Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientific Validity

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Scientific Validity

    Like "military intelligence" the scientific validity of homeopathy is a contradiction in terms .
    It is used by those who long for a solid logical structure to support their doubts- also by those who wish to obtain the approval of the orthodox medical authorities.
    This is the source of the ability of Authority to lay down rules and restrict the activity of Homeopathy. They have the ability to allot funds/money so long as we follow their restrictions. Restrictions that will strangle and eventually destroy homeopathy - as happened in America in the '30's.
    Homeopathy is , and only can be, an art . Mechanical artifacts such as computer repetories are useful only to confirm a properly diagnosed case. It is similar to the very expensive machines that the orthodox use - if the machine said it then I cant be blamed if the patient dies.

  • #2
    Scientific validity is a very broad term that can be used about everything that can be explored using the scientific method. Basically, the scientific method works by observing, deducing, verifying, observing, deducing, verifying, ..etc.

    The scientific method can be used to explore anything that has an effect on the material world. In fact, the only things that completely elude scientific exploration are pure belief systems, and esotherical things like art. Passkey, you seem to be saying that homeopathy is art. However, while there might well be an artistic element, does it still not rest on a basis in hte physical world? Are diseases not physical things? Are remedies not having a physical efffect?

    Hans
    You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

    Comment


    • #3
      Basically, the scientific method works by observing, deducing, verifying, observing, deducing, verifying, ..etc.
      Deduction isn't correct to test or understand homeopathy. Induction is the method.
      It's the difference between the empirical and rational modes of thinking.

      Are diseases not physical things? Are remedies not having a physical efffect?
      Nope.
      Diseases are dynamic in nature.
      Remedies affect the organism dynamically.
      You can observe this in the physical realm.
      "The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
      Carroll Dunham

      Comment


      • #4
        Science:. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained
        truth of facts.

        Where the homeopathy does not fit under above dict. definition of science? Knowledge, principles, causes are there & which are ascertained by observation & experiances as truth of facts.
        Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
        Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by LisaAnnan
          Deduction isn't correct to test or understand homeopathy. Induction is the method.
          It's the difference between the empirical and rational modes of thinking.
          Induction and deduction are not opposites. Induction is simply one type of deduction process.

          There is no contradiction between empirical and rational research. Science certainly uses both. Whereas homeopathy is almost entirely based on the empirical method.


          Nope.
          Diseases are dynamic in nature.
          Remedies affect the organism dynamically.
          You can observe this in the physical realm.
          And what does the term "dynamic" mean is this context?

          Hans
          You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

          Comment


          • #6
            hans,

            ok, first time for everything: i think we're entirely on the same side here.

            "dynamic." if i might give a loose but, i think, reasonably comprehensive definition, dynamic means: the functioning of an object in terms of relationships between parts. in other terms, "dynamic" equals "function," while "parts" equal "structure." imo, as well, "structure" includes both material and energetic elements in an object (given that when we analyze an object dynamically, or functionally, we are reframing "object" as "system," that is, a complex object composed of interrelated parts, and patterns of functioning that require or involve energy.

            and, of course, there is nothing in this that, in principle, can not be measured ... if the measuring instruments are designed appropriately.

            finally: if we understand "art" as "skill" or subtle understanding, this applies. but there is no question of homeopathy being scientifically based, unless one wants to tell Father Hahnemann that "like-cures-like" is not a natural law. that's ok, do it, but i warn you he'll be angry with you!

            bach
            "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


            Comment


            • #7
              Bach, not a first at all, if you would only really read my posts (and your own ), but let's not go there...

              Dynamic: Well, that's the way I would define dynamic too, but in this case, it doesn't really SAY anything, does it? I mean, sure the body is dynamic, sure medicines are dynamic, but that applies to all kinds of treatment. A body, a disease, is something in motion, all systems interacting, and anything that hopes to treat a disease must be in motion, interacting, too.

              Certainly, Hahnemann is quite specific about the law of similars being a natural law, but then he did have a tendency to declare any theory of his a natural law, so perhaps we should not put more weight than necessary in that. He also talked a lot about spiritual effects and such.

              No matter what, I find it difficult to accept the notion that something (no matter what it is), should have an effect on the real world, yet elude testing. There are some people in the category we like to call woowoos over at "randiland", who claim that their paricular paranormal skill is magically disabled whenever a skeptic is present, or the word "test" is uttered, but I don't really see homeopaths fit in that group.

              Hans
              You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

              Comment


              • #8
                Ahh, poor fellow Hans, the perennial angst of the sceptic, knowing his mental faculties will always get in the way of real knowledge and understanding. Bitter/sweet is it?

                Anyhow, just going back a couple of posts….

                Lisa wrote:

                “Deduction isn't correct to test or understand homeopathy. Induction is the method.
                It's the difference between the empirical and rational modes of thinking.”


                I disagree. Deduction IS one process used to test and understand homoeopathy. Deductive logic is used in repertorization. For example, in Kentian homoeopathy we work on the premise that a hierarchy of symptoms denotes the value of a given characteristic general. Every rubric inclusion, and every step must have a clear rationale, after which we can conclude/deduce that our results will produce a homoeopathic prescription that is sound. Empirical experience of a curative result tells us that the original premise was correct. Full marks to Kentian homoeopathy !!

                Induction is merely the process of gathering an empirical base of knowledge, and using logical reasoning, without speculating about possible causes or meanings, to arrive at a categorical conclusion. For example, a homeopathic proving of Berberis produces characteristic radiating pains in the kidney region. It has never produced kidney stones in a proving. However, we can deduce from this information that Berberis can potentially cure the cause of renal colic if characteristic symptoms are present, based on the law of similars. The a-priori knowledge of the action of Berberis from a proving is needed to ensure this result. Induction and deduction.

                “Chronic Diseases” is a book of empirical experience.
                Homoeopathy is full of empirical knowledge – based on experience. Hering, for example, attempted to build an extremely useful data base of empirical evidence.
                For example, he wrote that Nux Vomica is well adapted to "Nervous, melancholic people, troubled with indigestion, venous constitution, with tendency to haemorrhoids." and "Suits thin, irritable, choleric persons with dark hair, who make great mental exertion or lead a sedentary life." In how many instances have such descriptions helped to confirm a remedy choice for homoeopaths all over the world? Plenty.
                The Mappa Mundi is an empircal data base. The Hippocratic consitutions and temperaments go all the way back to ancient times and references are found throughout Materia Medica. Someone else may have empirical knowledge - based on experience - that Carcinosin can resemble a combination of Phos, Ars, and Nux v symptomatology in the one over-reactive patient suffering with sinus pathology, and immediately the rest of us begin to know symbolically and analogically, what that information means. Sweet!

                Chris.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Dynamic means: of or relating to physical force or energy. Any healing substance which is in accordance or parallel of or relating to physical force or energy is dynamic, whereas any substance which is anti or unparallel to it is somewhat like static, imanical or toxic. Dynamic is more related to similar physical force or energy to VF--as potencies in homeopathy whereas static is more related to structure side or physical body without physical force or energy & healing substances which are dis-similar,differant or hetrogenous to our physical force or energy or VF can be somewhat static,oppositi, anti, imanical or toxic.
                  Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                  Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    hans,

                    "dynamic." what my definition tells us is that objects are complex, that is, made up of parts that function interdependently: matter and energy in a system. we can deduce from this that the structure of an object can, in principle, be known, and that its internal action and its interaction with another object can be known, and that, therefore, they can be tested.

                    you seem to be arguing some point, but i'm not sure what that point would be, unless my original discussion was not clear enough in trying to point out that real objects can be tested by real science, correctly implemented: that would include double blind research, as well as laboratory or basic research.

                    h, imho, was a consummate scientist. the scholarship required to discuss his use of spiritual concepts is beyond my capacity. just to note, however, my impression that his use of such ideas can often be read, without much of a stretch, to reflect an extremely modern grasp of the physical universe: but he uses the limited concepts of his time to describe things that could not be more adequately described before the development of terms and concepts and observations from contemporary physics.

                    similarly with 'natural law:' you seem to be arguing some point with me, but i'm not sure what - i thought i expressed myself clearly, but apparently i was wrong: in short, my remarks were directed more at my friends in the homeopathic community, with the implication that if something is a natural law, then it can be analyzed and tested by appropriately selected scientific methods.
                    "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Bach, no I don't seem to be arguing some point with you. Apparantly you agree that if homeopathy exists in the real world, then it can be tested.

                      Yes, with the knowledge and methods available to him, Hahnemann was a scientist. A few things have happened since then, however, so yes, I'd like to tell him that "Like cures like" does not seem to qualify as a natural law after all. And I don't really care if he gets angy .


                      Hans
                      You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by MRC_Hans
                        Bach, no I don't seem to be arguing some point with you. Apparantly you agree that if homeopathy exists in the real world, then it can be tested.

                        well, in your last post you said that my definition of 'dynamic' didn't really tell us anything useful. then i clarified that my definition led to the conclusion that real objects can be tested. sooo, now you say ... what? that you knew that all along and agree? ok, as i said in the first place, we finally agree about something, even though you don't seem to be able to make up your mind about whether that's true.

                        Yes, with the knowledge and methods available to him,

                        or maybe we don't agree entirely, because you seem to be just pretending that we agree (quote: "yes"), so that you can call your trump (with the resources he had available). specifically, what i said was that H was a consumate scientist. first, you appear to have dropped the "consumate" as a modifier. second, you ignore (or maybe failed to grasp) the clear meaning that i consider still that H is a consummate scientist. i said nothing to imply that he was merely a consumate scientist "in his day," or "considering the times." plainly, or to make it clear as day so that even you can't miss it, this means that we still have a great deal to learn from H, and that his oeuvre stands today as a living, vital, leading achievement of the western scientific tradition. just as we still have a lot to learn from men like einstein and darwin and newton. you see, hans, H was in a very rare class, he deserves to be recognized as being in the same league as the greatest scientists in our culture. 'like cures like' is a natural law, whether you get it or not.

                        Hahnemann was a scientist. A few things have happened since then, however, so yes, I'd like to tell him that "Like cures like" does not seem to qualify as a natural law after all. And I don't really care if he gets angy .

                        well, if you can get beyond your egocentrism, re-read my passage. wink. you will note that i was speaking of those who thought homeopathy was only an art, not a science - in short, it was a friendly jab at passkey, my homeopathic comrade. in any case we all know you wouldn't care what H thought, and don't consider homeopathy art or science. wink wink wink wink wink. get off it, hans.


                        Hans
                        wink wink wink
                        Last edited by bwv11; 8th October 2004, 02:27 PM.
                        "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mmm, seems I can still get a rise from you, after all this time, heheh.

                          I know you worship Hahnemann, and you know I don't.

                          Hans
                          You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            there you go! have a nice day.
                            "The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by bwv11
                              I know you worship Hahnemann, and you know I don't.

                              Hans

                              there you go! have a nice day.
                              How can you wish a nice day to those, who do not worship Dr.Hahnemann in homeopathic forum?
                              Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
                              Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..Shiv Khera

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X