Dogmatism in homeopathy

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version

Jan Scholten

Dogmatism  in homeopathy

In the homeopathic literature and discussion we often encounter strong
dogmatic features.Sometimes it looks like religious fanaticism. In
order to base one’s statement one often finds “Hahnemann has said…”.
Open discussion is made difficult this way. Science has to do
with arguments and facts, not so much with authorities. Following one
example of such a viewpoint, we can  make the situation more clear.

Only proving symptoms

 It’s often said that the source of our Materia Medica are
provings and only provings. We can find this idea already in § 21 of
the Organon (Hahnemann): “Now, as it is undeniable that the curative
principle in medicines is not in itself perceptible, and as in pure
experiments with medicines conducted by the most accurate observers,
nothing can be observed that can constitute them medicines or remedies
except that power of causing distinct alterations in the state of
health of the human body, and particularly in that of the healthy
individual, and of exciting in him various definite morbid symptoms; so
it follows that when medicines act as remedies, they can only bring
their curative property into play by means of this their power of
altering man's state of health by the production of peculiar symptoms;
and that, therefore, we have only to rely on the morbid phenomena which
the medicines produce in the healthy body as the sole possible
revelation of their in - dwelling curative power, in order to learn
what disease - producing power, and at the same time what disease -
curing power, each individual medicine possesses.” Put in more modern
language this paragraph looks like: “The curative power of remedies can
only be observed by their action on human beings; therefore that

curative power can only be learned from their action on healthy humans;
this means provings”. It’s clear from this paragraph that Hahnemann
means that only provings symptoms are the source of our Materia Medica.
We can conclude from the use of “only” and

“sole”.

This statement of Hahnemann is often repeated in homeopathy. Julian
Winston writes: ”All of Scholten’s work, no matter how interesting and
no matter how useful, is not, at this point homeopathy because we have
no provings – only some clinical data”. Heudens repeats this

statement often in her seminars. Vithoulkas seems to promote the same
idea: “That means you don’t prove a substance. If you prove a substance
correctly, I have no problem at all”.

Practice

What is the practice in homeopathy. This is best illustrated with an
example. The example is taken from the “Essence of Materia Medica”
(Vithoulkas). These essences are used by many homeopaths with great
satisfaction and have become a kind of standard of the essence of
remedies. Lycopodium is just taken by chance. When we check which
symptoms from this essence are found in the povings, we find the
following results:

Symptoms not found (particularly not in the proving of Hahnemann):
coward, inadequate, responsibility, image, friendly, courage, sexual
gratification, one night stand, averse marriage, superficial sex,
competent, premature ejaculation, intelligent, intellectual, priest,
lawyer, teacher, politician, bluff, inferiority, exaggerate, bloating
ego, compensate, admiration, prove, loner, spinster, celibacy,
spiritual, obsessed, dictatorial, tyrannical, passive, bolster, lies,
fear dark, fear ghost, fear dog, imbecility, senility, emaciation face,
emaciation neck, emaciation chest, wrinkled face, wrinkles, hair gray,
flapping alae nasi, frigidity, nephritis, stomach ulcer, hemorrhoids,
indulgence.

Symptoms found: impotency, stomach pain, bloating abdomen, timid, fear
alone, hypochondriasis, confusion, memory weak, flatulence, desire
sweets, desire oyster, empty,liver.

So 52 symptoms cannot be found back in the provings, 13 symptoms are
found. This means that 80% of the symptoms of Vithoulkas’s essence are
not found in the provings. This is quite annoying when homeopathy has
to be based on proving. Some of the 52 unfound symptoms can be found in
the repertory of Kent. But they cannot be traced back to provings as
Kent has put a lot of clinical data in his repertory. The conclusion
must be that the basic Materia Medica is far away from the provings.
General keynotes can even be in contradiction with the provings. The
word left is more prominent in the proving of Lycopodium of Hahnemann,
whereas the remedy is known as a right sided remedy.

This is of course only one example. But the same procedure can be done
for many other remedies and for many other Materia Medica’s. It’s a
common experience that most homeopaths have pictures in mind quite
different from the provings. So most homeopaths won’t recognize
provings read to them. When I read the first page of the proving of

Lycopodium to the audience of the ECCH conference in Trömso, no one of
the 400 homeopaths recognized it. The same happened in 2 other
seminars. This can be attributed to the fact that provings are long
listings of symptoms. But the fact that no one recognizes it,

means that those listings are far away from the pictures those homeopaths have in mind.

Law of Similars states the efficiency of clinical data

We can also look at the statement of § 21 from a theoretical point of
view. The law of similars says: a remedy can cure what it can produce.
A proving shows what a remedy can produce.

Hence provings will show us what a remedy can cure. So proving symptoms and pictures can be used as a Materia Medica.

But the opposite is just as true: a remedy can produce what it can
cure. So cured symptoms and pictures can tell us the proving picture.
This means that clinical information, curative information is just as
valuable for our Materia Medica as provings. This is inherent in the law

of Similars. But the conclusion of § 21 is contradiction with it.

§ 21 in contradiction with Law of Similars

It’s even the case that Hahnemann used clinical information to deduce
the Law of Similars.He used the information of the curative power of
China and compared that with his own proving of China. From the
similarity between the two he concluded the Law of Similars.

Hahnemann needed both the information of the curative power of China
and the proving power of China to derive the Law of Similars. It’s one
step further to state that the law of Similars can only be deduced by
also using clinical curative powers. Without comparing proving pictures
with cured pictures the Law of Similars cannot be deduced (it would be
more correct to use the concept of induction instead of deduction;
deduction is a logical derivation from laws and axioms: induction is
the generalization from a group of events). So the law of

Similars cannot be derived without using clinical data. The ultimate
conclusion of this way of reasoning must be that homeopaths who are
adhering to § 21 of the Organon are in contradiction with the basic law
of homeopathy. This is so because § 21 in itself is in contradiction
with the law of Similars.

How then did Hahnemann reach his conclusion of § 21. His assumption
was: “The curative power of remedies can only be observed by their
action on human beings”. From this assumption he deduced the
conclusion: “therefore that curative power can only be learned

from their action on healthy humans; this means provings”. In his
assumption he speaks about  the action on human beings, but in his
conclusion he writes of the action on “healthy” human beings. So
Hahnemann introduces a limitation of the action, first it was on all
human beings, later only on healthy human beings. The limitation is
introduced suddenly and without explanation. It’s not backed up. Hence
the deduction is incorrect, the “therefore” isn’t justified. It’s a
mistake in logic. The conclusion must be that the way of reasoning in §
21 is incorrect. 

Of course there had to be something wrong in § 21. The conclusion in it
is incorrect as we’ve seen before. Hence the assumption or deduction of
Hahnemann have to be incorrect.

Organon contains contradictions

So § 21 of the Organon contains an illogical derivation and a 
statement in contradiction with the basic law of Similars. When the
Organon would be just a historical document that wouldn’t be a big
problem. But the Organon is often seen as the basic text of homeopathy.
It’s often taught in homeopathic schools as the basic homeopathic
theory. The Organon is often treated as a bible.

Some examples can make this clear. Thielens writes: “Men who follow law
should recognize Hahnemann’s Organon as the fixed and settled
authority, and the opinion of one or many as of little value”. Stuart
Close wrote : “He only is ‘The Master’ to whom the first

great revelation of truth was made and by whom it was first developed
and proclaimed”.Saravan writes: “The only hero is Hahnemann. Loyalty is
to the science and its only Master.”. From these statements a picture
emerges as Homeopathy being a religion and Hahnemann being it’s
prophet. These statements are sectarian, not scientific. A science has
no  masters, only promoters and developers.

Hahnemann

So Hahnemann is fallible, not a holy person that couldn’t make
mistakes, cannot be criticized. I often encounter situations that I
have to defend myself when I criticize Hahnemann. But for me
criticizing doesn’t mean that I don’t admire Hahnemann. I see Hahnemann
as the Newton of medicine. He was the first to give medicine a firm
ground and some basic laws whereas before that there were only
scattered facts without theory. The same was the situation with Newton,
he gave physics a firm basis with his laws of mechanics. But even with
the enormous admiration for Newton in physics, no student in physics
reads the original works of Newton anymore. There are far better
accounts of the ideas of Newton, with far better ways of

displaying his ideas and mathematics. It would even be an insult to stick to the exact writings and reasoning of Newton.

Some biologists, talking to a colleague homeopath, were astonished that
homeopathy was still using books of two centuries ago as text books.
How is it possible that homeopathy still uses those books as the
Organon? It is as if Homeopathy hasn’t developed since it’s start. The
biologists asked themselves and us how a science didn’t evolve in two
centuries still using the same books. Winston sees the adherence to the
Organon as a criterion of “good” homeopathy:“Vithoulkas did not spend
much time discussing philosophy or the Organon in his in-person
lectures”. But how can we adhere to a book like the Organon as our
basic text book, when already in one paragraph there are violations of
logic and of the basic law of homeopathy.That won’t promote a lot of
confidence in scientist and the public.

When we like to see homeopathy as a science then we have to hold to
scientific principles. In science persons have no argument value. Facts
and ways of reasoning are the basic statements and arguments. Dogma’s
of authorities, whether they are Hahnemann or Kent or whoever, have no
place in science.

Any comments??

Murthy

Edited by gavinimurthy