answer here that I've just offered there.
Let's begin with Rembrandt, then, and art. A relevant analogy, of course,
would be that Rembrandt had one day discovered that applying a pigment to a
surface in a manner designed to reproduce a picture from the imagination
resulted in some related picture on that surface -- and called the process
"painting".
In such an analogy, if the young student artist Turner, frustrated at his
inability to produce lifelike pictures, had one day taken to his bed with a
plate of spaghetti and sauce and declared that thenceforth he would
practise his painting *by eating spaghetti* rather than by wielding a
paintbrush or paint -- of what possible use would his "development" of
painting have been to art? What would have been this development's
contribution to art's advance, or to its teaching? Obviously, none at all;
instead, all of Turner's great potential *as a painter* would have been
lost to the world.
The lazy Turner might nevertheless have insisted that eating spaghetti,
because its sauce was coloured, *was* a form of painting and *should
receive recognition* as such.
What would buying into his confusion have contributed to clarity about what
one*meant* by the word "painting"? What advance would it have made in the
art of painting? What unique legacy would others' adoption of his settled
confusion have bestowed upon posterity?
Now, let's turn to science.
Why aren't you out there campaigning, year in and year out -- in the way in
which you have for homoeopathy to be understood to include polypharmacy --
for science to include spaghetti-eating?
When you say "science", do you mean what everybody else means by it? *Why*do
you? Why *don't* you include taking to your bed with a bowl of spaghetti?
Is that not too a form of discovery? When you use the word "science" as
narrowly as the rest of us do, aren't you limiting science's potential?
Surely you deign to use the word "science" in the same way in which the
rest of us do *precisely because the ability of the process of science to
advance and to produce new knowledge is completely unhampered by retaining
our understanding of what it is*. We do not have to redefine "science"
with every new discovery or new technique, precisely because science is a
meta-method whose definition clearly encompasses use of those techniques --
and because we may continue to use any "unscientific" manner of acquiring
knowledge regardless.
Just so is "homoeopathy" a meta-method: it may encompass many techniques;
many new medicines; many new patients, practitioners, locations, dosages,
discoveries, and rules of thumb.
The potential of science is not limited by retaining an understanding that
science seeks to advance knowledge with the certainty that comes of
reproducing experiments and observations, testing explanations of their
results, and seeking alternative explanations.
The potential of homoeopathy is not limited by retaining an understanding
that it seeks to advance cure by applying to the patient the medicine best
able to reproduce his symptoms in the healthy.
When we wish to acquire knowledge in a manner that fall outside the
boundaries of science -- for instance, by asking somebody a question, or by
thinking a problem through, or by clairvoyance or precognition -- is our
ability to do so compromised one whit by the exclusion of that manner from
the realm of*scientific* advance?
Of course it isn't -- otherwise surely you would be out there campaigning
tirelessly on the science lists for "science" to include asking others for
advice!
When you wish to try healing somebody through prayer, or magic, or
psychotherapy, or giving him two medicines together, is your ability to
succeed in doing so compromised one whit by the exclusion of your
techniques from the realm of *acupuncture*?
The reason you are not out there campaigning on the *acupuncture* lists to
have acupuncturists buy into prayer or shouting or psychotherapy as a form
of acupuncture is not, of course, that you recognise that they are not
forms of acupuncture. But that would be reason enough, wouldn't it?
Your ability to practise whatever you like is not compromised by its
exclusion, by definition, from anything else, be it acupuncture, science,
homoeopathy, or farming. But the ability for practitioners of acupuncture,
or science, or homoeopathy to have sensible conversations would be forever
frustrated by endless campaigns for practitioners to buy into
"non-discriminatory" definitions in which everything must include
everything else.
Science is science; clairvoyance and asking for help are something else
altogether; and the fact that we're able to distinguish them one from
another can only be useful, can't it.
Homoeopathy is homoeopathy; polypharmacy and other prescribing without
knowledge of the effects of the medicine on the healthy, the state of the
patient, etc., are something else altogether; and the fact that we're able
to distinguish them one from another hurts nobody. Rather, it lets us
communicate and even think clearly.
Without debate ad nauseam as to why the word "homoeopathy" *can*, *could*,
and by rights *should* mean everything *we* wish to practise -- we could
actually discuss homoeopathy!
Kind regards,
John
On 9 January 2012 09:47, Shannon Nelson <shannonnelson@tds.net> wrote:
> Okay, I am not trying to be combative with this question, but having
> gotten it stuck in my head, I am really interested to hear others'
> thoughts about it...
>
> I've been thinking about how, on the one hand, being solid in the
> *basics* is essential to best practice of any art and any science.
> E.g. in homeopathy, to get the deepest and most useful and most
> reliable effects, one needs to know (a) what needs to be treated
> (understanding the nature of health and disease), and (b) how to find
> the needed remedy for it (like-cures-like), and (c) what to expect (at
> least in a general way) if the remedy is indeed correct. (What am I
> leaving out... I"m writing this quickly; may need adding to or
> refining!)
>
> On the other hand, is there *any* art, or *any* science, in which the
> whole of its future development is determined by anybody's
> groundwork---whatever the level of genius? The art of Rembrandt does
> not define "art"; and the physics of Newton does not define physics.
>
> We refer to homeopathy as an art, and we refer to it as a science.
> Nowhere do we (homeopaths) refer to it as a "religion". (Tho some
> others have done so.) But isn't that part of what defines a religion,
> as distinct from either art or science? That you accept what is
> given; you take things on faith, with the definitions as given...
>
> So why is it that our community has these endless arguments about
> whether or not the writing and work of "our founder" constitutes the
> full and only proper definition of homeopathy?
>
> As opposed to either any art I can think of, or any science I can
> think of--where discoveries, inspirations and strokes of genius etc.
> are viewed not as *defining* and delimiting the study, but instead as
> bases for going yet further and achieving yet more?
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
> Shannon
--
"Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in
pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the
pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their airways
simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis vaccines stop
vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis bacteria to other
people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from society once vaccination
rates are high? No.
"Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis
bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in. The
presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in no way
affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
—Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a
letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011", <
http://drpalevsky.com/dr_palevsky_letter_pertussis.asp>
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen