User:Leifern/The Problem wiith the Homeopathy Article

The Wikipedia on Homeopathy has long been a morass of attempts to make the article into a polemic, largely based on the beliefs of self-proclaimed quackwatchers.

Those who are seeking to turn the article into a polemic are claiming that, to put it in their own words:


 * With few exceptions, homeopathy is not accepted by medical doctors or scientists. Its claimed efficacy and proposed mechanism of action have not been verified by the standards of modern medicine and the scientific method. But perhaps more importantly, homeopathy contradicts theories on which science and medicine are based. Other aspects of homeopathy defy scientific analysis, being subjectively based and not objectively quantifiable.

Let's set aside for a moment whether homeopathy has any merit or not. This can not be settled in Wikipedia. But this sentence pretty much demonstrates where the polemicists are wrong. Now, taking this sentence by sentence:


 * Homeopathy is not accepted by medical doctors or scientists.

First of all, the weasel words: I think it is true to say that most medical doctors in Western countries do not practice homeopathy. I think it is also true to say that Western medical associations do not advocate homeopathy and tend to refer to studies that assert homeopathy is not efficacious. But I suspect that a large number of medical doctors accept the fact that homeopathy is used by their patients, and also accept the fact that the patients are rational, intelligent human beings who make informed choices. From what I understand, there are a large number of medical doctors in India and other countries that do use homeopathy quite often - I suppose one could argue that these aren't "real" medical doctors or are inferior to Western doctors, but such an assumption should be stated upfront.

As for what scientists accept or don't, it's hard to know. And most medical doctors are not scientists.


 * Its claimed efficacy and proposed mechanism of action have not been verified by the standards of modern medicine and the scientific method.

First, again, weasel words. "Standards of modern medicine." What does this really mean?

Homeopaths would have a big beef with the idea that they don't apply the scientific method. Homeopaths claim that they constantly verify the efficacy of remedies through provings, trials, and clinical experience. The problem isn't in their method, it's in the fact that skeptics think the homeopaths are lying or deceiving themselves. If you're going to assert that homeopathy does not meet the standards of the scientific method, you have to show very clearly how homeopaths evade those standards. And if you're going to say that homeopaths are liars and cheats, say it instead of something else.

As for method of action is concerned, the polemicists are confused about the logic. Homeopaths claim that their knowledge of homeopathy is based on observation, not on theory. The law of similars is based on empirical observation, not on some a priori concept they set out to prove. We can not explain why gravity works, but you'd be foolish to dismiss its existence just because the theory is counter-intuitive. In other words, homeopaths are not looking for observations to prove their theory; they are looking for theories to explain their observations.


 * But perhaps more importantly, homeopathy contradicts theories on which science and medicine are based.

Well, I could be flip here and say that if homeopathy works even though it contradicts science (what, all science?) and medicine, then there is obviously something seriously wrong with the theories and not homeopathy.

What they seem to be specifically talking about is the notion that homeopathy contradicts germ theory by favoring a notion of "vital force" or "vital energy." This is clearly false. I know of no homeopath who would dismiss the role of bacteria, vira, and other microorganisms in illness. Neither do they dismiss the effects of medicine that targets those organisms as a means of treating patients. What they mean by vital force is the notion that our bodies are comprised of systems that will heal themselves. To promote health it is not enough to treat the conditions that disrupt these systems; it is also essential to improve the performance of these systems. I simply can't imagine that a single medical doctor would argue with the notion that our body's systems are self-healing - whether they call that concept "vital force" or something else, it's all the same.