Saving holistic homeopathic medicine from mechanistic scientism—an urgent need
Received17 January 2003
accepted10 March 2003
21 December 2017 (online)
The editorial in the January 2003 issue of Homeopathy [ 1 ] and the report ‘Controversy in homeopathy’[ 2 ] in America paint a picture of utter confusion in the interpretation of homeopathy in Great Britain and the USA. No matter how often we, as homeopathic doctors, successfully help patients with homeopathic remedies, our academic status will be judged by reports in our official journals. The honest question: ‘Are we looking in the right place?’ posed in the editorial points the way forward. This article presents my diagnosis and treatment of the malaise in present-day homeopathy.
The introduction of R Waldo and J-L Torres’ paper in the January issue of Homeopathy [ 3 ] forms the basis of my objection: ‘The characterisation of the homeopathic effect through physicochemical concepts and methods is a fundamental requirement in the quest to bring this therapy into the scientific mainstream.’ Without in any way denying the enormous benefits of scientific medicine, it is the wrong place to look for the basis of homeopathic medicine. The right place is indicated in two fundamental works of Hahnemann: ‘the Organon of the Rational Art of Healing’ and ‘Chronic Diseases’. In addition ‘the right place’ which explains the efficacy of the High Potencies can be found in the philosophy of science.
- 1 Fisher P. How does homeopathy work: are we looking in the right place? (Editorial) Homp 2003; 92: 1–2.
- 2 International press abstracts: Controversy in homeopathy. Homp 2003; 92: 51–52.
- 3 Waldo R, Torres J-L. Mutual information and the homeopathic effect. Homp 2003; 92: 30–34.
- 4 Paterson J, Boyd WE. Potency action. A preliminary study of the alternation of the Schick test by a homeopathic potency. Br Hom J 1941; 31: 301–309.
- 5 Rally DT, Taylor MA, Beattie NGM. Is evidence for homeopathy reproducible? Lancet 1994; 344: 1601–1606.
- 6 Jeans J. Physics and Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1942.