Re: [H] [Minutus] Ducking now [was: Re: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2

Hi, Shannon --

> 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 had not had that thought; rather the opposite, actually. It does
> NOT change, although the knowledge and etc. that it encompasses does
> change. Or maybe I am not understanding what you mean by meaning.
> The meaning of art is not about brushstrokes... ??
>

:-) Maybe it's a good time to revisit the beginning.

Are you, or are you not, arguing that a homoeopath's adoption of a
technique that falls outside the boundary of what homoeopathy is today --
for instance, making a prescription whose effect on healthy subjects she
cannot possibly know -- changes the nature of what homoeopathy is tomorrow?

> 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.
>
> Oh my head...
> So you have not been following the arguments about how combining
> remedies cannot work; etc., with the "proof" offered being Hahnemann's
> statements... With total lack of interest in or receptivity to any
> consideration of the *clinical findings* in the regard...
>

Let's leave those aside. That's not this discussion. That's another
discussion. We can have that one tomorrow.

Please note that--neither now nor "year in and year out", this has
> *not* been me on one side of "the fence" with every other rational or
> thinking person or homeopath on the other... Just wanting to point
> that out, thanks.
>

If you can produce a single rational argument by any person for believing
that defence of the meaning of a word amounts to rejection of all change,
then I'll be fascinated to see it. If you can't, then what are you talking
about?

> ...
> >
> > What is difficult for us to understand is how the polypaths here --
> > particularly you,
>
> Okay, snipping my hairpulling and cranky cusswords, but--
>
> John, can you not carry on this discussion without endless repetition
> of what you have to by now KNOW to be flat-out lies? You keep saying
> that; I keep saying it is not true. Can you just get off it,

I beg your pardon? What lies?

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