Minutus

Sorry if this is a repeat post.

That would be wise,but how many homeopaths are actually that careful (
1% of all homeoaths?) and which primary sources ARE totally relaible?

Do we not need a list of reliable primary sources, because I certainly
couldn't tell you which were TRULY reliable?
I know therefore that I can not have been practicing scientifically -
as much as I might have liked to -I am always finding mistakes and
inconsistencies in the MMs and reps I use and these are standard
reference materials for homeopaths across the world.

So - no clinical experience, mediataive provings, doctrine of
signatures (faux amis!), Translations i.e.MM's only i their original
language (because there are so many errors in translations, so also
perhaps only in original dialect too! ),
Does it? How? How can the law of similars be 'scientifically ' applied
with anything but matera medica 'PURA' - which isn't the reference
material MOST homeopaths use I'm not saying most homepaths don't
prescribe according to the law of similars but is it clear cut enough
to be scientific?
Is that true if the first 9 Rxs have no effect? This happens IRL -I
have seen where Rxs are prescribed to no avail before one that works is
found.
This is borne out by my personal experience. When first introduced to
homepathy I saw five homeopaths over a period of many years. these were
'classical' homepaths and of some renown. Only TWO of those homeopaths
gave me remedies that did me any good.
I'm not complaining but asking how can this be labeled scientific?

Nor is this an uncommon scenario, I have many friends who know that
they have to persevere with homeopaths to get a Rx that works. they
know the principle is sound but putting it into practice can be
difficult. To call homeopathic PRACTICE 'scientific' surely the
majority of its practitioners must be able to prove that they
consistently get certain percentage of results. Practice audits that
have been published would'nt justify a 'scientific practice' label as
far as I can remember. A you said yourself it has to be reproducible,
== is that once , twice or always? - Always it aint!

Jeremy Scherr apparently said that homeopaths only get approx 50% hits,
how is that reproducible science?
No - I was thinking of a scenario where for example one remedy is
given, which say brings about improvemennt of a thyroid condition, but
the next presenting Sx (possibly ROS) e.g. a previously suppressed
chest condition requires a different Rx, which then improves to reveal
an old emotional state requiring another remedy after which the Px is
back in full health.
True - but does that make it 'science'
I know people who are effective hands-on healers, also effective
radionics practitioners - they wouldn't call it scientific in the
usual sense- there has to be more than proof that it works - if that
were enough the 'establishemnt should have accepted homeopaty years
ago!
yes we all know what allopathy does, that's not even in the game! But
Allopaths are the ones contending our position so if we claim to be
scientific can we as a profession prove to them scientifically that H
works? Unlikely I would have thought, within a framework or definition
that they can understand or accept.
It sounds great in theory but can it be borne out in practice (i.e.
scientifically)?
To be so it will surely have to stipulate that **only reliable source
material is used** by the 'scientific' homeopath ( which is .......?)

I have seen plenty of self proclaimed 'classical' homepaths use Rxs
from meditative provings, and other sources that are not 100% reliable,
so perhaps there is a new definition in the offing for homeopaths -
-i.e. 'scientific' homeopaths? ( those that only use MM pura and which
rep is that reliable?)

I look forward to seeing the final write up

Simon

Yes but how many homeopats actually just use those?
Not many is my guess - yet they will claim that they do practice
homeopaty - when really we can only say that those who exclusively use
the above are practising H scientifically. Not many is it?
I wonder if we can really asses how many mistakes there are - we are
just taking it on trust after all. can you base science on trust?
(maybe you can- I don't know)

Not sure I agre
When MM is taught students are told not to reinterpret Sx as in the
reps and Mms, yet here is an example where if they didn't they would
miss it. yet it is Sx that has been synopisified.

And Seriously - how many Hs will meticulously compare the MM pura etc
to their working texts?
that might do for a definition for thee or me but I can't see the
naysayers ever going for it.

Sure, that sounds scientific to me, 'abstract the truth' not an art at
all .

That is a very good challenge- one which I'm afraid I'm not up to, I
don't have the training in scientific protocols. I'll ask John if he
can shed light on it - he might entirely agreewith you, but until
someone can explain to me why it I scientific, when it seems much more
of an art tan a science to me thenI willhave to continue to have
difference of opiinion. I can't get beyond the practice using
inconsistant and flawed tols being a science in the generally accepted
sense of the word.

I don't tik so - he was addressing the SOH conference if I remeber
rightly - h was talking about what ACTUALY happens IRL , as oposed to
what people think H should be. i.e. We can claim this or that for Hbut
if it isn't borne out in practice then how can we honestly satnd by
those claims?

But they haven't have they?
We have MM with non proved Rxs,we have MM of meditative provings, we
have MM with clinical Sx which have not all been double checked, we
have MM with mistranslations , we have MM with interpretations ofr sx,
we have MM wit misprints ( which are being used as we speak).
I am not saying a person can't sift the dross from the good but that
isn't a scientific process, it's an artistic one, done on judgement ,
wheighing up the various factors not aking what is i te texts literlly.
Surely to be scientific the numbers ( literal text) have to always add
up to the same uotcome. i..eIf you mach Sx'X' and Sx 'Y' then tey
willequal Rx 'Z'. I would say that this can be done for simple sets of
x but doubt it for complex cases. If that wasn't the cas e why woud s
discuss cases so at such length. it should always be a simple case of
X+Y=Z if it was scientific.

No it can't. Theproblem thoug is that althoug Rx will OFTEN produce the
required result they don't ALWAYS do so not in the 90% league even. As
mentioned Jeremy Scherr says it s nearer 50% success -read 50% error -
that's a pretty big margin of error for a science.

Al Ican say is that we would have to differentiate the thype of H to
callH scientific, ie.e only tose that can get above certain % of
success could say they wre practicing 'scientificaly', and only TEY
could claim tat H was scientific. So the practice and the OUTCOM of
that practice has to be included in the equation, -- I don't see wit
current rates of cure that it is realistic to call H cientific. I'
notsaying it doens't work - just that it's not scientific.

However I know I might have got this competely wrong because I am not
trained in any science ( unless H is proven to be one). So Ican only
speakas prson who has a laymans understanding of te term. I amopen to
being convinced that H is scientific, but I cannt see it at al lat the
moment.

I do understand that cures can be said to prove te hypothesis, but then
what of the failures, of which there are by Hs own admission many, how
do they prove te hypothesis, or do we simple leave them out of the
equation as being inconvenient?

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.

And what about Seghal's method where lots of statements from the patient are
translated to DESIRES LIGHT?

We also have some funny goings on - could someone check this out - I
understand that the original proving symptom of ALUMINA there was 'fear of
bloody knife'. Yet it gets listed under fear of knife and fear of blood!

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

The Mms are littered with this stuff - only no one knows how much
because no one has actually fully rasearched it - YET

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.

If I may jump in here just to say again Simon that just because a
system is flawed, has errors, some data that might be unreliable
doesn't mean that it isn't science. There is no system in the world
that is so pure it only produces 100% correct data (just take a look at
your typos in your last full post ). The errors in the reps and MM's
are being worked on but this is a compilation of data procedure, and
the errors that creep in are a production problem and has nothing to do
with the science that produced that data. So the 'trust' has to be
placed on those who compile the data and not the science that produced
that data. Best wishes, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Of course, but that wil stil not weed out all the inconsoistancies,
especialy not ina busy practice

Quite- but they are not generally trained to do that except with one or
two Rxs.
that is a very good question!
Which is one reason I have no problem with student s getting the full
software programs because I think it does facilitate this kind of study
Read everything of Hahnemanns I could ages ago
ahem!
I think there's a misunderstanding here - I do know Homeopathy's base
is scientific, that was never in question!

But when one says that Homeopathy is scientific that means ALL of it,
including the practice.

just look at examples on this list - where any amount of differing
opinions are given to any one case. This is mirroring what happens IRL,
take a bunch of Hs and they won't all prescribe the same Rx for any
given case - perhaps they should - but that just isn't borne out IRL,
with real Pxs and real Hs

These are Hs in practice, ergo not isn't scientific, as practiced IRL

get up early? Get up early?!!!
- great for you if you're met by the Sun when you wake! Anyway where
does this assumption that early birds are better at studying come
from? Touch of the puritanical work ethic by the sounds of it )
Touch of the puritanical work ethic by the sounds of it )
Personally I thought questioning assumptions and paying devils advocate
with our selves was proactive.
It's interesting that you think I'm moaning! LOL

Simon

> ...(Simon wrote:) I can't get beyond the practice using

Hmmm.... That would mean that either science does not exist, never
has, and never will until we can start building "perfect tools" and
working on basis of "perfect understanding"--and when / where will
*that* happen?

"Science" is about process, not about endpoint.
And it does not operate in a vacuum, nor independent of its
operators--ergo, it is not "perfect", and need not be, to deserve the
name! (It's also a loosely defined and very "relative" term, so I
accept Robyn's point that our "version" may not satisfy those who are
accustomed to the more technological version that some other fields
have achieved. But I do think the whole issue is a bit of a red
herring... Does it work? Yes. Is it perfect or infallible? No.
Onward...

Shannon

Sure but where are the constants when it comes to practitioners?

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.

I might be misunderstanding the word "constants", but I'd think it
would have to do with training in materia medica, shared frame of
reference re health and disease, how healing happens, etc. I realize
that's not *really* constant since we come in with different training
and perceptions etc., but same is true in any field so maybe you're
referring to something else... E.g., where are the constants when it
comes to scientists?
Shannon