written and not sure if it's worth it if you are bored with this topic
now
I can still only say that homeopathy has to be scientific because of
what science is - the acquisition of knowledge through study. The
'study' in homeopathy is our provings, our data, without which we have
no ability to make symptom similarity and without that we have no
homeopathy - one reason why my call is for ALL remedies to be proved
according to principles laid down in the Organon (preferably). That way
the information/data we have regarding the provings is reliable.
However we have to ask to what extent we get stuck in the past -
Hahnemann used crude substances first but he moved on, we all know
that; he wrote a number of editions of the Organon, moving on all the
time, we all know that; he encouraged us to acquaint ourselves with as
many medicines as possible (stanza 51?). If we are to keep an open mind
about this (which is important in any scientific enterprise) we could
ask 3 questions. What do we do with substances that cannot be proved in
the Hahnemannian manner? And can we open our minds to ask how Hahnemann
might have dealt with this had he lived in the 21st C - would he have
been able to take on board a spiritual/conceptual approach to finding
new remedies?
Also what does it mean to our science if we reject certain substances,
rendering them 'unfit' for any type of proving?
All scientific procedures require protocol - we have the protocol for
'standard' provings laid down for us in the Organon (although many
provings do not adhere to this - this has to be rectified) but we also
need protocol for other non-standard provings such as the meditative
provings, again so as we can depend on the reliability of the data
gained from these provings, so that they then have a rightful place in
the Materia Medicas.
Whether standard procedure or not, if a very strong sx is recorded of a
rx but it is produced by only one person then that is ok as long as the
substance is proved again to ascertain whether this was coincidence,
effected by some other situation or a truly strange rare and peculiar
sx. Good scientific study would always check and re-check the data,
howsoever acquired and I believe this needs to be done also to attain a
high scientific standard.
So, our science provides data but some is unreliable but what I think
seems to irk you and hence your request for the definition or agreement
whether homeopathy is scientific or not is that so much homeopathy has
become 'personalised' - everyone/many want to shape homeopathy to their
own requirements and if we don't agree to someone's methods then we
close our minds to it. For me method is stylistics, the craft, the art
of practising homeopathy (or whatever you might want to call it) and
not to be confused with the science of homeopathy, and my other call
would be that we keep our minds open to this because it is separate
from the science - the science being the provings of homeopathy and not
the practice of homeopathy. There is nothing good in having a closed
mind to discovering what some call 'core delusions' if that core
delusion is that which is making someone extremely sick and the route
to finding the sx similarity based on a proving of what will be the
simillimum, that which will cure, is found through that core delusion -
however extreme or fanciful it might be. This is just an example but in
other words we shouldn't criticise the stylistics if it is working,
curing. Perhaps we tend to do so because this isn't the scientific
aspect of homeopathy and the practice of homeopathy appears to have
endless methodologies.
I believe Homeopathy has the science and the 'art' and maybe the
'practice' of homeopathy is not scientific in toto even though our
knowledge is always being expanded upon but homeopathy surely has its
scientific foundations in the provings, they being our data, our study,
our science and without which we wouldn't be discussing this. Clear as
mud? Best wishes, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com