Scientific medicine, was: Ancient Wisdom and Acute diseases- the Paradox - PLEASE READ
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:49 am
I think that two important points may easily be overlooked or confused here:
(A)
It is not the case that the only value in listening to other views or
assertions of fact and considering them lies in then accepting as fact
the assertions of the speaker. (If that were the case, then we would
have no value from this list except by accepting all the mutually
contradictory assertions on this list, which is of course an
impossibility.) The chief value of listening and considering lies in
the ability of these assertions from a scientific standpoint is to
expand the range of TESTABLE hypotheses in order to more reliably
approximate the truth that the listener is seeking. In sharp
contradistinction to most of those asserting their views today about
homoeopathic treatment and its rationale, Hahnemann was prepared to
entertain all kinds of possibilities for better treatment, including
even the possibility that "double remedies" could sometimes have
superior results to what was available in a limited range of single
ones. And he was willing to test that hypothesis, unwelcome as it
must have been.
(B)
Let's think of this in context. First, homoeopathy was under stronger
attack then that it is even now. Yes, it had plenty of public support
too, but legal tendencies and powers were draconian, and assertions as
to the harm possible simply through ignorantly and inadvertantly
keeping a patient from "real" treatment were made as powerfully at
that time as they are today. Allopaths were as inclined then as now
to cry "Fraud!" in the belief that patients don't understand what
their homoeopaths openly tell them about the quantitiy of medicine
they'll be receiving. Homoeopathy had much to lose and trod a
hazardous path.
Second, the mood within homoeopathic circles was, if possible, more
divided than it is today. (Partly, it has to be said, this was
probably due to the approach of Hahnemann himself, who was not at all
conciliatory or gentle in his approach to persuading "mongrel
homoeopaths" back into the fold and was more inclined to kick them
right into the arms of allopathy.) Consequently there was great
psychological pressure to assert the superiority of one speculative
(unproven and unprovable) system or another -- double remedies,
external applications, alternations between homoeopathic and
allopathic treatments without compelling reason -- as well as that of
homoeopathy, as defined by its developer. There was little
recognition -- except by Hahnemann and a few close colleagues -- of
the imperativeness of scientific experiment; little vision of the
power that well-derived experimental evidence could wield. So the
politics of medicine depended less on results than on believable
rhetoric and some of its allies: assertion, accusation, insinuation.
The first victim of such critical rhetoric is not going to be the
allopathic methods, of course, which are everyday, but the
unbelievable: the homoeopathic ones. Similar symptoms? How
dangerous! How stupid! Zero doses? How cheap! How callously
fraudulent! How imbecilic!
Third, Hahnemann may have been lacking in political finesse, but he
was not completely without foresight and was not about to hand any of
his enemies an obvious weapon after hearing how they planned to use it
against homoeopathy. This particular obvious weapon, which never sat
well with Hahnemann anyway as it ran against all that he'd discovered,
was one that could easily have brought about homoeopathy's total
downfall. All it would have required was some evidence for the
accusation that homoeopaths practised no differently from allopaths;
that their success, such as it was, lay in mimicking allopathic
methods. To interpret Hahnemann in this context as seeking to hide
the truth in order to protect his turf would be less than fair on this
basis alone. But...
Fourth and finally, let's think how it came about that Hahnemann was
ready to publish mention of "double remedies".
Here was a man who for decades had stood for the single remedy and the
clear result; who for decades had stood for the unambiguous,
reproducible proving of a single substance; who even as a "successful"
allopath had criticised multiple prescriptions.
Now, late in his career, having enjoyed worldwide fame as the
originator of medicine that actually worked for the patient, here he
was about to take the brave (possibly even ill-conceived) step of
writing aloud his thoughts about the possibility of being wrong in
this respect -- the possibility that a "double remedy" might
occasionally be called for -- and the preliminary experiments he'd
conducted in order to learn, as he always demonstrated a willingness
to do, what was best for the patient.
The results were not yet conclusive, but there seemed to be no
compelling evidence for creating the necessarily muddy trails and
mountains of speculation that a double remedy creates. He was
obtaining, after all, world-beating results with the single remedy.
The methodology for single remedies was clear, and the results were
easy to interpret. The same cannot, and never will, be truly said of
double remedies.
Yet, against all scientific understanding, Hahnemann made the effort
to break that new ground, just in case there was something of benefit
to be unearthed.
Now, there's a scientist.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
The sick are entitled to exact knowledge, not to guesswork.
-- James Tyler Kent
(A)
It is not the case that the only value in listening to other views or
assertions of fact and considering them lies in then accepting as fact
the assertions of the speaker. (If that were the case, then we would
have no value from this list except by accepting all the mutually
contradictory assertions on this list, which is of course an
impossibility.) The chief value of listening and considering lies in
the ability of these assertions from a scientific standpoint is to
expand the range of TESTABLE hypotheses in order to more reliably
approximate the truth that the listener is seeking. In sharp
contradistinction to most of those asserting their views today about
homoeopathic treatment and its rationale, Hahnemann was prepared to
entertain all kinds of possibilities for better treatment, including
even the possibility that "double remedies" could sometimes have
superior results to what was available in a limited range of single
ones. And he was willing to test that hypothesis, unwelcome as it
must have been.
(B)
Let's think of this in context. First, homoeopathy was under stronger
attack then that it is even now. Yes, it had plenty of public support
too, but legal tendencies and powers were draconian, and assertions as
to the harm possible simply through ignorantly and inadvertantly
keeping a patient from "real" treatment were made as powerfully at
that time as they are today. Allopaths were as inclined then as now
to cry "Fraud!" in the belief that patients don't understand what
their homoeopaths openly tell them about the quantitiy of medicine
they'll be receiving. Homoeopathy had much to lose and trod a
hazardous path.
Second, the mood within homoeopathic circles was, if possible, more
divided than it is today. (Partly, it has to be said, this was
probably due to the approach of Hahnemann himself, who was not at all
conciliatory or gentle in his approach to persuading "mongrel
homoeopaths" back into the fold and was more inclined to kick them
right into the arms of allopathy.) Consequently there was great
psychological pressure to assert the superiority of one speculative
(unproven and unprovable) system or another -- double remedies,
external applications, alternations between homoeopathic and
allopathic treatments without compelling reason -- as well as that of
homoeopathy, as defined by its developer. There was little
recognition -- except by Hahnemann and a few close colleagues -- of
the imperativeness of scientific experiment; little vision of the
power that well-derived experimental evidence could wield. So the
politics of medicine depended less on results than on believable
rhetoric and some of its allies: assertion, accusation, insinuation.
The first victim of such critical rhetoric is not going to be the
allopathic methods, of course, which are everyday, but the
unbelievable: the homoeopathic ones. Similar symptoms? How
dangerous! How stupid! Zero doses? How cheap! How callously
fraudulent! How imbecilic!
Third, Hahnemann may have been lacking in political finesse, but he
was not completely without foresight and was not about to hand any of
his enemies an obvious weapon after hearing how they planned to use it
against homoeopathy. This particular obvious weapon, which never sat
well with Hahnemann anyway as it ran against all that he'd discovered,
was one that could easily have brought about homoeopathy's total
downfall. All it would have required was some evidence for the
accusation that homoeopaths practised no differently from allopaths;
that their success, such as it was, lay in mimicking allopathic
methods. To interpret Hahnemann in this context as seeking to hide
the truth in order to protect his turf would be less than fair on this
basis alone. But...
Fourth and finally, let's think how it came about that Hahnemann was
ready to publish mention of "double remedies".
Here was a man who for decades had stood for the single remedy and the
clear result; who for decades had stood for the unambiguous,
reproducible proving of a single substance; who even as a "successful"
allopath had criticised multiple prescriptions.
Now, late in his career, having enjoyed worldwide fame as the
originator of medicine that actually worked for the patient, here he
was about to take the brave (possibly even ill-conceived) step of
writing aloud his thoughts about the possibility of being wrong in
this respect -- the possibility that a "double remedy" might
occasionally be called for -- and the preliminary experiments he'd
conducted in order to learn, as he always demonstrated a willingness
to do, what was best for the patient.
The results were not yet conclusive, but there seemed to be no
compelling evidence for creating the necessarily muddy trails and
mountains of speculation that a double remedy creates. He was
obtaining, after all, world-beating results with the single remedy.
The methodology for single remedies was clear, and the results were
easy to interpret. The same cannot, and never will, be truly said of
double remedies.
Yet, against all scientific understanding, Hahnemann made the effort
to break that new ground, just in case there was something of benefit
to be unearthed.
Now, there's a scientist.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
The sick are entitled to exact knowledge, not to guesswork.
-- James Tyler Kent
