On the scientific status of homeopathy

SS Chibeni
{"title":"On the scientific status of homeopathy","authors":"SS Chibeni","doi":"10.1054/homp.1999.0472","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Critics of homeopathy often claim that it is non-scientific. By offering adequate tools for the analysis of the foundations, structure and implications of scientific theories, philosophy of science can help to clarify this medical controversy. However, homeopathy has not yet attracted the attention of philosophers of science to any noticeable extent. Among the many topics to which philosophy of science could contribute, this paper selects two, not only for their intrinsic importance, but also because they are essential for any fruitful discussion of the rest. It is shown, first, that in homeopathy, as developed by Hahnemann, two related, but distinct theoretical levels can be identified. Then it is indicated that at least one of them—the phenomenological level—can be seen as embodying a largely autonomous research programme, on which homeopathic medical practice can rest. Finally, it is argued that this programme displays the basic theoretical and methodological traits of a genuine science, according to an influential contemporary approach in philosophy of science. Some misunderstandings involved in the debate are pointed out.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100201,"journal":{"name":"British Homoeopathic Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1054/homp.1999.0472","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Homoeopathic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491699904721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Critics of homeopathy often claim that it is non-scientific. By offering adequate tools for the analysis of the foundations, structure and implications of scientific theories, philosophy of science can help to clarify this medical controversy. However, homeopathy has not yet attracted the attention of philosophers of science to any noticeable extent. Among the many topics to which philosophy of science could contribute, this paper selects two, not only for their intrinsic importance, but also because they are essential for any fruitful discussion of the rest. It is shown, first, that in homeopathy, as developed by Hahnemann, two related, but distinct theoretical levels can be identified. Then it is indicated that at least one of them—the phenomenological level—can be seen as embodying a largely autonomous research programme, on which homeopathic medical practice can rest. Finally, it is argued that this programme displays the basic theoretical and methodological traits of a genuine science, according to an influential contemporary approach in philosophy of science. Some misunderstandings involved in the debate are pointed out.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
论顺势疗法的科学地位
顺势疗法的批评者经常声称它是不科学的。通过提供适当的工具来分析科学理论的基础、结构和含义,科学哲学可以帮助澄清这一医学争议。然而,顺势疗法还没有引起科学哲学家的注意。在科学哲学可以贡献的众多主题中,本文选择了两个,不仅因为它们的内在重要性,而且因为它们对于任何富有成效的讨论都是必不可少的。首先,在Hahnemann发展的顺势疗法中,可以确定两个相关但不同的理论水平。然后指出,其中至少有一个——现象学层面——可以被视为体现了一个很大程度上自主的研究计划,顺势疗法的医疗实践可以依赖于此。最后,本文认为,根据当代科学哲学的一种有影响的方法,该方案显示了一门真正科学的基本理论和方法特征。指出了辩论中涉及的一些误解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Book Reviews Research for whom? Treatment for hyperactive children: homeopathy and methylphenidate compared in a family setting Our new title: Homeopathy Homeopathy in acute otitis media in children: treatment effect or spontaneous resolution?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1