On 27 December 2011 10:07, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. <jroz@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> 1. Certainties: yes, but you will need to wait until 2014 for me to publish
> it.....call me back then
>
Righto. :-)
2. On the one hand you are complicating the arguments by saying "we do not
> know enough/anything about it", on the other hand you claim that by
> explaining the way I work and understand homeopathy, I do betray it and
> Hahnemann's work. Said differently you are modifying the argument to suit
> the end result towards your own set of preconceived conclusions, exactly
> the
> same way conventional pharmaceutical companies do their research....I seem
> to remember this is called a solipsism.....
>
I do apologise, but I'm not understanding your argument here at all. Are
you suggesting that in order to differentiate homoeopathy's practice from
other practices, we would need to understand exactly its mechanism?
Newtonian physics is still perfectly correct and applicable; the relativity
> theory expanded it, did not make it wrong; quantum physics did not nullify
> any of them.
> Homeopathy evolves.
It evolves, yes, and it retains its single principle, without which it
surely is not homoeopathy.
I'm sorry that you take offence at the distinction between that principle,
with its requirements of prescribing (at one time) a single medicine of
known pathogenesis for the entirety of the case of illness before one, and
other methods, which I drew without judgement.
I have explained at length how I personally do it while
> respecting its basic tenets. Whether you disagree or cannot see it, I could
> not care less.
>
I did not ask you to care for my opinion, Joe. I posited an understanding
based on the most straightforward meaning of homoeopathy, a meaning that
I've never seen anybody who cares about homoeopathy dispute even in the
inane conversations that occur with predictable monotony on homoeopathy
e-mail lists. (And I know I don't need to repeat that meaning for you.)
3. "Psychobabblian" ????? Do you happen to read your own emails??? If you
> are going to go down the road of pseudo-intellectual insults, that
> conversation is closed, at least with you.
>
Did you take that word to refer to your work in some way? Perhaps you
should reread the sentence it appeared in! Here it is again, for your
convenience: "There therefore seems to be no stronger basis for a
claim that homoeopaths should know this system than for a claim that they
should know how to prescribe medicines on the basis of the materia medica
constructed entirely by guesswork or that they should know how to diagnose a
patient in terms of psychobabblian interpretation."
The reference to psychobabblian diagnosis was -- obviously, I hope, when
you read it attentively -- no reference to your work; it was a reference to
something I thought and still think we could agree has no place in
homoeopathic diagnosis.
That clarified, I hope, I'd be pleased to see a responsive reply, to the
extent that one is possible, to the argument I made there as to whether the
relevance to homoeopathy of your admittedly admirable work in organotherapy
(if I'm not misusing the term) is so great as to warrant the claim you made
for its necessity as a subject of importance to the homoeopathic student
(or of any more importance, as I tried to intimate, than those other
practices I mentioned).
Kind regards,
John
--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, *Democracy: Crisis and Renewal*, London: Profile, 2008.
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen