Hi all,

I have re-named the thread because my question really had nothing to do with Dr. V. I just happened to think of it while I was reading the site of the workshop.

My question is about "Hering's Law" pure and simple.

I do not believe in it. (But am open-minded).

The main reason I do not believe in it is that it can easily lead to "contradiction in itself". And my question was about this "contradiction in itself"

The first example was answered by JROZ. I accept his interpretation.

The second was not answered. It was (phrased a little differently):

You are treating a patient for eczema (or with eczema - does not matter for the purpose of this discussion)

The eczema gets better/goes away but he gets asthma. You know or he tells you then that he used to have asthma before his eczema.

So - how do you interprete this as to Hering's Law?


Actually, the gravity or either state is not covered by this law - just the direction. This would be a different aspect of evaluation, not acording to Hering's Law.

I am interested in the contradiction:

By 2 criteria (from inside out - from the least important to the less important) it would be the wrong direction, by the criteria of "reversal in time" it would be the right direction.

There are other things that make me think that Hering's Law is of little practical value. One thing is new: Dr. V's law is not Hering's (it may be better) - Hering knew nothing about ektoderm etc. It is not based on such kinds of considerations.

So it seems that Dr. V. thinks it needs modification or a downright different "law" to replace it.

I tend to agree - but as I said, I am open to change my mind.

Regards

Luise