Investigating Homoeopathy & Wikipedia - Part 2
Science is defined by Wikipedia as being from the Latin word ’scientia’ meaning knowledge; ‘an effort to discover and increase human understanding of how the physical world works’. It makes reference to the words phenomenon - any occurrence that is observable and simulation - the imitation of some real thing, state of affairs or process.
So far so good; looks like Homoeopathy should fit as a science given that it aims to increase our understanding of the effects of substances and how a simillimum remedy aims to restore the individual to a healthy state.
Pseudoscience is defined by Wikipedia as ‘a body of knowledge methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status’. So now the truth is revealed. The definition of science alone is not enough to call something scientific; it must pass the ultimate test - the scientific method.
It appears that science has conditions, is not free form and is biased towards methodologies that are narrow and contradictory. Of course, there’s no point arguing about it. Science and their converts can have their scientific method; it won’t change the power of Homoeopathy. And it won’t change the things they can’t explain.
2 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Heya. Not sure what about the “scientific method” you take issue with? Or is it the “otherwise lacks scientific status” bit that bugs you?
From our conversations it seems that “provings” follow the scientific method, so there doesn’t seem to be a conflict there?
Looking at the wikipedia definition I notice “A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”
It seems that the observation and experimentation are well taken care of, but the formulation and testing of hypotheses are still ongoing?
Thanks for your comment Grant. It is not so much the scientific method alone I take issue with, but the whole science movement that pigeonholes what is to be considered science or pseudoscience. Someone in the scientific community, as quoted in Part 1 of this post said ‘the claim that these treatments still have any pharmacological effect is thus scientifically implausible and violates fundamental principles of science, including the law of mass action.’ It is the fact that most potencies of homoeopathy are diluted beyond Avogadro’s number, so surely anything beyond that cannot be considered powerful or even remotely useful. Regardless of the thousands of provings that have taken place and an even bigger success rate with clients, the modality is yet to be respected within the wider scientific circle.