Download PDF
Homeopathy 2021; 110(02): 137-146
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714740
Debate

The Need for Multidisciplinary Research within the History and Theory of Homeopathy[*]

Josef M. Schmidt
1   Institute of Ethics, History, and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig Maximilian’s University, Munich, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The controversial issue of homeopathy's scientificity will, in all probability, not be settled by means of clinical trials alone, as long as uncertainty or ignorance about methodological, philosophical, and socio-economical essentials prevail on both sides of the argument. Rather than uncritically adopt the standards of the currently predominant paradigm, homeopathy should not forget its roots, peculiarities, and self-conception. Contrary to conventional medicine, it is based on a teleological image of humanity, a holistic and sustainable approach towards curing sickness, and an up-to-date concept of medical theory in terms of healing arts. However, under today's frameworked conditions of industrialisation, commercialisation and commodification, the strengths of homeopathy tend to be disregarded or even attacked, and a special kind of reductionist and materialist rationality, compatible with expanding markets and profits, is preferably facilitated. To reveal and demonstrate these developments and relationships on a scientific level, there is a need for multidisciplinary research on the part of the humanities, such as history and theory of medicine, history and theory of science, history of economics, sociology of scientific knowledge, and philosophy.

Keywords

history of medicine - theory of medicine - homeopathy - history of science - theory of science

Highlights

• To assess the scientific status of homeopathy, not only natural sciences and clinical trials, but also methodological, philosophical and socio-economical considerations are required.


• Although ostensibly forced to comply with the standards of evidence-based medicine, homeopathy should never forget its roots, peculiarity, and self-conception.


• Homeopathy is based on a teleological image of humanity, a holistic and sustainable approach towards healing diseases, and an up-to-date concept of medical theory in terms of healing arts.


• Today's socioeconomic and intellectual framework conditions are prone to disregard the strengths of homeopathy and rather facilitate a reductionist and materialist rationality, compatible with expanding markets and profits.


• To reveal and demonstrate these cultural and political developments and relationships on a scientific level, multidisciplinary research together with the humanities, including historical, social, economical and philosophical sciences, is needed.


* This article is a revised version of a paper presented at the 70th Congress of the Liga Medicorum Homoeopathica Internationalis in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on August 26, 2015.




Publication History

Received: 02 March 2020

Accepted: 12 May 2020

Article published online:
08 September 2020

© 2020. Faculty of Homeopathy. This article is published by Thieme.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Dean ME. The Trials of Homeopathy. Origins, Structure and Development. Essen: KVC-Verlag; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Hahn RG. Homeopathy: meta-analyses of pooled clinical data. Forsch Komplementmed 2013; 20: 376-381
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mathie RT, Lloyd SM, Legg LA. et al. Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014; 3: 142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Mathie RT, Ramparsad N, Legg LA. et al. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2017; 6: 63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mathie RT, Fok YYY, Viksveen P, To AKL, Davidson JRT. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, other-than-placebo controlled, trials of non-individualised homeopathic treatment. Homeopathy 2019; 108: 88-101
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Gorski DH, Novella SP. Clinical trials of integrative medicine: testing whether magic works?. Trends Mol Med 2014; 20: 473-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Huisman F, Warner JH. eds. Locating Medical History. The Stories and Their Meaning. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Coulter HL. The Controlled Clinical Trial. An Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Empirical Medicine; 1991
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Schmidt JM. Taschenatlas Homöopathie in Wort und Bild. Grundlagen, Methodik und Geschichte. Heidelberg: Haug; 2001: 120-123
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Spaemann R, Löw R. Die Frage Wozu? Geschichte und Wiederentdeckung des teleologischen Denkens. München, Zürich: Piper; 1985
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Jaeger W. ed. Aristotelis Metaphysica. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1980: 983a
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Platon. Phaidros. In: Burnet I. ed. Platonis Opera. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1979: 268-270
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Platon. Gorgias. In: Burnet I. ed. Platonis Opera. Vol. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1979: 454
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Bywater I. ed. Ethica Nicomachea—Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1979: 1097a, 1104a, 1137a, 1145a
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Wieland W. Diagnose. Überlegungen zur Medizintheorie. 2nd ed. Berlin: Hoof; 2015
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Wiesing U. Wer heilt, hat Recht? Über Pragmatik und Pluralität in der Medizin. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Hahnemann S. Organon der Heilkunde [1942]. In: Schmidt JM, ed. Neufassung mit Systematik und Glossar. München: Elsevier; 2003
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Hahnemann S. In: Brewster O’Reilly W, ed. Organon of the Medical Art. New Delhi: B. Jain Publishers; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Hamilton P. Knowledge and Social Structure: An Introduction to the Classical Argument in the Sociology of Knowledge. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1974
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Latour B, Woolgar S. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Shapin S. Here and everywhere: sociology of scientific knowledge. Annu Rev Sociol 1995; 21: 289-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Brown P. Perspectives in Medical Sociology. 4th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Seaford R. Money and the Early Greek Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2004
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Graeber D. Debt. The First 5,000 Years. New York: Melville House; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Brodbeck KH. Die Herrschaft des Geldes. Geschichte und Systematik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Sharp LA. The commodification of the body and its parts. Annu Rev Anthropol 2000; 29: 287-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Shapin S. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Porter R. The Greatest Benefit to Mankind. A Medical History of Humanity from Antiquity to the Present. London: HarperCollins; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Bynum WF, Hardy A, Jacyna S. , Lawrence C, Tansey EM. The Western Medical Tradition 1800 to 2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Schmidt JM. Believing in order to understand: Hahnemann's hierarchisation of values. Homeopathy 2008; 97: 156-160
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Anonymous. Harry Gold, a heart specialist and digitalis pioneer, is dead. The New York Times; 1972. (April 22): 36
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Kaptchuk TJ. Powerful placebo: the dark side of the randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1998; 351: 1722-1725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kaptchuk TJ. Intentional ignorance: a history of blind assessment and placebo controls in medicine. Bull Hist Med 1998; 72: 389-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kiene H. Komplementäre Methodenlehre der klinischen Forschung. Cognition-based Medicine. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer; 2001: 166-167
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Wolff HG, Dubois EF, Gold H. et al. Conferences on therapy: the use of placebos in therapy. N Y State J Med 1946; 46: 1718-1727
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Gold H, Grace WJ, Ferguson FC. et al. Conference on therapy: how to evaluate a new drug. Am J Med 1954; 17: 722-727
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. J Am Med Assoc 1955; 159: 1602-1606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Quigley C. Tragedy and Hope. A History of the World in Our Time. New York, London: Macmillan; 1966
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Fleck L. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv [1935]. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Fleck L. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1962
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Feyerabend P. Against Method. Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books; 1975
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Kohler RE. From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry: The Making of a Biomedical Discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1982: 6
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Schmidt JM. Die Entstehung, Verbreitung und Entwicklung von Heilsystemen als Gegenstand der Medizingeschichte—am Beispiel der Homöopathie. Sudhoffs Arch 2007; 91: 38-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Schmidt JM. New approaches within the history and theory of medicine and their relevance for homeopathy. Homeopathy 2014; 103: 153-159
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Schmidt JM. Polyperspektivität in der Medizin: Dilemma oder Chance? Zur Ganzheitlichkeit der Homöopathie Hahnemanns. Schweiz Z Ganzheitsmed 2017; 29: 376-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kant I. Kritik der Urteilskraft [1790]. In: Weischedel W. ed. Immanuel Kant. Werke. Vol. 10. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 1974: 69-456
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Löw R. Philosophie des Lebendigen. Der Begriff des Organischen bei Kant, sein Grund und seine Aktualität. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp; 1980
    Google Scholar
  • 49 Vaihinger H. Die Philosophie des Als Ob. System der theoretischen, praktischen und religiösen Fiktionen der Menschheit auf Grund eines idealistischen Positivismus [1911]. 4th ed. Leipzig: Meiner; 1920
    Google Scholar
  • 50 Vaihinger H. The Philosophy of “As If”. A System of the Theoretical, Practical and Religious Fictions of Mankind [1924]. London: Routledge; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Schmidt JM. Is homeopathy a science?—Continuity and clash of concepts of science within holistic medicine. J Med Humanit 2009; 30: 83-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Seaford R. The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India. A Historical Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Susemihl F. ed. Aristoteles Politik: Griechisch und Deutsch. Leipzig: Engelmann; 1879
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Hahnemann S. Gesammelte kleine Schriften. In: Schmidt JM, Kaiser D, eds. Heidelberg: Haug; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 55 Jütte R. Samuel Hahnemann. Begründer der Homöopathie. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag; 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 56 Chalmers AF. What is This Thing Called Science? 3rd ed. St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press; 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 57 Moore GE. Principia Ethica [1903]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1954
    Google Scholar
  • 58 Capra F, Luisi PL. The Systems View of Life. A Unifying Vision. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Milgrom LR. Entelechy regained? Further musings on a quantised gyroscopic metaphor for the vital force in health and disease. Complement Med Res 2020; 27: 6-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Hankey A. A new approach to biology and medicine: an expanded role for regulation. J Sci Healing Outcomes 2015; 7 (27) 13-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Hankey A. Self-organized criticality supports naturopathy and self-healing. J Sci Healing Outcomes 2019; 11 (42) 5-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Pincus D, Walach H. eds. Complexity, Whole Systems Research, and Complementary Therapies. New Concepts and Methods. Forsch Komplementmed, Suppl. 1. Freiburg: Karger; 2012
    Google Scholar