South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

December 14, 2019, 09:12:31 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the posting guidelines before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

Which one is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?

 (Read 21542 times)
Description: Comparison
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« on: July 17, 2008, 21:53:56 PM »

In allopathy, new medicines (sources are mostly chemical/synthetic) are constantly being created, tested in test-tubes, sick persons, or animals (rats), and going in and out of market every few years once their side effects (typical examples are of steroids, antibiotics, hormones) become obvious to the general public. How many allopathic drugs of yesterday can be found on the chemists' shelves today? They all had their day, and their alluring names have faded into oblivion (because they are declared ineffective or dangerous), only to be replaced by newer drugs.

Homeopathic medicines (prepared from many natural substances such as herbs and minerals) used in the times of Dr. S. Hahnemann (200 yrs back) are used even today because of their efficacy. They have been tried and tested on healthy human beings. They are known, trusted, and reliable.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2008, 22:28:02 PM »

So, which one is more scientific by your reckoning?

'Luthon64
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2008, 05:37:22 AM »

Happy Birthday to Nelson Mandela
Logged
Tweefo
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +10/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 1551



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 19, 2008, 15:00:28 PM »

Happy Birthday? I am sure you can answer the question better than that, can't you? We are all waiting.....
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 21, 2008, 14:55:55 PM »

Homeopathic medicines (prepared from many natural substances such as herbs and minerals) used in the times of Dr. S. Hahnemann (200 yrs back) are used even today because of their efficacy. They have been tried and tested on healthy human beings. They are known, trusted, and reliable.
Chicken and vegetable soup (prepared from many natural substances such as herbs and minerals) used in the times of Dr. S. Hahnemann (200 yrs back) are used even today because of their efficacy. They have been tried and tested on healthy human beings. They are known, trusted, and reliable.
Tongue

Honestly, is this your best argument? Come on, I'm sure you and the other homeopathic "Drs." can do better than this. Do you need another 200 years?
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 21, 2008, 18:23:06 PM »

So, which one is more scientific by your reckoning?

'Luthon64

Obviously Homeopathy
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #6 on: July 21, 2008, 19:04:10 PM »

In answer to the question which Dr. Nancy Malik stated at the beginning; "Which one is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?" I think that the answer lies in Moonflake's article about homoeopathy.

The answer is neither.  Modern (or conventional) medicine is not allopathy (at least it is not the allopathy which Dr. Hahnemann identified).  The label which Hahnemann introduced was to highlight the difference between the medical theory of his day (which was about the balancing of humors) and his new medical hypothesis.  Modern medicine has nothing to do with the balancing of humors.  Homoeopaths today who label all non-homoeopathic medicine as "allopathy" are introducing a kind of false dichotomy and, as Moonflake pointed-out, it only reveals their ignorance of their own history.

Ironically, Dr. Nancy posted a comment immediately after Moonflake's blog post (having obviously not read the post) further indicating ignorance by labeling modern medicine as "CAM".

But I hear some of you complaining about the difference between original use of a word and commonly accepted use of the same word, and yes, it's true that the current common understanding of the word is that "allopathic = non-homoeopathic".  Consider that re-hydration is a form of medical treatment for dehydration which is (strictly speaking) not homoeopathic, it was not discovered by homoeopaths and it is against the principle of "like cures like".  The homoeopath may argue that the most effective treatment for dehydration is salt in homeopathic dilution, but this too is false; the most effective treatment is a carefully balanced solution of electrolytes in water which is more readily absorbed by the body.  Could this be labeled allopathy? Yes. Would Homoeopaths turn their back on this form of treatment?

I'd like to protest against the orginal thread title.  Pointless, I know but I agree with Moonflake that it shows a lack of understanding of the history of the debate and at the very least perpetautes the distortion of the term "allopathy".  Half-heatedly, of course, I just wanted a bit of attention really.  Cheesy


Anyway, I see that you have returned Dr. Nancy (that prompted a hasty rewriting of this post - deleting so much speculation).  I'm glad to see that you are back to answer your critics, however the post that you have left does not help in the slightest to enlighten us about in what way homoeopathy is scientific.  I do appreciate that it must have taken a huge amount of self control not to add the statement "because I said so", but the answer you have provided is a conclusion from absolutely no premises.  Drawing a conclusion from no premises and no logical deductions of those premises allows all kinds of entertaining arguments ("Is the moon orbiting the Earth? .... TEA CUP!!") but they are equally useless.  Where is the evidence of your position?  We will not accept the linking to all sorts of diverse conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma" as evidence in the case of this particular discussion.  Note that proving conventional medicine as being unscientific (should you choose that route) will not automatically make homoeopathy scientific (there's that false dichotomy again).

If homoeopathy is scientific then it must follow the scientific method.  That's a massive hint.  Prove to us that homoeopathy follows the scientific method, it's the first step in constructing a logical argument.  Then enlighten us about what else would be required to consider homoeopathy scientific.  And finally once we have all accepted that homoeopathy is scientific (and because I assume you are looking for an "exclusive or" type of answer to your question here) go on to prove that modern medicine is not scientific.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 21, 2008, 22:11:17 PM »

Good post, AAH, but largely lost on its most important target, I fear.  A brief review of Dr. Nancy Malik’s output should make it clear that she’s not here to debate; she’s here to pontificate, her religion being homoeopathy.



Obviously Homeopathy
How is that “obvious” from the scant-to-non-existent material you have provided?

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 22, 2008, 01:07:28 AM »

I'd like to protest against the orginal thread title.  Pointless, I know but I agree with Moonflake that it shows a lack of understanding of the history of the debate and at the very least perpetautes the distortion of the term "allopathy".  Half-heatedly, of course, I just wanted a bit of attention really.  Cheesy
Not pointless at all. In fact you make your point very adequately. Nancy's insistent use of the misapplied term allopathy for conventional medicine has bugged me from the start, but in this case, I quite enjoy the irony of the title - even though I'm pretty sure it was not intended. Wink
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 22, 2008, 21:18:15 PM »

In answer to the question which Dr. Nancy Malik stated at the beginning; "Which one is more scientific: Allopathy or Homeopathy?" I think that the answer lies in Moonflake's article about homoeopathy.

The answer is neither.  Modern (or conventional) medicine is not allopathy (at least it is not the allopathy which Dr. Hahnemann identified).  The label which Hahnemann introduced was to highlight the difference between the medical theory of his day (which was about the balancing of humors) and his new medical hypothesis.  Modern medicine has nothing to do with the balancing of humors.  Homoeopaths today who label all non-homoeopathic medicine as "allopathy" are introducing a kind of false dichotomy and, as Moonflake pointed-out, it only reveals their ignorance of their own history.

Ironically, Dr. Nancy posted a comment immediately after Moonflake's blog post (having obviously not read the post) further indicating ignorance by labeling modern medicine as "CAM".

But I hear some of you complaining about the difference between original use of a word and commonly accepted use of the same word, and yes, it's true that the current common understanding of the word is that "allopathic = non-homoeopathic".  Consider that re-hydration is a form of medical treatment for dehydration which is (strictly speaking) not homoeopathic, it was not discovered by homoeopaths and it is against the principle of "like cures like".  The homoeopath may argue that the most effective treatment for dehydration is salt in homeopathic dilution, but this too is false; the most effective treatment is a carefully balanced solution of electrolytes in water which is more readily absorbed by the body.  Could this be labeled allopathy? Yes. Would Homoeopaths turn their back on this form of treatment?

I'd like to protest against the orginal thread title.  Pointless, I know but I agree with Moonflake that it shows a lack of understanding of the history of the debate and at the very least perpetautes the distortion of the term "allopathy".  Half-heatedly, of course, I just wanted a bit of attention really.  Cheesy


Anyway, I see that you have returned Dr. Nancy (that prompted a hasty rewriting of this post - deleting so much speculation).  I'm glad to see that you are back to answer your critics, however the post that you have left does not help in the slightest to enlighten us about in what way homoeopathy is scientific.  I do appreciate that it must have taken a huge amount of self control not to add the statement "because I said so", but the answer you have provided is a conclusion from absolutely no premises.  Drawing a conclusion from no premises and no logical deductions of those premises allows all kinds of entertaining arguments ("Is the moon orbiting the Earth? .... TEA CUP!!") but they are equally useless.  Where is the evidence of your position?  We will not accept the linking to all sorts of diverse conspiracy theories about "Big Pharma" as evidence in the case of this particular discussion.  Note that proving conventional medicine as being unscientific (should you choose that route) will not automatically make homoeopathy scientific (there's that false dichotomy again).

If homoeopathy is scientific then it must follow the scientific method.  That's a massive hint.  Prove to us that homoeopathy follows the scientific method, it's the first step in constructing a logical argument.  Then enlighten us about what else would be required to consider homoeopathy scientific.  And finally once we have all accepted that homoeopathy is scientific (and because I assume you are looking for an "exclusive or" type of answer to your question here) go on to prove that modern medicine is not scientific.


Allo means opposite. Conventional medicine nature is opposite to the disease nature that is to suppress the diase furhter deeper in to the body. Homeopathy is based on likes cures like. You may not like the word but you can not ignore the fact.

Would you define for us what is science?

How scientific it is, see for yourself: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/68065/?page=entire
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2008, 00:10:19 AM »

Allo means opposite. Conventional medicine nature is opposite to the disease nature that is to suppress the diase furhter deeper in to the body.

There are many examples of conventional medication which is not "opposite" to the "disease nature".  One example would be vaccines which do not attack the disease (because the person is not infected at the time of vaccination) but rather the prophylaxis "trains" the body how to deal with the disease when it does come across it.  Then there are fertility drugs; what are those surpressing?

You may not like the word but you can not ignore the fact.

My personal dislike of any particular word has nothing to do with this.  As a matter of fact I don't dislike the word "allopathy", it's got some letters arranged in a unique way and the vowels are outnumbered by consonants and it involves many different oral motions we use when pronouncing other words. By this, I mean that it is a perfectly ordinary word.  There is nothing to dislike about it.  However, where I must raise my objection is in the incorrect usage of the word. 

Would you define for us what is science?

So you are asking me to prove your point?  You should tell me what you understand by the term "scientific" and then prove how homoeopathy agrees with your definition.  Perhaps take the proffered hints from my previous post and try discover what the definition of "scientific" is for yourself.  At the very least I might get you to read something other than a homoeopathy conspiracy theory for once (shock! horror!), perhaps something like an encyclopaedia?

How scientific it is, see for yourself: http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/68065/?page=entire

I can also link to arbitrary articles, see for yourself: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/baby-death-call-for-homeopath-rules/2007/11/19/1195321684868.html

The article that you provided is a good start, but it is quite long.  You are not engaging in a discusion with us, your primary tactic appears to be answering specific questions with vague references to mountains of text.  We spend a long time writing these questions and you spend minutes just adding a line or two in reply and linking to another article.  That is neither demonstrating your understanding of the question nor is it displaying your knowledge on the subject.

Perhaps put the best argument in your own words.  Within your own phrasing of the proof, indicate quoted sections from articles which support your argument, but specific portions of text, not the whole thing.  Traditionally, a reference would be to a page in a textbook, but with many websites you have provided in the past the entire text is on one page, making it an arduous task to read through all of the text and guess which particular statement or paragraph is related to your point.

In the case of the article you linked to here, I need more time to take apart the logical fallacies which hold it together.  You have to understand that I might not have enough time to complete this until the weekend because I do have to work, but I will post pieces as I have time.  I would like it if you would comment on where you see my analysis being wrong.  That is the start of a discussion.

As a quick start, just a few thoughts:
And yet, strangely enough, whatever has been in vogue in conventional medicine in one decade has been declared ineffective, dangerous, and sometimes barbaric in the ensuing decades.

There is some truth here, although perhaps a bit hyperbolic to label medication as "barbaric".  Outmoded surgery (like the leukotomy) I can understand, but which medication was labeled "barbaric"?  Okay but the main point here is that scientists found the next generation of medication to replace the less-effective predecessor (not the ineffective predecessor).  It was not homoeopaths who revealed that any particular medication was better suited to curing an ailment, thus promoting the replacement of the predecessor.  This is not surprising, it is scientific progress.  I wouldn't trust modern medicine if it was still doing the all the same things it was doing 200 years ago, that is the hallmark of something being non-progressive and nonscientific.

Surprisingly, despite this pattern in history, proponents and defenders of "scientific medicine" tend to have little or no humility, continually asserting that today's cure is truly effective.

I would like to know which treatment is "truly effective" and who said that.  The sciences are always changing, we learn new and better ways of doing things all the time.  There was a point in history when the arrogance of scientists lead to the assertion about 130 years ago that, bar one or two minor details, everything had been solved.  This was at a time before knowledge of the big bang, relativity, genetics and psychology (to name a few).  It is partly because of this minor embarrassment (and mostly because of the advent of the Philosophy of Science) that scientists no longer state that anything is the final answer.  This allows medical scientists to have an open mind about future treatments which have an equal opportunity to become the next "best treatment" as long as the treatment is proven to work.

The good news about conventional medicine and one of its remarkable features for which it should be honored is its history of consistently and repeatedly disproving its own treatments.

Err, I covered that, but it seems that the author prefers hostile wording.

The fact that only a handful of conventional drugs have survived thirty or more years is strong testament to the fact that conventional medicine is honorable enough to acknowledge its mistakes.

Wow, my pharmacist is a magician; he can make a "handful" of medication look like a huge stock.  There are something like four people moving in and out of the shelves back there and even with all that movement the illusion is flawless.  Must be mirrors.  I suppose that pharmacists must be illusionists, how else would they be able to do that?

Okay, that's only two paragraphs from the thirty seven or so~ in the text. I will have to return to this when the "sarky" tone subsides, and I promise I will also name those fallacies on the weekend.
Logged
Dr. Nancy Malik
Medical Doctor of Homeopathy
Jr. Member
**

Skeptical ability: +0/-11
Offline Offline

Posts: 87



nancymalik dr.nancy.malik DrNancyMalik
WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2008, 08:12:31 AM »

The article that you provided is a good start, but it is quite long.  You are not engaging in a discusion with us, your primary tactic appears to be answering specific questions with vague references to mountains of text.  We spend a long time writing these questions and you spend minutes just adding a line or two in reply and linking to another article.  That is neither demonstrating your understanding of the question nor is it displaying your knowledge on the subject.

Perhaps put the best argument in your own words.  Within your own phrasing of the proof, indicate quoted sections from articles which support your argument, but specific portions of text, not the whole thing.  Traditionally, a reference would be to a page in a textbook, but with many websites you have provided in the past the entire text is on one page, making it an arduous task to read through all of the text and guess which particular statement or paragraph is related to your point.

In the case of the article you linked to here, I need more time to take apart the logical fallacies which hold it together.  You have to understand that I might not have enough time to complete this until the weekend because I do have to work, but I will post pieces as I have time.  I would like it if you would comment on where you see my analysis being wrong.  That is the start of a discussion.

As a quick start, just a few thoughts:
And yet, strangely enough, whatever has been in vogue in conventional medicine in one decade has been declared ineffective, dangerous, and sometimes barbaric in the ensuing decades.

There is some truth here, although perhaps a bit hyperbolic to label medication as "barbaric".  Outmoded surgery (like the leukotomy) I can understand, but which medication was labeled "barbaric"?  Okay but the main point here is that scientists found the next generation of medication to replace the less-effective predecessor (not the ineffective predecessor).  It was not homoeopaths who revealed that any particular medication was better suited to curing an ailment, thus promoting the replacement of the predecessor.  This is not surprising, it is scientific progress.  I wouldn't trust modern medicine if it was still doing the all the same things it was doing 200 years ago, that is the hallmark of something being non-progressive and nonscientific.

Surprisingly, despite this pattern in history, proponents and defenders of "scientific medicine" tend to have little or no humility, continually asserting that today's cure is truly effective.

I would like to know which treatment is "truly effective" and who said that.  The sciences are always changing, we learn new and better ways of doing things all the time.  There was a point in history when the arrogance of scientists lead to the assertion about 130 years ago that, bar one or two minor details, everything had been solved.  This was at a time before knowledge of the big bang, relativity, genetics and psychology (to name a few).  It is partly because of this minor embarrassment (and mostly because of the advent of the Philosophy of Science) that scientists no longer state that anything is the final answer.  This allows medical scientists to have an open mind about future treatments which have an equal opportunity to become the next "best treatment" as long as the treatment is proven to work.

The good news about conventional medicine and one of its remarkable features for which it should be honored is its history of consistently and repeatedly disproving its own treatments.

Err, I covered that, but it seems that the author prefers hostile wording.

The fact that only a handful of conventional drugs have survived thirty or more years is strong testament to the fact that conventional medicine is honorable enough to acknowledge its mistakes.

Wow, my pharmacist is a magician; he can make a "handful" of medication look like a huge stock.  There are something like four people moving in and out of the shelves back there and even with all that movement the illusion is flawless.  Must be mirrors.  I suppose that pharmacists must be illusionists, how else would they be able to do that?

Okay, that's only two paragraphs from the thirty seven or so~ in the text. I will have to return to this when the "sarky" tone subsides, and I promise I will also name those fallacies on the weekend.


I am sorry that you have to work hard to pinpoint exactly. I will ensure it to be as closest to the point of reference.

At the time of father of homeopathy, there were around 100 medicines. Now, 200 years afterwards the research in homeopathy has leads to 30 times more medicines. So homeopathy is evolving scientifically.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2008, 10:30:08 AM »

You are not engaging in a discusion with us, your primary tactic appears to be answering specific questions with vague references to mountains of text.  We spend a long time writing these questions and you spend minutes just adding a line or two in reply and linking to another article.  That is neither demonstrating your understanding of the question nor is it displaying your knowledge on the subject.
The very kernel, indeed, of all that is wrong here.  It is a mark of supreme arrogance and disdain for one’s opponent’s proficiency to meet legitimate objection with nothing more than curt misdirection and obfuscation.

With that in mind, back into the fray…

'Luthon64
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +62/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3757


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2008, 10:34:05 AM »

At the time of father of homeopathy, there were around 100 medicines. Now, 200 years afterwards the research in homeopathy has leads to 30 times more medicines. So homeopathy is evolving scientifically.
At the risk of pre-empting AAH’s no doubt well considered reply, I must ask you Dr. Nancy Malik please to provide a comprehensive list of recognised clinical conditions that were identified, classified and for which diagnostic procedures were specified by homoeopaths.

Please read that request again carefully.

Because I have reason to suspect that you are being inordinately and quite consciously deceitful here.  The vast majority of such clinical conditions, if not all of them, were catalogued by conventional, that is evidence-based, medicine.  Homoeopathy’s Materia Medica has grown in sympathy with conventional medicine’s advances in knowledge, the growth in general affluence that has people attending to less immediate and/or less life-threatening ailments, as well as the phenomenal growth in world population.  Therefore, to label such growth “scientific evolution” is an egregious misuse of both concepts.

'Luthon64
Logged
ArgumentumAdHominem
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +6/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 134


This husk is no longer used


« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2008, 13:28:22 PM »

At the risk of pre-empting AAH’s no doubt well considered reply, I must ask you Dr. Nancy Malik please to provide a comprehensive list of recognised clinical conditions that were identified, classified and for which diagnostic procedures were specified by homoeopaths.
I think that your question goes directly to the heart of the matter and I don't mind being pre-empted for such a revealing question.

I would like to echo the request for an answer to this question.  Please, Dr. Malik, carefully consider 'Luthon's question before answering.  I imagine that the research into this matter may take a little time, so I (for one) am prepared to wait a few days (should you need that time) to research the matter.  But I am very eager for your reply and I hope that you do not disappear for a few days and then stop participating in this forum before providing an answer.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 1.671 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page April 24, 2019, 04:09:48 AM
Privacy Policy