was the father
of the theory of infectious diseases, of course.

He also was courageous enough to follow through and publish his
results - which again resulted in another split, this time within the
group of his disciples.

He was not courageous enough to fight it through - e. g. he never
expounded on "sulphur being the main remedy for psora" etc. (The only
way we now do know that he considered it to be so is by his own way of
treatment - but we do know it now!) The 6th Organon is leaving the
basic questions all up in the air - thus we have umpteen theories of
miasms, which are all supposed to be Hahnemann's;-)

I am not at all against what H. 2002 considers the scientific approach
to homeopathy, what Irene considers the scientific approach to
homeopathy etc, which is more or less what we in Germany have known as
the "scientific/critical approach" for about 150 years and which was
practically all the MD's did in Germany - the homeopathy of the
"Hahnemannian Disciple Group" had emigrated to the USA.

Those MD's all took into account the knowledge of medical science that
was valid at the specific times they practiced. They did not limit
their treatment to that, of course, or they would not have been
homeopaths (who, by the way, often had to suffer for their
conviction).

Did they, by including the medical and other scientific knowledge of
their day, do better homeopathy than the "Hahnemannian Disciple Group"
would have done? There is no evidence to show that they did.

Did they, by embracing science, help the reputation of homeopathy in
Germany?

No, they were discriminated against, looked down upon, considered
quacks -- no different from people who healed by esoteric means.

Thus it remains open to opinion whether the homeopaths embracing
to-day's science will do better homeopathy or help the reputation of
homeopathy.

All this has nothing to do with the question of being MD or not.

During the last 50 years or so many of the most "esoteric" homeopaths
have been MD's, and this often after they had practiced the regular
medicine for decades.

Scientif medicine is impossible, anyhow. No-one can know even a
fraction of what is there to be known to-day. Even in those cases,
where the latter can be considered at least close to some truth, there
is so much of it that no-one is able to know even a fraction.

For example:

Did anyone read Irene's answer to my question on how she used her
scientific knowledge in finding remedies?

The answer showed such specific knowledge - did anyone of the medical
science group know what she wrote? Or, if you do not consider
knowledge of how it works on dogs and cats appropriate - does anyone
of the medical science group have comparable knowledge of how
pathogens work in humans to cause illness, and has s/he used it for
finding remedies?

(If anyone wants to check back - I am writing a reply to Irene's post
under the heading "micro-organisms and repertorisation" - you can find
her original post in it)

Well, I better quit - my "fasting regimen" makes me very talkative -
and also: using what I have of brain/mind this way helps me counteract
the less pleasant "signs and symptsoms" caused by it. Perhaps my
simillimum is Lachesis - one of my post of to-day was definitely
"hissing";-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[dimitri rolf]

hahnemannian2002, Luise, Päivi Siponen,
for some reason, your first 3-4 posts can be seen (the titles of the emails), but the cotent cannot be read... and it has nothing to do with the character decoding cause i tried it and , of course it has nothing to do with me trying to avoid answering.
They appear empty.
i read them yesterday, saying to myself that i will answer them on Thursday.
Funny enouh, i can read the last post of hahnemannian2002 to Luise and the last post of Luise to me.
I remember though (i think so) the question of hahnemannian2002 to me about if i can specify what is scientific medicine (or science) in my opinion.
Scientific medicine has some basic tools: Observation, open mind, critical thinking and doubt for everything old and new, no special interest and profit upon anything, looking the wider picture of the situation, and especially love for the human or animal you try to cure. And obviously, everything needs to be explained, now if possible or later in the future if not possible.
Some theories cannot be explained. Do we reject them? Of course not! Do we accept them? Of course not! We examine them with a critical open mind without having any profits in mind to judge positively or negatively. If we can see something (or some results) but we cannot explain them, this doesnt mean that this unexplainable theory is insufficient, this mean that our knowledge is not sufficient enough. i hope i have answere to your questio. If not, please repeat.
To Luise: Since i can read the last two posts on this topic(the last of yours and the las of hahnemannian2002), i will comment on yours:
By saying:"Hahnemann, of course, was not a really true scientist. He refused to
listen objectively to the group around Moritz Mueller", you dont convince that he was not a scientist, he was a scientist and it is shown by your sayings:
"But at least Hahnemann, while not accepting anything other might have
found out when it was contrary to his own opinions, did accept
evidence he found for himself." A scientist should be critical in everything. It didnt seem right to him and he rejected it! BUT, he agreed with it when he found the element needed.
By the way, science (the true one i mean), is not against homeopathy as many homeopaths think. Science has already given another explanation on how homeopathy works (the water memory efect-im sure you' ve heard of it).
Its narrow mind people and big pharmas that are working effectivey against homeopathy using the tools of sciense. Its like using the knife to kill someone. The bad one is the killer, not the knife
To all the other things, we totally agree!!
The only difference is that your vocabulary is more scientific!! Hehe
And i would prefer to discuss with a woman who "bites like a snake" than discussing with a woman that punches like a man! ) I would definately avoid living with a "woman that bites like a snake' though!! )
So, you are from Germany? Where from? I' ll be visiting your country in February
regards,
dimitri
________________________________

Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Dimitri,
the reason is probably spelled YAHOO:-)

your first 3-4 posts can be seen (the titles of the emails), but the cotent cannot be read... and it has nothing to do with the character decoding cause i tried it and , of course it has nothing to do with me trying to avoid answering.

Dimitri:

He refused to
Luise:

You misread or misinterpreted something. My calling him "not a true
scientist (by your definition, with which I agree)" was not based on
his not accepting but on his not listening and considering their views
before rececting them.

Dimitri:
BUT, he

Luise:

Give me some examples where he did, i. e. where he did accept
something coming from someone else.

Take the matter of double remedies. He agreed to v. Boenninghausen
that they might be useful and was going to include something in his 5th
Organon. But then he didn't. Why? Because he had found out that they
were not good? No! Because news of his plans to do so had leaked and
his arch-enemy Griessenich had heard about it - and G was "smirking" -
and Sam could not allow that (This is what he wrote to v.
Boenninghausen, I have read the letter) -- Mark of a true scientist by
your definition??

Dimitri:
Luise:

No of course not. It is necessary if we want to improve.

Dimitri:

Science has already given

Luise:

No, not really. Some scientists have voiced that hypothisis and some
agree to the possibility. No more.

Dimitri:

Its narrow mind people and big

Luise:

Most scientist outside of big pharma and regular medicine - those that
have nothing to do with them - consider homeopathy quackery. At least
the homeopathy based on higher potencies than Avogadro's number will
allow;-)

There are indeed approaches to high potencies (IMO) from the sciences
that work with ultra-high dilutions kind of thing - there was on
then-Lyghtforce List a chemical engineer who worked in the field and
posted about it - sorry to say she stopped posting because she could
not stomach the mobbings - but they have not yet seen any connections
to the high-potency problem, although Avogadro's number may not
relevant to what they found either.

Dimitri:

To all the other things, we

Oh, I hope I am not that bad. I am not a scientist myself and I do try
to write that people can understand. Where I do not, it is not
intention but inadequacy.

And i would prefer to discuss with a woman

Well, with me it is more simple: I am ready to discuss any way as long
as it is the topics that are attacked. Attack my opinion - fine, as
long as you give reasons. Attack me - and the discussiion is closed.

I try to discuss that way myself - I think most of the time I succeed.
Where not, it is again not intention but inadequacy on my part:-)

So, you are from Germany?

Near Cologn - for exact address Linux users may type in the command
line "whois bar-do.net" or consult the German telephone book. There is
only one Luise Kunkle listed. I live in a glass house:-))

I' ll be visiting your country in February

I hope you will enjoy it. Are you going to visit homeopaths or
seminars or is your purpose different?

Where do you live?

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========