Non scientific discussions in homeopathy

Originally posted by AlexS http://www.hpathy.com/philosophy/little-vital-force.asp And anybody can compare this with Newton words "I do not invent hypothesis" . Such discussions make homeogarbage .

Good science begin with good observation - not good measurement as AlexS would want us to believe.  David little had collected quite a substantial work on such observations over millenia. Such observations indicated that there is some phenomena that we have yet to understand and with what little understanding we have we were able to do much and in fact often much better than modern medicine.

A paradigm based on insights and intuition had shown to be profound and effective and relevant over the millenia. Traditional chinese medicine and ayurveda are two very good examples. What was written on the subject a few thousand years ago is still valid today and had been demonstrated to be valid.   Result from a logical and scientifically-based paradigm is ALWAYS tentative and changed its directions frequently like a blind-man searching for the door.

 From what little insight we have from system science today it seemed that the simpler a rule is the more profound is the effect and more widely applicable is the rule. It is one of life's paradoxes that modern medical science have difficulty grappling with. Homoeopathic system of medicine is complete and effective in very wide range of ailment is because of the simplicity of its rules.

What David Little had done was actually what any good scientists would do - make good observations !

Hahnemann never said psora was the original sin but in The Friend of Health he said that the real blessing in this world was wisdom and health that beckons one “Back into Eden”, the archetypal paradise. In the Deist philosophy which Hahnemann professed, human destiny is to be reunited with Divine Life through the seeds of the celestial harmonies deposited in human nature. The delusion of separateness rising out of the human psyche naturally produces a corresponding negativity in the physical world.

Charles Hempel is responsible for introducing metaphysical ideas into the subject of the miasms. His source of inspiration was Rousseau, a principle Deist philosopher with whom Samuel Hahnemann was familiar with since childhood. Hempel equated psora with the principle division of the humanity from its spiritual nature. Kent actually sought to correct this idea by saying that first came the decline from spiritual perfection and THEN this established the SUSCEPTIBILITY to psora and all other physical diseases.

As one can see some of today's homoeopaths have taken up a very metaphysical view of the miasms, which is similar to the ideas of Hempel. They do not, however, make the clear demarcation between the perfection & spiritual decline - susceptibility & predisposition - and physical disease, psora and the miasms like James Kent did! Are they all followers of Hempel then? It is not surprising that they are looking for a deeper meaning to health and disease but they have confused the spiritual and mental decline with its outcome, which is the susceptibility to physical diseases like psora.

Is this a scientific discussion ?

Compare this with Newton's "I do not invent hypotheses!".

edited...........

We are in a hole in time, which is the cavern of modern medicine. Walls that are dogmas from which drips ancient wisdom in a patter of slimy opinions, while outside a storm of data has gathered.

Euclid: The shortest connection between two points is a straight line. What is a straight line? The shortest connection between two points. Regardless the straightness of the lines it is circular reasoning.

Newton: If there is no change in the direction of a moving body, the direction of a moving body is not changed. But if something is changed, it is changed as much as it is changed. More circular reasoning.

Geology: determining the age of the rocks by the fossils. How is the age of fossils determined? By the age of the rocks. Another piece of circular reasoning.

Modern Medicine: Similarly, how is the virus determinable of disease? By the amount of vira in a disease. How is the disease determinable by the vira? By the severity of the disease compared to the amount of vira. Their statement is that when more vira can be seen, more vira will be seen. Such wisdom we shall not defile.
If a medicine does not change the numbers of the machine, the numbers on the machine are not changed. If a medicine does change the numbers on the machine, it changes them as much as they are changed.

Hence, circular reasoning is employed in medical science today. They find themselves in an august assembly, as we noted from our examples taken from Euclid, Newton and geology. However, the popularity of a faulty piece of reasoning does not make it right. They may have gathered an impressive following, but majority vote does not count in scientific work, since science is not democratic but scientific.