Minutus

I do not know about Randi or even randy – but I feel ranty- here
goes

Did I ever say Homeopathy is NOT a science? I believe that of the
currently available therapeutic systems, homeopathy is the best. I
am in total agreement with you there.

You say that Homeopathy is a methodology based on "recognized"
scientific principles"… and I think you are putting yourself in a
spot there, when you say we follow "recognized scientific
principles"- If it is so then why cannot we give proof based on
recognized scientific principles? Because our system is different.
Science for us is not something that can be separated from the
therapeutic context. Our science is built on pragmatism and the
proof of the pudding is in eating it.

What I am saying is homeopathy is a different kind of system and
should not be asked to give the same kind of proof and by saying
this I am giving you an out. Our practice is not the same as
allopathy and so should not be put to the same test. You seem to
accept that but could not get it out of your thinking that we need
to sound scientific by talking about Cause and Effect.
Our approach is scientific but different. We follow a much broader
approach in that we consider all factors that go into making a
disease and we are much more inclusive in our symptom gathering –
not just stopping with diagnostic symptoms as allopathy does – but
trying to pick up the complete picture. As much as this is our
strength this is also our weakness – because when one becomes so
inclusive one cannot trace cause – effect conclusively and to
a "recognized scientific rigor".

But this different approach needs a different mind set. If you say
Homeopathy still follows cause-effect, then it means you have
specifics… for a specific cause there is a specific medicine or for
a particular group of symptoms there should always be only one
remedy or a defined set of remedies… this is cause and effect. But
there is no single cause or defined set of symptoms for all of us –
the same case would look different for different homeopaths. Even
when given a defined set of symptoms no two homeopaths can come up
with the same remedy. Because in homeopathy you can never take the
homeopath out of the picture. By defining the patient in our own
way – delusion or key note or constitutional or miasmatic – we are
positing the patient in a given therapeutic context and everything
follows from there.

In a systemic context this situation follows second order of
cybernetics. "The perturber of the system (as physicians) is part of
the system". We can only perturb it - but we cannot control how the
system is going to behave after this perturbation. Palazzoli likens
this to "throwing a bomb" ( treatment strategy) into the family
system and see how it perturbs...
Think about how difficult it is to prescribe for close relatives in
homeopathy – why is that? Because we are trying to join the system
in 2 roles- relative and practitioner and lose any relative (pun
unintended) objectivity… which is needed for "pure observation"
within the therapeutic system. Whereas prescribing using allopathy
is easy – because there the person is not being treated – it is the
disease and so you do not feel joining the system.
Actually this applies also to allopaths but because the medicines
are so toxic and so "macro" they just overwhelm the organism's
system and create a kind of sub-system… even there no one can deny
that there are differences in patient sensitivity and
susceptibility… but such differences are given short shrift because
their approach is different and their criteria for a cure or
restoration of health is different.

In allopathy once I have a diagnosis, I have the medicine or at
least a set of steps to follow. In homeopathy I do not and I cannot
have it fully. Some steps yes, but not all of them. That is part of
what homeopathy is.
You said:
"The *full* homoeopathic method is comprised of the inductive method
of
provings, literal interpretations of symptoms, analogy in agreement
with experience, and deduction (what you might call "educated
guesses") through repertorization." I agree- and the only
difference between us is in this statement.

I go one step further than you- the full homeopathic method consists
not only these but also "administration and follow-up". It is only
in follow-up that we know if our prescription is right or not – not
apriori… We anticipate success and postulate that what we have is
the simillimum ( otherwise why are we giving it in the first place?)
but need to wait for the second consultation to see the effect.

And this is NOT a criticism of Homeopathy- this is a strength ,
otherwise one ends up a routinist- In fact I thought this was cool,
this is how it is supposed to be… because we are not practicing a
cause-effect medicine… systems do not always work cause-effect…And
that is why each medicine works differently with different people
and that is why there is no "one size fits all" in homeopathy…
No two provers bring out the same symptoms – which means no two
patients are going to react the same way to the same indicated
remedy- which means you cannot have "specific" expectations… you
might know in general terms – above downwards, from within out,
endoderm to ectoderm kind of general expectation- but that is it –
you cannot predict the next specific step and when that would happen…