Scientific Approach Towards Homeopathy

[similimum]

Hahnemann was ready to revise everything according to new experience and updated knowledge. The fact that he re-wrote organon six times during his life-span clearly shows that he was `dialectical' in his approach. For him, homeopathy was a constantly advancing `science'- a medical science. Not a `closed system'. He was willing to accommodate the experiences and suggestions of others also.

After the death of hahnemann, initially homeopathy continued to be an open system. That is why the thought of hering, kent, nash, boenninghaussen and many other stalwarts were incorporated into homeopathy, and became part of homeopathy.

After the first generation of homeopaths also disappeared from the scene, homeopathy began to be more and more institutionalized and `dogmatized'. It lost the character of science, and became more or less a closed `system'.

For the last 200 years, homeopathy hesitated to interact with modern scientific knowledge- abstained from creative `dialogue' with other areas of human knowledge. Homeopaths started call this `closed' system as `classical homeopathy'. `Purity' was the key word. Safeguarding the purity of `original' dogmas were considered to be the sacred duty of homeopathy. Ultimately, this approach grew into an `anti-scientific' outlook, constantly resisting all innovations and scientific intrusions into the sacred lands of `pure homeopathy'

I am trying to make homeopathy a science again. For that, homeopathy has to bridge the great knowledge divide of 200+years and reach abreast with modern scientific human knowledge.

We have to explain each and every `principles' and `laws' of homeopathy in terms of modern science. We have to experiment every claims of homeopathy in accordance with scientific method. We have to be brave enough to accept new knowledge into homeopathy, same time discarding everything obsolete and unscientific in homeopathy. That is the duty of all true followers of hahnemann.

By `Dialectical Homeopathy', I want to instill this scientific sense and approach into fellow homeopaths. I want to declare our willingness to change, growth and advancement towards more and more perfection. I want to declare that homeopathy is `science', not a `system of immutable dogmas'.

[John Harvey]

This is an admirable aim. But to be able to advance either homoeopathy's scientific basis in findings of fact or its artistic practice, one has to realise first what it is that one is trying to advance.

Homoeopaths who maintain that medical practice that fails to adhere to a basis in symptom similarity cannot be homoeopathy have faced accusations since well before Hahnemann's departure of being unnecessarily restrictive -- even, laughably, of being dogmatic. Yet can any kind of medical practice without that basis be called homoeopathy if homoeopathy is the medical use of a medicinal substance known to cause symptoms like those of the patient?

Just as attempting to run before you can crawl is the fastest way to trip yourself up, so attempting to improve what you are unable even to express the nature of is the surest way to sow confusion.

John

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

At this point - have you studies the work and writings of Dr Shahrdar (owner of Minutus)?
Please read in details

http://www.minutus.org/library/article_ ... n+Shahrdar
and the follow this by reading his most important work

http://www.repertoriumvirosum.com/about.htm
Ellen has written about a FREE course about to start.
Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of similimum@ymail.com
Sent: 19 November 2011 05:08
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Scientific Approach Towards Homeopathy
Hahnemann was ready to revise everything according to new experience and updated knowledge. The fact that he re-wrote organon six times during his life-span clearly shows that he was `dialectical' in his approach. For him, homeopathy was a constantly advancing `science'- a medical science. Not a `closed system'. He was willing to accommodate the experiences and suggestions of others also.

After the death of hahnemann, initially homeopathy continued to be an open system. That is why the thought of hering, kent, nash, boenninghaussen and many other stalwarts were incorporated into homeopathy, and became part of homeopathy.

After the first generation of homeopaths also disappeared from the scene, homeopathy began to be more and more institutionalized and `dogmatized'. It lost the character of science, and became more or less a closed `system'.

For the last 200 years, homeopathy hesitated to interact with modern scientific knowledge- abstained from creative `dialogue' with other areas of human knowledge. Homeopaths started call this `closed' system as `classical homeopathy'. `Purity' was the key word. Safeguarding the purity of `original' dogmas were considered to be the sacred duty of homeopathy. Ultimately, this approach grew into an `anti-scientific' outlook, constantly resisting all innovations and scientific intrusions into the sacred lands of `pure homeopathy'

I am trying to make homeopathy a science again. For that, homeopathy has to bridge the great knowledge divide of 200+years and reach abreast with modern scientific human knowledge.

We have to explain each and every `principles' and `laws' of homeopathy in terms of modern science. We have to experiment every claims of homeopathy in accordance with scientific method. We have to be brave enough to accept new knowledge into homeopathy, same time discarding everything obsolete and unscientific in homeopathy. That is the duty of all true followers of hahnemann.

By `Dialectical Homeopathy', I want to instill this scientific sense and approach into fellow homeopaths. I want to declare our willingness to change, growth and advancement towards more and more perfection. I want to declare that homeopathy is `science', not a `system of immutable dogmas'.

[Sheri Nakken]

Not sure who is writing this but disagree totally. The laws and
principles have never changed. New idea of how to take a case have
come along and some other observations, but the laws and principles
are the same..
Institutionalized and dogmatized? Sorry, I find it the opposite - it
has become a free-for-all, do whatever you want and call it homeopathy

Sheri
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
Next classes start Wednesday November 30