> Shannon, YOU raised the analogy with art as defined by Rembrandt's
> > brushstrokes --
>
> Ah, so that's the misreading you followed... No I didn't.
> What I wrote was: " The art of Rembrandt does not define "art"; and
> the physics of Newton does not define physics."
>
That's right. That's what you wrote. And your point (though implicit)
evidently being that the very *meaning* of art and of science changes with
developments in its practice, I painted for you pertinent illustrations to
demonstrate that the claim was erroneous. Art and science may change with
every new invention within them, but what they are -- their meaning -- does
not; otherwise we'd be unable to use the words to communicate, wouldn't we.
(And that's exactly what's going on here!)
> [snip a bunch of insults] ... that if homoeopathy means what
> > Hahnemann said it means, then it must also mean following his every
> > direction as to how best to practise it.
> >
> > You can see, can't you, that the second does NOT follow from the
> > first?
>
> Well, I *had* thought that was the basis of your (et al) arguments
> about not-homeopathy.
> If not that, then what?
>
Please don't interpret this as yet another insult, but you do persist, year
in and year out, again and again, without deviation, in interpreting all
rejection of your misinterpretation of what homoeopathy *is* as rejection
of all new means of *practising* it.
And it is precisely that difference that I, Rik, Fran, Chris, Joy, and
several others have pointed out to you repeatedly so that discussion could
proceed some way further than that misinterpretation.
What is difficult for us to understand is how the polypaths here --
particularly you, who perhaps uniquely amongst them, seem to have no
financial interest in causing persistent confusion between homoeopathy and
allopathy -- can possibly misinterpret an argument to show that the
question of what homoeopathy is differs from the question of what
improvements could be made in it, and misinterpret it so badly that you
read it as an argument against the possibility of improvements. Such
persistent misinterpretation defies belief. Where do we go from here?
> And you know very well, don't you, that nobody (least of all I)
> > claims that homoeopathy practised in any way that departs from
> > Hahnemann's particular directions is not homoeopathy. ...
>
> That assertion has certainly been made on this list in the past.
> Sorry if I was mistaken in believing you were one who had made it.
>
Perhaps it has; but it's of zero relevance to the topic at hand, and I hope
it's becoming evident to you that persisting in reverting to that
discussion doesn't advance this one.
Kind regards,
John
--
"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