otherhealth.com  

Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 5th October 2004, 09:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: EU
Posts: 1,271
passkey has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2004, 05:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2004, 07:10 AM
LisaAnnan's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: :)
Posts: 2,044
LisaAnnan is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2004, 08:27 AM
kayveeh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: -
Posts: 1,646
kayveeh is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2004, 09:57 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 6th October 2004, 07:14 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 1,020
bwv11
Default

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.


Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 7th October 2004, 06:09 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,218
MRC_Hans is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 7th October 2004, 07:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 866
Chris Gillen is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 7th October 2004, 09:20 AM
kayveeh's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: -
Posts: 1,646
kayveeh is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 7th October 2004, 09:28 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 1,020
bwv11
Default

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.


Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recognition and Validity of Healers "Helipraktiker" in USA Dirk Quartemont Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy 1 17th July 2005 12:06 PM
On the Scientific Mechanism Timokay Coffee Shop 154 28th October 2003 02:41 PM
On the Scientific Mechanism Timokay Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy 1 7th July 2003 09:51 AM
Possible scientific basis for homeopathy DocScott Research and the Scientific Validity of Homeopathy 24 27th February 2003 05:15 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:07 PM.



The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2