Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 15: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis (→Sandy's edit to the definition: even better) |
imported>Peter Schmitt (→Natural defenses: another suggestion) |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
:::The method by which remedies are selected (i.e., provings) and prepared are irrelevant to the core definition. According to Mr. Ullman, not every homeopathic remedy is given in "homeopathic doses", so let's not overemphasize the small dose issue. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | :::The method by which remedies are selected (i.e., provings) and prepared are irrelevant to the core definition. According to Mr. Ullman, not every homeopathic remedy is given in "homeopathic doses", so let's not overemphasize the small dose issue. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
(unindent)<br> | |||
I suggest something like: | |||
: "A system of alternative medicine, developed around 1800 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on the assumption that self-healing can be stimulated by small doses of substances that cause the same symptoms as those to be treated." | |||
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Rationalwiki == | == Rationalwiki == |
Revision as of 15:58, 20 September 2010
The talk page has been moved to Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13 because of its size.
If you want to continue some topic please copy the relevant excerpts to this new page.
Sandy's edit to the definition
...specifically "help to cure or prevent illnesses involving similar symptoms." While a homeopath will have to review this, I don't think "illnesses involving similar symptoms" is really a homeopathic concept. They certainly object to "diseases with similar symptoms", and tend to reject "disease" as a medical conceit. The symptoms are signals of the body's defenses to be strengthened, not the effects of a causative factor. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're splitting hairs, but, yes, let's hear from a homeopath on this. D. Matt Innis 21:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sandy's new definition is definitely an improvement. D. Matt Innis 21:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- Li'l hard pressed for time. I'm happy with Alexander's definition, but if you guys feel it needs to be simpler, I have a 'simpler definition', which would read:-
(Homeopathy is) an alternative system of medicine, which stimulates the natural healing processes of the body (with the help of sub-physiological doses of a remedy, by using its rebound effect), to restore health (homeostasis) in a sick person.
- The matter in brackets is optional.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Note that it is alternative medicine and not alternate medicine.—Ramanand Jhingade 07:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Li'l hard pressed for time. I'm happy with Alexander's definition, but if you guys feel it needs to be simpler, I have a 'simpler definition', which would read:-
- Unfortunately, "rebound effect" is not a well-defined term, certainly in medicine, so should not be used in a definition unless it is well defined in an article of its own. The alternate definition depends heavily on homeopathic terminology, such as "natural healing processes", as well as using homeostasis is far broader a context than is used in the biological sciences -- to say nothing amout emerging concepts such as allostasis.
- The proposed new definition also overemphasizes the aspect of small doses and does not address the apparent rejection, by homeopathy, of the idea of "disease". Instead, it speaks of "restoring health", without addressing the meaning of the state of non-health.
- Please confirm or correct the statement that homeopaths do not believe in the concept of disease, in the sense that disease has an etiologic cause and the cause needs to be corrected. Howard C. Berkowitz 08:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Howard here, Ramanand, that your version introduces too many vague terms to be considered for use as a one sentence definition. D. Matt Innis 23:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
What about
A system of alternative medicine based on the idea of stimulating the body's natural healing processes by administering tiny doses of substances which, when given in large doses to healthy individuals, cause similar combinations of symptoms.
I agree that Ramanand's definition has some problems, and I think the full version is too long, but it seems to me the point about stimulating natural defenses is central. Sandy Harris 03:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good. I have no problem with replacing your previous version with this new version. D. Matt Innis 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The above comments have been copied from the Archive. --Peter Schmitt 10:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Natural defenses
There is an implicit homeopathic assumption here here that natural defenses are always sufficient, that restoring natural defenses equates to health. From a medical standpoint, that is sufficiently wrong that "natural defenses", or the idea that full health is a matter of restoring defenses, is rather basic. Consider, for example, genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis or hemophilia. The problem, from a medical standpoint, is that the "natural" state is incomplete for health. With genes missing to produce the proteins that produce health in a "normal" person, all the "strengthening" in the world will not strengthen something that isn't there. In severe combined immune deficiency disorder, the most pronmising research to externally insert the gene that encodes the manufacture of the key missing enzyme, adenosine deaminase.
In other words, sometimes the wisdom of the body is pretty damn stupid, and all the strengthening in the world can't replace something that isn't there. It doesn't help explain etiology when etiology can be due to an absent rather than a present cause -- but how else do you talk about sensibly about deficiency and genetic diseases? The evidence that scurvy comes from inadequate vitamin C is overwhelming.
Proposal:
"Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine that holds that good health is achieved purely by strengthening what homeopaths, but not conventional medicine, calls "wisdom of the body" or "natural defenses". Homeopaths further believe that all problems of natural defenses manifest themselves as symptom complexes, and reject the idea that disease has a cause and health is restored by the removal of the cause. They hold that the symptoms show the defenses that need to be strengthened, and their remedies are based on a symptom, not cause, oriented paradigm. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- The definition is supposed to briefly say what homeopathy is. It needs to be short enough to fit into a related articles page. To me, your suggestion fails at those goals; either the current text or my suggestion above seems far better.
- There needs to be discussion of these issues somewhere in the article, perhaps even in the lede, but it does not belong in the definition. Sandy Harris 12:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with both of Sandy's definitions. I hope one of you can make time to correct the definition at the top of this page - it should be alternative and not alternate.—Ramanand Jhingade 15:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Absolute minimum: Homeopathy is a form of alternative medicine that holds that good health is achieved purely by strengthening what homeopaths, but not conventional medicine, calls "wisdom of the body" or "natural defenses", rejecting the medical model that the etiologic cause must be corrected.
- The method by which remedies are selected (i.e., provings) and prepared are irrelevant to the core definition. According to Mr. Ullman, not every homeopathic remedy is given in "homeopathic doses", so let's not overemphasize the small dose issue. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)
I suggest something like:
- "A system of alternative medicine, developed around 1800 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on the assumption that self-healing can be stimulated by small doses of substances that cause the same symptoms as those to be treated."
--Peter Schmitt 21:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Rationalwiki
I hope one of you can write an article on the retionalwiki refuting their allegations about CZ as well as the CZ article on homeopathy.—Ramanand Jhingade 15:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- And why, precisely, don't you do it? I have never read Rationalwiki and have no reason to do so. I certainly won't defend the CZ article on homeopathy, because I frankly wish it were gone. Dr. Jhingade, it really is contrary to the spirit of a wiki to suggest others do what you want done. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)