As a recent beneficiary of homeopathy, I’m somewhat taken aback by the widespread cynicism surrounding it, sometimes to the point of fanaticism, so I was struck by a possible explanation, given as such, in psychiatrist Ivor Browne’s quite wonderful autobiography, Music and Madness
The passage is from a chapter called The Frozen Moment, and his remark about homeopathy is an aside, but nonetheless arresting for that:
Professor Gary Schwartz, who works in Arizona, has pointed out that in any communication between two things, A and B, a network comes into being and a ‘feed-back’ loop is created. A memory of the relationship is formed and ‘emergent properties’ arise. In this way permanent storage of information can occur, and this can circulate indefinitely. It is not in something or out of something but circulates between both. This storage of information outside the brain happens in all kinds of situations, for example, between one person and another, between the heart and the brain, between cells and atoms, between a substance and the fluid in which it is dissolved.
(This may, for the first time, provide a scientific rationale for how homeopathy can work. Sceptics say that by the time full dilution has taken place, nothing of the original substance remains in the fluid in which it was dissolved and therefore the remedy can have no effect. But if a ‘feed-back’ loop between the substance and the fluid has been established, then the potion could be effective.)
- paperback edition, page 285
So there you have it. You’re still entitled to be sceptical.
Doctors who include homeopaths in their team see clearly that it is complementary to their orthodox practice. The two can and do co-exist to the great benefit of sick people. Does homeopathy always work? Probably not. But I can tell you from long and bitter experience that neither do antibiotics.
*image Wikipedia Commons
Umm….you seem to have a curious understanding of the word ‘scientific’.
“It’s just that those who dismiss homeopathy as quackery without having experienced it are not being scientific themselves.”
Really? How so?
I have tried homeopathy and after I tried it, I dismissed it as useless and a waste of money. Is that “scientific” enough for you? Because actually, trying something for oneself and then deciding that it does or doesn’t work, is scientifically worthless.
There have been hundreds of trials of homeopathy and there is NO good scientific evidence that it works better than placebo. There is a role for placebo in medicine but most doctors prefer not to promote a therapy that is based on prescience ideas we now know to be false and which pretends to be something it isn’t.
As Garry Schwartz is not a scientist, he can be forgiven for not being up to speed on research into water at a molecular level but but his ‘feedback loop’ suggestion is risible.
Thank you, Debby. Nice site
There will be many theories, philosophical discussions, and ideations to understand how homeopathy works. Do we really know how anything works? Really?
Scientists continually find out new information as we learn about the world around us. As people interact they discover more about relationships and new dimensions from outer space to inner space. The universe is dynamic and so are we.
Two things mentioned in your blog make sense to me. One, that two can co-exist. That means more than one theory or approach to understanding and solutions can exist simultaneously. What works for one person may not work for another person. There is more than one path to a solution. The only way to find out is to try. Point two, relates to healthy skepticism and keeping an open mind. A true scientist will actually test a theory, rather than decide on a stance without undergoing extensive testing. And, what about listening to the experience of other people.
Everyone lives with their own perspectives and truths.
Wishing everyone in your family excellent health and quick recovery. I have been there and have survived.
Debby
HomeopathyWorldCommunity