Cat bite first aid - was The campaign against spring fever, and a better alternative

[John Harvey]

Actually, I think that Luise may have hit upon the basis of a communication problem here: multiplicity. This is something like duplicity but multiplied. (The technical definition is duplicity of duplicity.) With this problem, one makes all kinds of mutually contradictory assertions, denies having made each one, and denies any and all contradictions amongst them. Apparently it also affects one's "homoeopathic" practice, though, causing one to believe that two remedies are one, then that three remedies are one, and, in the very serious stage which nobody has yet cured, that four remedies are one.
If there's a cure for the last stage, no stick-in-the-mud homoeopath has yet been able to find it. Perhaps Irene could have a go at it.
I love that this so-called expert doesn't acknowledge any aspect of the principle of homoeopathy: neither the requirement for a knowledge of a drug's primary effects nor a taking of the individual case nor the selection of a single substance on the basis of its ability to mimic the individual case. It clearly demonstrates expertise beyond the sublime!
John
2009/7/1 Luise Kunkle >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

[John Harvey]

Oh, hello, my friend; back again already! And ready to engage, I see, in yet another brawl.

Really, what I was pointing out was very simple and obvious, and I said it in the first paragraph: that Irene's number-blindness is a stumbling block to communication. But it's okay: it's not something you need feel obliged to answer. I'll have plenty of other things for you to think about.

Cheers!

John
2009/7/1 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

[John Harvey]

Luise, I apologise for being unclear. The entire comment -- concerning multiplicity in method of argument -- was on the topic of the arguments that Irene has put, and didn't concern yours at all. You highlighted it for me, that's all. Apologies again for any suggestion of duplicity or multiplicity in your own arguments.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/2 Luise Kunkle >

[John Harvey]

Yes, and invalidity of argument doesn't appear in your definition either; nevertheless, it becomes relevant when it is used to attempt to appropriate the word homoeopathy for any other practice. Sorry if that wasn't clear to you.
Still interested in a response when you're ready, Irene.
Thanks --
John
2009/7/2 Irene de Villiers >

[John Harvey]

Quote provided on that thread ("The argument from particulars"), so let's leave it here, and I'll await your response on that thread; thanks, Irene.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/2 Irene de Villiers >