Scientific medicine, was: Ancient Wisdom and Acute diseases- the Paradox - PLEASE READ
Posted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:20 pm
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 <==========
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 <==========
) I would definately avoid living with a "woman that bites like a snake' though!!