homeopathy - my take on it

[holist]

OK, so, let's maybe agree on the definition of homeopathy.

And then let's maybe agree on the definition of medical science.

There may be much that is accurate with your criticism of medical science. There is, indeed, a great deal to criticize.

but homeopathy, by definition... well, I will say no more. I hope you will look it up.


Your criticism of science as an institution is not wholly inaccurate. However,  your definition of science as a discipline does not apply.

sorry, Nigel, but this is one of those where this simple approach is not going to work

i look forward to your response to my substantial post

also, care to elucidate what you mean by science the discipline?

because i only see science the institution (social phenomenon would be even better)

and loads of people having highly varied normative ideas about science

'definition as a discipline' does not seem to exist

bear in mind the 20th century developments in philosophy of science before you just post something that was demonstrated to be hopelessly inadequate and full of logical holes some decades ago

[holist]

if i had wanted to argue with entire websites or articles on various science websites, i'd probably go there and do so in their face

so, in general, i will not argue with websites or long articles thrust in my face without provocation

Wait.  You posted this thread.  Someone offered a rebuttal, with a supporting link.  How is that "provocation"?

what i meant was: he threw an URL without provocation

i think posting a link and bravely saying "what do you say to this?" does not qualify as offering a rebuttal

also, my take on science could be summarised as follows:

"i'm all for the gadgetry, the religious aspect - less so"

How is there religion involved?  Would that be the part where science is ruled by the scientific method, not by what hippies would like to believe?

[/quote]

you cannot be serious

that would be deeply disappointing

[holist]

As far as I know, there's two homeopathies.

you just don't know far enough

[holist]

Well, that's exactly my problem, here.  You have to define your terms before you can debate them.

also, though, you have to debate them before you can define them

fine pickle, innit?

in other words, i think you are entirely wrong

waiting for the definition of terms before debating them is like waiting with having children until one is "completely ready for it"

it leads to dying without kids

or, in the other case, without ever having had an interesting conversation

[holist]

He's been online and hasn't said shit. He's trolling us.

impatient, like, aintcha?

[Pæs]

Why the fuck did I just waste my time reading that ridiculous load of shit?

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

okay, here goes:

developing an appreciation of homeopathy, in the sense that i am familiar with the term, is more like learning a foreign language, or getting into something sort of internally consistent but weird to the point of incomprehensibility from the outside

such things include the musings of the late Martin Heidegger or Ludwig Wittgenstein, 20th century atonal music, accupuncture, meditation, certain types of religious ideas, or pure maths

or, come to think of it, some forms of (psycho) therapy or counselling for which, science insists, there is no solid evidence, but which, practitioners insist, is still onto something essential about the nature of humans and hence profoundly interesting and worth doing

*

the experience i am talking about goes something like this:

1. come up against something that appears obviously intricate, complex, but totally pointless

2. begin suspecting that there may be something there

3. bang head against, ask existing practitioners how to get into this thing

4. get head around to some extent, become a novice practitioner

5. find it surprisingly and shamefully difficult to discuss the thing with people at point 1. above, beyond instructing them to go through the motions

at this point i suspect i have lost some of my audience because some of you have never had this experience and don't even believe in such experiences

it took me 19 years and some trippy higher maths before i understood what all of that was about

if you think that anything worth spending time on could be essentially explained to you in 15 minutes or so, then perhaps you'd best tune out, because, and i try to say this without a trace of condescension, you are not ready for what is coming

*

homeopathy is a system of thought, theory and practice of healing

its notions of what it means to be healthy, or not healthy, what it means to heal and what it means to have a theory are quite alien to modern-day institutional science in its ideal form as we know it

it is characterised by wild and creative theory-building (just like science)

it is boringly and trudgingly empirical (just like science)

it is riddled with bogus half-assed practitioners who don't understand the principles and get by somehow, often harming gullible patients by giving them bad advice (just like medical science)

it does differ from science in its standards of evidence and its modes of practice

it is consistently persecuted unfairly by Science(tm) the religious enterprise, which results in its own set of distortions and stresses

and yes, superdiluted substances and even imponderables are involved

*

the major differences relative to allopathic medical science: homeopathy is holistic and personal medicine

(in passing, a quote from the etymological dictionary, because words to have their way with us:

medical (adj.)
1640s, from Fr. médical, from L.L. medicalis "of a physician," from L. medicus "physician" (n.); "healing" (adj.), from mederi "to heal, give medical attention to, cure," originally "know the best course for," from an early specialization of the PIE base *med- "to measure, limit, consider, advise" (cf. Gk. medomai "be mindful of,"(...)

be mindful of! - this is sort of the sense still in use in homeopathy)

holistic and personal in that it considers the patients to be _persons_requesting_help_ rather than biological systems in need of repair or maintenance

holistic and personal in the sense also that it has a strong ethical dimension: as double-blind trials involve a degree of planned deception, many homeopaths would not consider doing them on ethical grounds

*

so how does it work? the knowledge generated to date by homeopathy is essentially a massive, sort of semi-regulated, but documented body of anecdotal evidence and various, not necessarily mutually consistent 'theories' (in a somewhat prescientific sense) about, on the one hand, remedies (the materia medica) and symptoms that people tend to have (the repertorium)

there is also an element of artistic, creative intuition involved, which we will find hard to deal with, i imagine

the theories and the anecdotal evidence (derived from 'provings' and from homeopathic practice itself) are all about the character, the individual essences that the remedies have (around 4000 today, and new ones are being added all the time)

when a patient turns up requesting treatment, the homeopath will conduct a long initial interview (hour to hour and a half), which, optimally, will cover pretty much all aspects of the patient's life inasmuch as that is possible in that sort of time frame

then the homeopath ponders carefully, selecting for the interesting, the unique, the striking among the things gleaned from the patient's ramblings, and attempts to figure out the remedy whose character is closest to the patients

then the homeopath will also ponder dosage (potency, frequency), and eventually prescribe a remedy

this remedy will be taken typically once or a small number of times, there will be frequent follow-ups, some of them involving possibly even longer conversations than the initial one

and this process brings surprising results

i don't claim to know how, but people with incurable diseases sometimes are cured (happens without homeopathy as well, as i am fully aware)

deeply interesting experiences of what i would call a spiritual or existential nature occasionally happen

people who are hostile to this sort of thing (experiences of the numenous and self-understanding as a profound and deeply moving process) are to a large extent the same people as those who choose to idolise Science(tm)

unpleasantness ensues

in the meantime, the state finances religious institutions, and a large number of other things for which there is no scientific justification (such as the the system of universal compulsory education, to mention only the most obviously un-scientific and harmful one)

but people prefer to cry and cuss about homeopathy instead

i think they are being intellectually dishonest

i think that the real source of the bitter sentiment that frothes forth at every opportunity is not charity or the need to protect reason (as if it needed protecting!)

i think it is closer to what the venerable Dr Reich got so irate about in Little Man

*

questions?

Here's the deal. You claim there is some kind of magikally quantumzy spiritually woo power that heals people that you have witnessed. Lets just fucking assume for brief moment that this woo does in fact exist, it also heal incurable diseases, gives you laser vision, adds 5 feet to your penis size ect. ect.

Now I posted a study which showed that Homeopathy does jack shit. I assume that is because the magikquantaspiritual woo wasn't working. This would indicate that the super-woo healing powers don't occur in a statistically significant number of Homeopaths.

You yourself also admitted that this woo can be tapped in to using methods other than Homeopathy.

So would it be unreasonable to say that whenever this woo does work it is not because of the methods of homeopathy but is rather a complete fluke? Now If I offered a cancer treatment where I cut you open and just started tearing things out because my dowsing rob told me to, most people aren't going to get much out of that. Occasionally however I'm going to hit the mark and tear the cancer out.

It would be fucking insane to suggest that my cancer dowsing actually "works" because of a few flukes.

So wouldn't you be better off isolating and studying this great and powerful woo so as to develop more effective methods of tapping in to it, instead of defending a bunch of idiots who think water has memory?

And just so you know, people don't attack Homeopathy because they worship at the altar of science, they attack it because its a way of stealing money from sick people. That apparently doesn't bother you.

[holist]

Why the fuck did I just waste my time reading that ridiculous load of shit?

please post the answer too when you figure it out

[Pæs]

Stop oppressing him with your science.
He already said he's using an unscientific standard of evidence.
Y'know? The one with the trippy higher maths?

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Stop oppressing him with your science.
He already said he's using an unscientific standard of evidence.
Y'know? The one with the trippy higher maths?

I'd be 100% sure that he is a troll if I didn't know that homeopathy survives off of fuckers just like this.

[six to the quixotic]

Questions:

Do you in your homeopathy posit hypotheses?

Do you rigorously test said hypotheses to determine their validity vis a vis healing people?

What is your (homeopathy) version of healthy and unhealthy, and how does it differ from the modern medical version?

How does math fit into this?

Define trippy higher maths.

Furthermore try to be less vague.

Also, while we (not all inclusive) may have disdain and scorn for homeopathy and other psuedosciences, you were the one who brought it up, stated that nothing anyone could say would change your mind, and did not adequately define your version of homeopathy.
 

[M. Nigel Salt]

Holist, do you agree with this definition of homeopathy? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homeopathy

I'm not interested in playing stupid guessing games with you, and there seems to be no point having a discussion with someone who is using a secret definition of the main term. If what you are calling homeopathy is different from the established definition, then we need to know that in order for anything we say to have relevance.

If you are talking about a bicycle but insist on calling it an automobile, then I can't give you applicable mechanical advice. Nor am I interested in dancing for your entertainment. Treat other people like tools, and they'll treat you like one right back.

 

[M. Nigel Salt]

Holist, why do you think it is reasonable to make up your own definitions of words and then demand that everyone you converse with use your definition? That's stupid.

Are you aware of the word's etymology and history? It is a name for a very specific type of treatment, not a blanket term for naturopathic medicine.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=homeopathy

[holist]

Stop oppressing him with your science.
He already said he's using an unscientific standard of evidence.
Y'know? The one with the trippy higher maths?

I'd be 100% sure that he is a troll if I didn't know that homeopathy survives off of fuckers just like this.

no, here's the deal

i made no claim of the sort you impute to me (if you think i did, demonstrate where, please)

i did witness people getting better

i have no compulsive need for an explanation in the manner that you appear to do

re: "I posted a study which showed that Homeopathy does jack shit."

bollocks

you posted a newspaper article about a parliamentary committee's report, which contains some vague references to an ultimately meager set of experiments purporting to show that homeopathy is not effective, but which are totally ill-designed and ill-suited for the purpose

i agree with you, the majority of what gets done under the label of 'homeopathy' is not homeopathy at its best, and a good part of it is indistinguishable from quackery

but i don't think statistical significance is the only kind of significance, and, anyway, i believe a statistically significant minority practice the homeopathic way of life to some significant extent at least

yes, actually, i do think the woo is the same woo that has been called the tao or even the chao, and by a number of other names

"So would it be unreasonable to say that whenever this woo does work it is not because of the methods of homeopathy but is rather a complete fluke? Now If I offered a cancer treatment where I cut you open and just started tearing things out because my dowsing rob told me to, most people aren't going to get much out of that. Occasionally however I'm going to hit the mark and tear the cancer out."

you are not going to like it, but the best i have to say to that is that from what i have seen, homeopathy's results are just way to impressive to be a fluke

now if you are willing to be genuinely open and not spiteful because you think you already know the answer, and if you are willing to accept that i am just being plain honest with you without reserve, i will relate some stories

"So wouldn't you be better off isolating and studying this great and powerful woo so as to develop more effective methods of tapping in to it, instead of defending a bunch of idiots who think water has memory?"

this is the scientific-hegemonising-taker mindset, yes

isolate it

understand it (which usually pretty much equals figure out a way to dominate it, make it do what you want it to, and to kill it)

exploit it

but what if this woo takes exception to being so treated, as it appears to?

also, they are not a bunch of idiots, and, believe me, not particularly interested in furnishing the ontological explanation for why the stuff they do works for them

seriously, i would be very happy to see homeopathy relegated to the ranks of tarot, i ching, astrology

provided it was left alone

gullible people will be exploited, they have been and are being exploited using diverse methods, including facts manufactured in the fact-ories of science

but if you, champion of science, object to the pure white labcoat being thus sullied, then by all means, feel free to be hypocritical and let us declare that homeopathy is a church (after all, there is already a tradition of people expecting to be and being healed in churches)

i think your view about why people attack homeopathy is incorrect

stealing money from sick people would bother me (it does in the health service), but i don't think the homeopaths are doing that

they believe in and base a significant part of their professional lives on a system of thought that is scientifically not supported, though i think they could be, using tests of a very different sort

but i thought that was allowed

freedom of conscience, a human right, or something?

sorry

[navkat: navkat of...navkat!]

As far as I know, there's two homeopathies.

you just don't know far enough

I can't believe y'all let this one slip by.