Dear dr Bhatia
Thanks for taking the time out to respond in this detailed manner. Our level of knowledge might differ and I am glad to share the bits and peaces I came across.
Quote:
I do agree that the 'simile' never changed. But Hahnemann did experiment with the ways to implement this law of simile. He experimented to the extent that many of his own case records go against his writings in organon of medicine.

As much as he vigorously defended homeopathy as the only way of curing he on the other hand used other therapies not following the simile law. We should bear in mind, that the title of his pivotal work is not: Organon of Homeopathy, but: organon of medicine.

Quote:
But nowhere did Hahnemann write down how he made his biggest discoveries like potentisation etc?

He discovered them during his time in Hermannstadt, while working in the library. This library had the reputation of having the most comprehensive collection on books nowadays called esoteric. The procedure of potentisation and trituration was already known to Paracelsius, and formed part of alchemic practise.

Quote:
do you really think that we will never be able to find the physical basis of Homeopathy??

This is a interesting polarity question which reflects strongly on what you think of me.

Here is what I think: it does not matter, whether a thing has a reason for its existence or not. If it evidently can be personally experienced, observed, this is all that is necessary to know. A similar question is: Is there a god, or is there non? For live as we live it, for liberation as we are seeking, it makes no difference.

You wrote:
Why discard an idea before testing it? Why throw the baby out with the water?

This is what I have done. I tested this idea on the principals of homeopathy.
It is like building a new car. You try the tests with the dummy first and only if you are reasonably convinced that it is save to put some-ones live at risk testing this new vehicle then you might with permission do tests on individuals.

I can share my pre-test results. The test was done, whether the application of remedies proven in single substances applied then as a mixture on the theoretically combined effects is within homeopathic principals or not.
My result is that this procedure violates par.: 144.
This makes no reference to, whether this remedies change health into artificial disease or not. This has to be found out in full homeopathic provings.

Qoute:
Theories and hypothesis can fail. But results speak for themselves. Why you (and Anna) are so outrightly against these theories? Have you used them enough to say that they don't work? Or are you creating your own hypothesis against it?

Modern scientific ness is not created by having a theory and trying to find prove in reality for it. True scientific ness is derived from experiments observed.
Her we hear the unprejudiced observer.
Except of medicine every other science is following modern kantian principles including Hahnemann when he advocates the proving, being the only way of finding out the true effects of medicines.
I want to conclude this post with a short explanation of modern scientificness, which should be sufficient enough to explain my understanding.

Basics of the idea of scientific-ness in Kant’s thinking
From: E. fraenzki: Die Idee der Wissenschaft bei Samuel Hahnemann

Philosophy by its virtue is methaphysic; I.e. a thinking, which solely rethinks, what is the essential in the to-be as a totality. Since Plato this thinking was carried by the conviction, that the basically essential is to be found outside physics, I.E. beyond the sphere of perceptibility by the senses.
But if evidence is to be found, that true knowledge has its roots not only in the perceptible (empirical) experience, but also always has to relate back to it, then the question is rectified, if thinking, which completely leaves the realm of perceptible experience behind, can be a true, I. E. scientific knowledge and therefore able to reach the essential in the present existence.
It has been Emanuel Kant (1724-1804) who has asked this question explicitly and who negated this. He writes in the introduction to the second edition to the ,,Critique of pure conscience’’: the fate of the metaphysic, being a completely isolated speculative ratio exercise, which leaves completely behind the empirical plane, by terms only (not like mathematics by the application of the terms for viewing), where ratio is supposed to be its own disciple, has not been so fortunate, ( like it has been previously in sciences like Logic, mathematic, and physic),
That it can take the save path as a science.
Instead, the procedure remained a ‘’staggering around, between empty terms, which according Kant is the worst.
The aim then is, according to Kant, to bring the methaphysic, I.E. philosophy, on the save grounds of scientificness, that means to transform philosophy itself into science.
Therefore it needs solid ground, which cannot be any other than empirical experience.
Every true experience, according to Kant, does not only start with, but also fulfils itself in the empirical experience. That means, that every true term can be expressed in a picture.
Lets take an example. It seems that the term of ‘’substance’’ is a completely empty, abstract term. But if we draw out the true meaning, it then is possible that it takes sense and therefore becomes meaningful.
The substantial essential is indeed that, which persists against the changes of time.
The time then again is nothing else than that, which enables perception. The term ‘’substance’’ then is not an empty term, if it is based on perception and therefore on experience. What applies to this basic term applies according Kant to all basic terms of our thinking.
The changeover of philosophy into science has the result, that things, which exist independently from experience, I.E. ‘’as such’’, cannot be recognized by humans. A realization of a thing’’as such’’is ,according to Kant, only given to the almighty. Humans are only able, virtually, by the structure of their intelligence (and not only de- facto) to perceive what comes in front of their senses, I.e.it appears. Recognition is imbedded in the appearance, in which appearance by no means only means apparent. Only the appearance is for us humans the reality, according to Kant.
But the changeover of philosophy into science has not only this consequence, ----negative as it appears,---- but also a positive consequence, which is a new definition of the term: scientific ness, which has to be looked at now.
If Kant teaches, that the sense based, empiric experience is that entity, from which the thinking takes its start, and to what it has to relate back, it seems, that he wanted to say: the thinking has to follow completely and utterly the sensitory, empirical experience. But exactly that is impossible , according to Kant, because scientificness is made impossible by it. Our experience changes constantly and therefore does not permit a necessary and universal realization, by which scientificness can be constructed. Kant has created here a paradoxical problem for himself. At the one side, to tie the thinking to the sensitory , empirical experience, on the other side to keep it independent from it.
Kant solves the problem by showing, that thinking precedes the sensitory, empirical experience, in that sense, that whereby thinking makes experience-but only that- possible in the first place. In the way how Kant grasps the relation between thinking and experience lies the character of the term of nowadays scientificness.
Kant did not invent this term, but uttered it unmissundestandingly for the first time.
The term is so modern, that it has not yet been adopted by all the sciences to date.

The implications of the scientificness term is shown in the following chapters.
The thinking—and this includes not only the pure terms, but also the pure forms of intuitions—enables, according to Kant, sensitory, empirical, experience, I.E. it precedes it. What does this mean? It does not mean: First one thinks and then one goes out and observes. It means: The thinking creates the to-be experienced in advance in that very way of the to-be experienced can be observed at all. There has to be something in the recognizing-structure in humans, which enables humans to realize the sensitory things to-be in the realm of time. Only because the human in his realisations and existence is already planed in the realm of time, future things can be met ‘’in the time’’. The concept, I.e. Kants critique of pure consciousness, defines previous to all experience completely the conditions (of recognition and existence) under which future can be experienced at all.
Therefore thinking does not follow ,what is realized in experience, Ie the matter, but the other way around: the matter of experience follows the thinking.

Kant called that insight the kopernicanian change in philosophy.
‘’Up till then it was assumed that all our experiences have to follow after the objects; but all tries to make out something apriory by terms, so that the knowledge could be widened, were lost under these preconditions. One try therefore if we cannot achieve more in the task of methaphysics, that we assume, that the objects follow our experiences…..It is in the same way, like with the first thought of Kopernicus….(Kant intro)
In view of experience this means: Nothing will be experienced which has not been previously traced out, I.E. known , recognized. the term scientificness therefore bears three hallmarks:
1. knowledge by virtue of its plan has apriory character. It has nothing to do with a knowledge, which flies over experience, because its essence only lies in that, to enable experience. It is non speculative and does not claim to realize the thing as such, nor its reason or entity.
2. It is as a apriory knowledge simultaneously sure knowledge. Because it is taken from what makes the fundamentum inconcussum for modern science: the pure ratio, I.e. the subjectivity.
3. As apriory knowledge it is likewise mathematic knowledge. In that context the term of mathematic-ness should not be thought from mathematics, but rather from the creak understanding. The essence of mathematic rests neither in numbers nor geometric figuresbut in a defined way of learning. It is this way in which we take note off what we already know. And because ‘’mathematic science’’ is termed by the explanatory sense of mathematicness, Kant can explain the term scientificness with the example of ‘’mathematic’’.: it dawned to the first person who demonstrated the equilateral triangle, because he found, that he had not have to, what he saw in the figure, or even to trace alongside its virtual term and likewise learn from its attributes, but through that, what he had laid in in terms, by his own apriory knowledge and showed (by construction) had to be brought out, and that he, in order to know something apriory for sure, had to lay nothing extra into the thing, than what he had laid in according to its term already.’’(Kant intro, B XII).

Science in the modern term, implemented by Kant implies an apriory, sure mathematical knowledge. This term of knowledge and scientificness is not only a world apart from the former on causativeness orientated one. It is also the more legit amid because historically more progressive. It occupies nowadays a new basic science: Kybernetic.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

dear dr bhatia, nice to hear from U

scholten is not prescribing potentized children now is he?

here are some more problems with the scholten method:

- if you take the elements say carbon, hydrogen and oxygen you can make a lot of different molecules from those with a lot of different chemical properties - some relatively benign, some toxic - which will have very different medicinal properties. eg. alcohols, ketones, acids, benzene derivatives etc.

when prescribing a remedy, and the patient is improving but has new symptoms appearing, how can you know if those symptoms fall under the action of the remedy if you don't have detailed data to consult? without the proving info you don't know if a change of remedy is needed.

the person who translated scholten into english taught how important it is to watch out for scholten's key words and themes during the case-taking. key words and themes are not symptoms - they can relate to non-pathological aspects of the case. in this way the method fails to isolate the disease symptoms, focussing instead on something like the patient's turn of mind.

we are having a cool, wet summer in england. how is it in india this year?

Dear Hans,

Ok! I have not read the unpublished articles of Hahnmeann (have u?). And I am not a freemason. And I am no historian either. My understanding about what I have written above comes from what has been published. So I can not argue with you on these points. But I must say I enjoyed having this dialogue with you. People with different wave-length make your grey matter grow. They stimulate the thought process!

Dear Anna,

Next time Scholten comes to UK, do report the television channels to issue a public warning to hide their children!!

I have not said that Scholten's method is fault less. I have no where said that any body should follow him blindly. And I do not use his method in every case. But some times when you are stuck with a case, his work gives you one more way to think and work-out your case. All I have been trying to say is let us be moderately tolerant of the new ideas. Let us not shun the idea just because it has defects. Lets work on it, see if it can be used for the benefit of Homeopathy. Nothing wrong with that I suppose??

And we are having a dry rainy season here

__________________
Dr. B<br /><br /><a href="http://www.doctorbhatia.com" target="_blank">www.DoctorBhatia.com</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hpathy.com" target="_blank">www.Hpathy.com</a><br />Homeopathy for Everyone

YOUR DISCUSSION ISTHOUGHT PROVOKING.CARRU ON THIS WAY.

David,

Here you have different point of view on key note symptom

__________________
<b>All the best<br />Khokhar<br />(CAM Expert)</b>