Comments on: Hahnemann’s Organon Of Medicine: 1-4 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/ Just another WordPress.com weblog Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:57:00 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: thenanoscientist http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-205 thenanoscientist Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:17:29 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-205 Ohreally: Post 65 is from the same source. It is not what you alleged ’sceptics’ alternately call “an appeal to authority” or “references”, depending on whether you are rejecting or accepting a statement. It is a thorough analysis of the relationship of homeopathic theory to modern science by non-homeopaths. it also includes numerous examples of proven cases of homeopathy working. Apologies for missing the ref. However, this is a case of textual analysis, is it not? Does being an MD give someone more credentials to carry out good textual analysis over someone with a PhD in physics, or someone with no qualifications whatsoever in science? No, it doesn't. Simply put the quotations you made highlight the opinion of two individuals on what was 'meant' by Hahnemann's text - clearly there are other interpretations that remain just as valid (as are pointed out by the authors) but as we can't talk to Hahnemann to find out his motivation for those words there really is nothing more that we can say on the matter. The fact that you made a point of bringing up that these individuals are medical doctors on more than one occassion implies that you think that their comments are enhanced by such a position, when they are not - a classic appeal to authority. As for proven cases of homeopathy working - the meta-analysis is clear about that - no effect beyond placebo. Ohreally: Post 65 is from the same source. It is not what you alleged ’sceptics’ alternately call “an appeal to authority” or “references”, depending on whether you are rejecting or accepting a statement. It is a thorough analysis of the relationship of homeopathic theory to modern science by non-homeopaths. it also includes numerous examples of proven cases of homeopathy working.

Apologies for missing the ref. However, this is a case of textual analysis, is it not? Does being an MD give someone more credentials to carry out good textual analysis over someone with a PhD in physics, or someone with no qualifications whatsoever in science? No, it doesn’t. Simply put the quotations you made highlight the opinion of two individuals on what was ‘meant’ by Hahnemann’s text – clearly there are other interpretations that remain just as valid (as are pointed out by the authors) but as we can’t talk to Hahnemann to find out his motivation for those words there really is nothing more that we can say on the matter. The fact that you made a point of bringing up that these individuals are medical doctors on more than one occassion implies that you think that their comments are enhanced by such a position, when they are not – a classic appeal to authority.

As for proven cases of homeopathy working – the meta-analysis is clear about that – no effect beyond placebo.

]]> By: Andrew Taylor http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-187 Andrew Taylor Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:43:12 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-187 You say "projection", I say "drawing parallels". I have an active interest in both junk science such as homeopathy and religion, so it's only to be expected that I will see things they have in common and comment on them. It's not a "filter", and it's not "logic". It's just that I have some modicum observational skills. You say “projection”, I say “drawing parallels”. I have an active interest in both junk science such as homeopathy and religion, so it’s only to be expected that I will see things they have in common and comment on them. It’s not a “filter”, and it’s not “logic”. It’s just that I have some modicum observational skills.

]]> By: homeopathy4health http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-183 homeopathy4health Sun, 20 Jan 2008 14:55:46 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-183 I note from your blog Andrew that you have a bit of an anti-religion/anti-catholicism thing going on so it's understandable that you see things through that filter. It's called 'projection' in the psychotherapy world. I'm not even going to try to unravel your logic for you Andrew and I'm not prepared to discuss it with you as your mind is set. Bring on the next part of the organon Gimpy. I note from your blog Andrew that you have a bit of an anti-religion/anti-catholicism thing going on so it’s understandable that you see things through that filter. It’s called ‘projection’ in the psychotherapy world.

I’m not even going to try to unravel your logic for you Andrew and I’m not prepared to discuss it with you as your mind is set.

Bring on the next part of the organon Gimpy.

]]> By: Andrew Taylor http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-180 Andrew Taylor Sun, 20 Jan 2008 13:19:37 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-180 I think it's a lot like that. You tell folk that being hyper-critical is the same as being syphilitic, and then you quietly define "hyper-critical" to mean "anyone who doesn't think homeopathy works" and suddenly it looks like a smart idea to believe it just so you don't get ill. I'm afraid it'll take more than one word to convince me that's not what you're doing. I think it’s a lot like that. You tell folk that being hyper-critical is the same as being syphilitic, and then you quietly define “hyper-critical” to mean “anyone who doesn’t think homeopathy works” and suddenly it looks like a smart idea to believe it just so you don’t get ill. I’m afraid it’ll take more than one word to convince me that’s not what you’re doing.

]]> By: Ohreally http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-174 Ohreally Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:18:34 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-174 thenanoscientist : "Then tell us where to find these comments (you should really be sourcing your quotes). Even so, this looks like an appeal to authority to me." Post 63 has full details. Post 65 is from the same source. It is not what you alleged 'sceptics' alternately call "an appeal to authority" or "references", depending on whether you are rejecting or accepting a statement. It is a thorough analysis of the relationship of homeopathic theory to modern science by non-homeopaths. it also includes numerous examples of proven cases of homeopathy working. thenanoscientist : “Then tell us where to find these comments (you should really be sourcing your quotes). Even so, this looks like an appeal to authority to me.” Post 63 has full details. Post 65 is from the same source. It is not what you alleged ’sceptics’ alternately call “an appeal to authority” or “references”, depending on whether you are rejecting or accepting a statement. It is a thorough analysis of the relationship of homeopathic theory to modern science by non-homeopaths. it also includes numerous examples of proven cases of homeopathy working.

]]> By: homeopathy4health http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-167 homeopathy4health Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:33:48 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-167 No. No.

]]> By: Andrew Taylor http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-166 Andrew Taylor Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:02:16 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-166 Scepticism makes you ill? Gosh, that's clever. That's a bit like the "believe us or burn in hell" argument, isn't it? Scepticism makes you ill? Gosh, that’s clever. That’s a bit like the “believe us or burn in hell” argument, isn’t it?

]]> By: homeopathy4health http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-159 homeopathy4health Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:05:55 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-159 re pv and syphilitic miasm: I observe signs of the syphilitic taint about pv and his son. His son's condition is not directly caused by pv's personality but personality is determined by miasm. I hope you hyper-critical (destructive/syphilitic) skeptics find balance by taking part in constructive activities in other areas of your lives. re pv and syphilitic miasm: I observe signs of the syphilitic taint about pv and his son. His son’s condition is not directly caused by pv’s personality but personality is determined by miasm.

I hope you hyper-critical (destructive/syphilitic) skeptics find balance by taking part in constructive activities in other areas of your lives.

]]> By: flimflam_machine http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-147 flimflam_machine Fri, 18 Jan 2008 10:52:24 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-147 Ohreally, there's no contributor called "nad", it was a mispelling of "and" by tom p. This little slip does rather undermine your criticism, since it suggests that you haven't actually read the comments that you're referring to and are simply dismissing contributions because tom p has referred to them. Furthermore, I'd be interested to know in what way I'm not a "sensible" person. Which particular parts of my contributions would you consider not "sensible"? Ohreally, there’s no contributor called “nad”, it was a mispelling of “and” by tom p. This little slip does rather undermine your criticism, since it suggests that you haven’t actually read the comments that you’re referring to and are simply dismissing contributions because tom p has referred to them.

Furthermore, I’d be interested to know in what way I’m not a “sensible” person. Which particular parts of my contributions would you consider not “sensible”?

]]> By: thenanoscientist http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-145 thenanoscientist Fri, 18 Jan 2008 00:17:46 +0000 http://organon.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/hahnemanns-organon-of-medicine-1-4/#comment-145 Then tell us where to find these comments (you should really be sourcing your quotes). Even so, this looks like an appeal to authority to me. Then tell us where to find these comments (you should really be sourcing your quotes). Even so, this looks like an appeal to authority to me.

]]>