© Centre For Excellence In Homeopathy
designed research project must test within the sphere of
that which is being tested. In the context of
Homoeopathy, that means following patients over a
period of time while they are appropriately treated and
managed by the homoeopathic physician. The length of
time necessary for follow-up would depend upon the
type of illness and the remedies involved, as some are
said to take longer than others to begin to work. Who
can say that a patient's good responses to a second
remedy given was not because of the first remedy,
although possibly showing 'little' physical evidence of a
response, actually prepared the patient for the
improvement (one must obviously take into account the
length of time a remedy is said to work for, once it is no
longer given). Such problems as 'proper clinical trials'
are not new to homoeopathy; those who do not study
the past are doomed to repeat its failure.
It is a highly questionable scientific practice to
dismiss a body of significant empirical evidence (such as
homoeopathy) simply because the underlying
philosophy, which rationally interprets such results,
assumes premises foreign to those currently accepted.
[Condensed from the BRITISH HOMOEOPATHIC
JOURNAL, Vol. 72, No 3 July 1983; for private
MEDICINE - A DISCIPLINE BETWEEN ART AND
SCIENCE - Dr Herbert Pietschmann, Professor of
Physics at Vienna University
INTRODUTION: Today, there is again, considerable
discussion as to how far medicine should make use of
scientific methods and as to what should be regarded as
"scientific" method. We are all agreed that medicine is
one of the fields where specifically human aspects also
have to be taken into account. We need to consider in
detail how the concept of "science" has arisen, how it
has evolved, and the advantages and disadvantages it has
brought with regard to our way of thinking, actions and
SCIENCE: Man finds himself facing two classes of
questions: "Questions as to meaning of life, of existence"
and "Questions as to the locus of existence"-- Nature and
Spirit. "Locus of existence" relate to the natural world
around us and also locus of our own self i.e. human
body. "Meaning of existence" call for individual, highly
Science is the attempt to describe nature, in a generally
valid way, so that the description has the same
validity for every individual. It is an attempt doomed to
failure from the fact that every civilization has
developed its own "images of the world", its own
specific description of nature.
The reason for this failure is that spirit and matter, of
meaning and locus of existence cannot be separated. The
individual does not exist within nature merely as an
animal, but, having conscious awareness, also as a
unique, irreplaceable subject, different from all others.
Every human being thus has his own image of the world.
A definition of nature of universal validity is therefore
an absolute impossibility.
Science as we know it in the western world
from the time of Galileo is a radically new approach
in which the two opposites, "individual" and "general",
are combined in synthesis. Galileo established a new
criterion for truth: Truth was only what (in principle)
everyone could test for himself and see to be true. The
means used for this was the experiment. The completely
new element brought in by Galileo had to do not so
much with method as such, but rather with truth and
authority. Galileo's method is useful ONLY for
establishing a general concept of nature. Laws of nature
can never give an answer to questions as to the
meaning of existence.
Galileo's approach was so radical that at first it
was impossible to bring it to realization. Very soon
natural science, initiated to get rid of false authority,
itself became such an authority, presuming to decide on
the basis of theoretical considerations what could be
accepted as fact in nature.
To sum up, let me stress once more that science
is always wrongly used if it is not based on experiment,
but decisions as to the factuality of phenomena are
attempted on the basis of theoretical considerations.
Anything that gives repeatable results open to
examination that do not depend on the individual
experimenter with extraneous factors eliminated to
give a sufficiently clear picture counts as scientific data,
irrespective of whether there is a theory to account for
it. Fitting the data into a construct of theories is
presumption and not a criterion in the sciences.
ART: Artistic activity will always be the activity of a
particular individual. Science tries to analyze the
relationship of man to the things round him, whereas
art always aims for the direct relationship from person
to person. Scientific methods and scientific finds can be