Minutus

Thanks Shannon for understanding and stating what I wanted to say
more clearly. I never said people play dice for selecting a
remedy. I am not Randi's and the likes' mouth piece. If Chris had
read my post correctly – I specifically mentioned that this guess is
not like dowsing. It is like a postulate. And I know what allopathy
and homeopathy are about, having been in both sides. No one has to
preach to me about homeopathy – it is just preaching to the choir.
I have practiced homeopathy for more than 15 years, been examiner in
homeopathy medical college exams and so do not need to be taught
homeopathy now.

In a way practicing Homeopathy is like predicting weather. When
weather men predict something - it is NOT guess work. They have
predictive models based on so much information gathered from so many
factors and parameters but still it is only an educated "guess"
because there is no absolute certainty. The real weather and the
effect of the weather ( like the effect of the medicine we give) can
be known only after the fact. It is because there is no way that an
absolute prediction can be made with so many factors. And we can
never predict how systems can behave when given a particular
stimulus- look at New Orleans…

We need not worry about validating homeopathy with the "give Rhus
tox 30 to 100 arthritic people and let us see the result" kind of
research. I think it idiotic as much as Chris does and my medical
background has not blinkered me. Let us do something that
the "knowers" might accept. If we provide 10 patients and let
loose a bunch of classical and neo- classical homeopaths, give them
enough time to take the case and theorize enough right from miasma
to psychotic viruses and hallucinatory bacteria and ask them to come
up with the simillimum, I bet each one of them will come up with
different medicines. Not only that-they will order the importance of
symptoms differently, they will have different pointer symptoms.
This is not scientific evidence or any other non sense, this is day-
to-day practice reality.

There have been so many cases presented in this discussion group.
Why are we coming up with different medicines? Heck, we did not even
take the case – if we take the case that itself can cause so many
differences. Even when given a finite set of symptoms the "knowers"
( and "guessers") each come up with different suggestions. Take a
few well explained cases from this board – from the last 2 years.
See what the responses of the " knowers " are – Whether the knower
is from Australia or UK or USA- the remedies and suggestions would
be different.

Take the practice of any of these "knowers". How many first
prescriptions were the simillimum? I , being a guesser, accept that
most of my first prescriptions are just that – first prescriptions
and only infrequently have I hit the right medicine the very first
time.

I am not blaming them and this is not one of the "strange abuses" I
am heaping on people. This IS the nature of homeopathy.
This "uncertainty" is built into homeopathy and that is what has
made it flexible.

The main difference between homeopathy and allopathy is not just in
treating similar with similar or otherwise. There is a still more
fundamental difference. Allopathy is based on LINEAR Causation, we
follow CIRCULAR causation. This bacteria causes this disease – so if
we kill it , the disease is gone; or this metabolic deficiency is
causing it , replace the substance it will become alright – this is
a linear cause-effect relationship and this is what Allopathy
follows. This is Newtonian or whatever.

Homeopathy follows circularity. We do not have a primary causation.
We claim the cause is unknown and unknoweable. ( Hence Hahnemann's
admonition about theories). We "observe" phenomena and have
only "seeming" causation. We have only postulates. We think that
this symptom picture looks like Nux vomica and give it. Some
postulates succeed – some do not. We begin postulating correctly
more and more as our experience grows and we "seem" to "know" what
is indicated- still we do not know – we are just getting better at
postulating.

This is almost like scientists doing research. Research is not guess
work. But researchers do not "know" the result of the research. If
they know the result that is not research. George Kelly, a famous
psychologist , postulated "Theory of Personal Constructs" – Kelly's
theory of personality is predicated on one axiom: that, as he put
it, Man is a Scientist. Each of us tries to make sense of the world
as we experience it, and we do this by constantly forming and
testing hypotheses about the world. This is what we do as
homeopathic practitioners. We look at the symptoms – prescribe- look
at the results – refine our pointers – prescribe – look at the
results. At none of this stage can we predict 100% the next
possible step.

We understand that we are dealing with something dynamic, something
that has been changing constantly - we arbitrarily punctuate it in
different ways – constitutional, miasmatic etc. for the purpose of
prescribing – for the purpose of generating postulates -what works
we keep and follow but it is still a research and that is why we are
still refining the method with delusions, vital sensations, family,
loop and segment, periodic tables and what not…none of this is
absolute truth – just hypotheses for bettering our prescribing. We
are still approximating closer and closer…

With all this unknoweable floating around we are still able to
succeed so much because despite all our "knowing" and "mastery" it
is not us – but the vital force which cures and probably takes even
our similars and uses them to cure itself.

I recommend the works of Gregory Bateson and General Systems and
cybernetics theories for understanding about systems. I am not the
only one talking about giving medicines and looking at the results
before proceeding and analyzing the responses for some feedback from
the system. One of the pioneers of Family Therapy – Dr.Palazzoli of
the Milan School has written much about this. We cannot predict what
will happen when we intervene in systems. Our experiments with
ecosystems and effects of changing them without thinking of
consequences are too well known.

We have a wonderful system of medicine here, let us understand
the "process" in context. Otherwise we will not just be"shooting
ourselves in the foot" but putting a bullet to the head.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
of
does
that is
some
the
nothing
chosen the
never
(aka "been
detail, and
better,
serve
placebo

Hi H2002 and Chris,

Chris, I think you are missing the point...
So far as I've noticed, this thread has been only between myself, you,
and Hahnemannian. Neither he nor I has talked about homeopathy as
"just guessing", nor denied its scientific aspect. And in fact science
of *any* sort proceeds by "guess and check"; that is what the
scientific method is *based* on, in fact; every experiment begins with
a "guess". If you already *know*, then you're engaged in craftsmanship
or technology. And tho these are valuable *tools* of science, they are
not choicest parts of scientific exploration.

Science of course depends on both--the "guessing" and the unknowns give
it impetus and direction, and technology provides means for the "and
check" step.

The science of homeopathy also has its technology (methods, safeguards,
repertories, materia medica, etc.), and and times its guesswork. I see
that you really dislike the word, and I can only "guess" that to you it
has the connotation of *empty* guessing, but that is not the meaning of
the word.

I appreciate your insistence on harking back to the rigorous and
detailed *method* of homeopathy, which is of course more meaningful and
more relevant than the quibbles over (what I consider to be) incidental
terminology. However...
No one talked about "game"; it was more (I would say) an ironic
recognition of realistic limitation, and a realistic method for
continuing to move forward in spite of that--call it guessing, call it
postulating, call it experimenting, call it "pushing the boundaries of
available knowledge" (e.g. when we move from well-known remedy that has
failed, to "explore" and perhaps give a smaller, poorly known remedy),
whatever.
So when the desired effect was not "easily" obtained, or not yet
obtained, does that mean the (so-called) homeopath was not practicing
homeopathy? Check out the "unsolved group effort" cases on Homeopathic
Symposium (really--the site is ***wonderful***!) Were those homeopaths
not practicing homeopathy in their initial prescriptions, and what
would *you* call the procedure they are engaged in now? Sure it goes
WAAAAY beyond "guessing"--closer study of the patient ("the case"),
closer reevaluation of the analysis, reexamination of remedies given or
considered, other remedies suggested by further examination and
analysis--but when it comes time to choose the (next) remedy, I can't
call it anything other than a (well-informed yet still uncertain)
guess. I find no shame whatever in calling that a process of "guess
and check" (like we learned to use in grade school for long division!).
The only difference is that in the language of science, we'd use the
word "hypothesis".

If you're say, a deep sea diver and you do it into dangerous territory
without adequate preparation or protection, the result can be fatal
(fortunately homeopathy is more forgiving than that!). If you do it
with eyes wide open and good preparation, it becomes the same process
that has led progress of every sort, in every field, ever since the
first creature gained enough self-awareness to ask "why?", or "what
if?"
Why would you say this?!? Neither H2002 nor I was holding it in any
way up to ridicule. Surely you realize that.
We have both said repeatedly that *of course* in homeopathy our
"guessing" is informed by the rigorous and scientific parts of the
process. No one here is denying that.
Chris, get a grip!!!! None of us has said it is "just all guesswork".
Why bring in derogatory phrases that NONE of us has made, and NONE of
us would make? In this argument you're tilting at windmills, my
friend! (Love that phrase, tho maybe US-centric--fighting imaginary
enemies.)
Right. And none of the three of us is anything remotely resembling
that!
But your sense of humor seems to have deserted you on the issue of this
one little (ironically and regrettably apt) word.

Tell me how the word "hypothesis" differs in your mind from the word
"guess". Would that be less objectionable to you?
Ahem: From Websters New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, p., 808:
Guess: ... 2. to judge or form an opinion of (something) from reasons
that make a thing probable, but fall short of sufficient evidence [NB
we will know whether the evidence was sufficient only *after* the
fact]; ... 3. to conjecture rightly; to solve by a correct
conjecture..."
And he did not. In this particular conversation you are the *only* one
who has made that assertion; hence my remark that you are losing track
of the context (and the dictionary) in your antipathy toward that poor
little word!

My point exactly, thank you!
My position is everything not strictly mechanical drinks (more or less
deeply) from the cup of guessing. Every step into the unknown (and
*every homeopathic prescription *is* a step into the unknown) is based
on guessing.

IMO what plays into the hands of our detractors, is to misstate the
facts or to deny the obvious, e.g. to say we have "certainty" in our
prescribing--which we certainly do not--which is what we *are* saying,
if we deny that there is "guessing". Then they go, "Okay, if you're so
scientific and infallible and this or that (first) prescription didn't
work, so that proves homeopathy doesn't work!" But no, like all
science, like all healing, like all journeys into the unknown it's a
*process*, and not always predictable. (Sometimes yes, but not
always.) You may use some other word besides "guessing" if you like,
it will come down to the same thing; it will be a ten-dollar word for a
five-cent idea.
Um, who was criticizing? That wasn't *my* intention, and I didn't
think it was his either. So who was criticizing?
Cheers,
Shannon

Hi Chris,

I think you are missing the point...
So far as I've noticed, this thread has been only between myself, you,
and Hahnemannian. Neither he nor I has talked about homeopathy as
"just guessing", nor denied its scientific aspect. And in fact science
of *any* sort proceeds by "guess and check"; that is what the
scientific method is *based* on, in fact; every experiment begins with
a "guess". If you already *know*, then you're engaged in craftsmanship
or technology, not scientific exploration.

Science of course depends on both--the "guessing" and the unknowns give
it impetus and direction, and technology provides methods for the "and
check" step.

The science of homeopathy also has its technology (methods, safeguards,
repertories, materia medica, etc.), and and times its guesswork. I see
that you really dislike the word, and I can only "guess" that to you it
has the connotation of *empty* guessing, but that is not the meaning of
the word.
...

On 'science':

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/homeopathy ... s/ARCHIVE/
PhysicsJRA/physics.html
Simon
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please reply to
this email and then delete it. Please note that any views or opinions
presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of any other party or organisation

The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses. The author accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

Sorry I accidentally hit the return button instead of the delete button
and this got sent instead of trimming it down

Simon

Very good Simon, Thanks
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Simon King wrote:
you,
science
with
craftsmanship
they are
unknowns give
the "and
safeguards,
I see
you it
meaning of
meaningful and
incidental
call it
boundaries of
that has
remedy),
which
our
it was
yet
practicing
Homeopathic
homeopaths
goes
case"),
given or
can't
of "guess
division!).
use the
territory
fatal
it
process
the
or "what
method of
agreement
guesses")
***WE,
ridicule
any
guesswork".
NONE of
imaginary
resembling
of this
word
many
the
give) can
that an
homoeopathic
repertorization. The
will be
reasons
[NB
Organon. No
and
*only* one
track
poor
allopaths
are
and
less
(and
based
the
our
saying,
you're so
didn't
it's a
like,
for a
homoeopathic
part of
didn't
recommendation
any
the
special,
change
receive a
they
reply to
opinions
damage

Simon, this is a terrific write-up of Dana's awful experience with the
20/20 segment, thank you! And such a very good example of (part of)
what we are up against, and why "None are so blind as those who will
not [i.e. "refuse to"] see," and trying to "prove" things to folks who
are interested not in the truth but in their own agenda, is worse than
a waste of time. In this instance the show was a blatant set-up,
carefully designed to fail.

Thanks again for posting it!
Shannon

I'll answer privately.
Shannon

Hey Chris -

I thought we were having a nice discussion and you had to go ahead
and spoil the fun? And you did not even thank me for writing a long
reply after I typed out the stuff
Anyways, seriously - did my post CAUSE this EFFECT in you? I did not
guess, let alone know, that I would cause such an emotional
decompensation in a professional. Well - goes to prove my point of
how Uncertain everything is ...we can never be certain of the effects
our actions could cause till we see the effect -
May be next time I shall start off with Uncertainty principle...
then you might get it...

Cool off Chris - this is just a discussion - we shall talk later
Thanks for a good discussion as long as it lasted.
( see how polite I am!!!)

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Gillen"
wrote:
able to
is a
being made
we claim
I'll
purpose? No,
because
rants and
you,
science
with
craftsmanship
unknowns give
the "and
safeguards,
I see
you it
meaning of

Hi Chris,
As a positive and helpful conclusion to this thread - since I feel you are the right person for such a task - can you please summarize for all of us a good [no-bullshit, but still polite and encouraging] answer to all those intimidated people [not homeopaths - I mean potential patients], except for: 'it works and we have examples - so what else matters?', or: 'just try it and see yourself' [they don't buy this - it only strengthens their intimidation].
TIA
Maly

Chris Gillen wrote:
[snip]
I have patients who are bullied into stopping treatment by their partners
because of Randy-type programs and Lancet reports. These are adults, and
children, whose lives could be changed for the better through homoeopathic
treatment! When a patient of mine wanted to study homoeopathy and her spouse
baulked at the idea of spending $15,000+ on a load of alternative hooey I
knew it was time to get beyond the "oh well we don't really know how it all
works", and searching for totally inadequate lab trials that can only prove
"homoeopathy is placebo".
It's time to stop apologizing for our own scientific methodology because
allopathy can't get it to fit into a square box. Homoeopathy has stood the
test of time. We need to be able to answer difficult questions and speak
confidently about our own scientific methods, our own philosophical
influences, and why we know it as a scientific fact that homoeopathy can
cure. When you start ranting that the very foundational definitions of our
scientific truth are not what they are, then sir, I take exception to that.

That's it.

[snip]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]