your definition of science doesn’t have any real currency;

Regarding my definition of scientism, I have tried to find a word so that I can distinguish between what I see as true science the current materialistic flavor of science. My definition is reasonably consistent with the way others have used it. (Definition #2.) But in the end it’s just semantics. The goal is to distinguish between materialistic, reductionistic science, and science that tries to discover the organization of the universe without the materialistic limitations.

I guess I’m not in a position to argue the finer points of Kuhn’s definitions. t’s time to re-read the book. In any case, the bottom line is that I agree that homeopaths don’t really qualify as a scientific community, but most homeopaths feel that homeopathy and natural healing in general belong to a different paradigm – however and by whomever it comes about. By the way, the new paradigm that is spoken of has to do with holistic health, not just homeopathy.

As for your charge of scientism, you have yet to show why my trust is exaggerated. On the other hand, I have already shown why it is well founded.

Anyway, as you say “Back to Kuhn”:

“…I’ve been thinking about homeopaths as a scientific community, and perhaps we do qualify as a loose one. In any case, I feel it is more accurate to say that what we are doing is part of a different scientific paradigm than to say that we are scientists looking to advance that paradigm, at least at this point in time…”

I think you need to be careful, as I have already shown, about these scientific aspirations. From a Kuhnian perspective homeopathy is just too diverse and, as you have already shown, lacks respect for the basic values [pp.184-185] of science.

On a technical point, from Kuhn’s perspective, what you are talking about is a disciplinary matrix, rather than a paradigm.

I still think that we are somehow at crossed purposes on the topic of change in science:

“… it seemed to me that you were ignoring this, by talking about the linear progression of chemistry and physics and saying that homeopathy needed to do the same. Following Kuhn, it needs to go “sideways,” not “forward.” But I do hear your point about just saying that “change happened.” …”

“Linear progression” is your interpretation of what I said; not what I said. As I have already pointed out I made no comment on the manner of change. Neither did I imply any particular mode of change: I have no strong views on whether it is linear, quadratic, exponential or, as Kuhn would have it, discontinuous.

“…Following Kuhn, it needs to go “sideways,” not “forward.”…”

I’d appreciate some clarification on this one. Kuhn’s actual view is that progress is central to science and that this is, in an evolutionary sense, “from” it’s past rather than “to” the truth.

“…As for the 200 years, I have to admit that I’m tired of hearing that used as a kind of evidence, as if after all that time it should somehow have all been worked out. For one, homeopathy took at least 70 years off, when it was suppressed politically and economically, from which it has yet to fully recover. And two, what does a time limit have to do with anything? It will take as long as it takes, with advances and setbacks to come.”

I only raised it as it is commonly cited as positive evidence for homeopathy. Here are some examples:

“…Homeopathy has 4 principles that are its foundation. They remain unchanged over the last 200 years as their truth is demonstrated through successful treatment of the sick…”
wholehealthnow.com

“…Homeopathy is a form of medicine that has been in existence for over two hundred years. Over that time it has survived remarkably unchanged, a testament to its sound principles, as well as to the positive experience of countless thousands of patients…”
Halifax Clinic of Natural Medicine

“… Homeopathy is actually over 200 years old. […] Homeopathy has stood the test of time…”
Discoverhomeopathy FAQ

If we can both agree that it counts neither for nor against, I’m content to leave it there.

However, some philosophers of science would consider this important (c.f. Lakatos; I hope to be blogging about his views in the future).

My definition of scientism is what you have as #2 above, the exaggerated trust. My definition on my website has to do with merging of science and materialism into the current paradigm or dogmatism of science. In my opinion, we have taken the materialistic half of experience and claimed that is the only part open to true science. I find that assumption to be unscientific. It’s ignoring an important part of human experience. But I understand how that seems unscientific to many current scientists.

And yes, I understood my quotation about was about the invisibility of scientific revolutions. My point, maybe not so well made, was that it seemed to me that you were ignoring this, by talking about the linear progression of chemistry and physics and saying that homeopathy needed to do the same. Following Kuhn, it needs to go “sideways,” not “forward.” But I do hear your point about just saying that “change happened.” Well, I think another change will happen, and I believe it will involve taking science into some realms that are currently considered woo-woo, not just making sense out of or disproving woo-woo stuff using current science. That is just my opinion.

you show a lot of faith in homeopathy. It has had 200 years to become an “obvious truth”, yet still the talk is of “promise”. Now, this sounds more like worship to me.

I have a lot of faith in science too. I have experience about what homeopathy can do and I also see some of it’s shortcomings which I feel can be improved upon, so I am optimistic for the future. I think that homeopathy is now at about 10-15% of what it has the potential to do. But as for your comment about worship, there are definitely those who feel that homeopathy is very spiritual. And some who are against that. My own belief is that there is an intuitive, mystical component, but also a scientific component, and the best homeopaths are able to use both where appropriate. By that I mean using intuitions as pieces of evidence. I know that’s vague, but that’s a much longer discussion.

As for the 200 years, I have to admit that I’m tired of hearing that used as a kind of evidence, as if after all that time it should somehow have all been worked out. For one, homeopathy took at least 70 years off, when it was suppressed politically and economically, from which it has yet to fully recover. And two, what does a time limit have to do with anything? It will take as long as it takes, with advances and setbacks to come.

it seems to me that one question homeopaths need to answer is whether they believe in the scientific method. If they do, then they have to answer the obvious questions about how succussion works, the Avrogadro number and so on. If they don’t, they are clearly mumbo-jumbo.

I don’t follow the logic. I believe in the scientific method. I don’t make any chemical claims about homeopathy. Whatever it is, it’s not explainable using a current understanding of chemistry and physics. But it does not follow that it doesn’t work or even that it is mumbo-jumbo.

Having said that, many of us homeopaths do not understand science and do say a lot of mumbo jumbo. My observation has been that some confuse metaphor and fact. Like when we talk about “energy medicine.” (Here is where I made an attempt to explain it.

the problem is that homeopathy as a discipline is trying to have it all ways.

The problem is that homeopathy is partly both ways, and we are trying but have been unsuccessful so far in making good sense of it or explaining it well. I repeated something that we homeopaths like to say in my first comment: homeopathy is both an art and a science. I understand how that can sound contradictory, but this is my experience. I called my blog Woo-Woo Science because that is what healing is to me: part science and part intuition/mysticism/woo-woo. Some homeopaths favor one or the other, but I believe it works best in combination. By the way, I mean “healing,” not “management or suppression of symptoms.” That is also important, but not what I mean.

Homeopathy is a clinical discipline, not a pure science. But it does require cataloguing observations, and homeopaths are trying to make further theories about how homeopathy works and how healing works. When I say, “how it works,” I’m not talking about chemistry or physics, but rather what methods of matching remedy to patient work best.

Maybe a good comparison is to say that homeopathy is like detective work. Part of it is about the methodical collection of evidence, and part of it is playing hunches.

I have no problem with the mystics: as long as the NHS doesn’t waste money on it and they don’t teach it on ’science’ degrees.

The problem is that a strong faction within homeopathy is trying to attach the “science” label to enable them to do both these things; at the same time as showing no respect for the ’scientific method’.

It’s the latter faction I have a problem with. You are right: they need to show that their ‘doctrines’ are both scientifically plausible and clinically effective.

As Woowooscience’ post shows some homeopaths view this attempt as scientism, and actually I have some sympathy with this. If it is just mysticism then a scientific analysis is not appropriate. However, I do think its right to resist the application of science to medicine being characterised in this way.

Anyway, I think you’ve identified the main issue here. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

You said that “…I disagree with the assumption you start with: “implicit in this claim is that their community is scientific.”…”. Well it should be pretty straightforward to see that if someone claims that Kuhn’s philosophy, which is explicitly a philosophy of science, applies to their discipline then they are claiming to be part of science. If you are doing science, in Kuhn’s scheme, this necessarily defines you as part of a scientific community.

However, I am quite happy to accept that this critique does not apply if homeopathy is not science.

Unfortunately you try to have it all ways. After conceding that homeopathy is not a scientific community you say “…Homeopathy is both an art and a science…” Yet of the basic values of science: “…Your “proper respect for evidence and its methods of collection” is just allopathy…” It’s not consistent to denigrate the core values of science and yet claim homeopathy to be, even in part, science. You can’t claim that homeopathy is in part science if it’s not practised by a scientific community (at least holding to Kuhnian definitions). A bit of consistency is called for here.

Claiming that the divisions within homeopathy are not about the thing itself is perverse. Just consider the proliferation of therapeutic schools and the lack of uniform respect for the ‘laws’ of homeopathy. These are disagreements, or inconsistencies, at the core of the field.

You accuse me of “…you are misrepresenting modern science’s relationship with the past, according to Kuhn…” and support this with an entirely irrelevant quotation that you have failed to understand.

The passage you quote comes from the chapter entitled “The Invisibility of Scientific Revolutions”. This should provide a clue: he is discussing why revolutions don’t (or didn’t) appear in the textbooks or histories of science. The point Kuhn makes is that the prevalent incremental, brick-by-brick, model of scientific progress is supported by the history is written up, hiding the revolutions; rather than what actually happened.

So this quote says the reverse of what you want it to say: “In other words, a paradigm shift is not the logical next step, it is just written up that way after the dust settles”; whereas Kuhn is saying that ‘paradigm’ shifts have been written out of history.

Anyway, your point is irrelevant to start with: my examples of change in science do not assume any method of change. All I am saying is that the change occurred: not that it was inevitable or how it happened.

I also notice that you like the word “scientism”. I do wonder what you mean by it. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary offers two choices:

1 : methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist
2 : an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences , and the humanities)

Other sources offer similar definitions.

I’ll happily admit to the first; I think that it would be perverse to attribute the second to anything on this site: applying science to medicine hardly represents an exaggerated trust. If anything it is trust based on outcomes: germ theory, antibiotics, vaccination, the eradication of some diseases, heart surgery, hip replacement etc. There is no other approach to human health that has been anywhere near as successful.

This leads me on to one of the more amazing pieces of rhetoric in your post (and there are plenty to choose from): “…But all that comes from definitions of science and evidence that are based on a particular point of view: a scientistic point of view…”

You have confused science and scientism here; they are two very different things. A simple definition of science, attributed to E. O. Wlison, is “…the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories…” This embodies the basic scientific values of “proper respect for evidence and its methods of collection” that I talk about.

This is science; not scientism. There is no exaggerated trust or encroachment on other areas of knowledge. If this is, in your book, scientism then you really need to define what you would consider to be science (the definition of woowooscience); otherwise all you are offering is empty rhetoric.

Finally, you show a lot of faith in homeopathy. It has had 200 years to become an “obvious truth”, yet still the talk is of “promise”. Now, this sounds more like worship to me.

Homeopathy is both an art and a science. One way to look at homeopathic provings as a scientific version of something previously done by shamans. But call it mystical or call it intuition or just call it the mind’s ability to “mysteriously” identify patterns, that element is still part of homeopathy and it is crippled without it in my opinion.

As for your so-called “scientific homeopathy,” yes, it would vanish. Your “proper respect for evidence and its methods of collection” is just allopathy. Your argument becomes circular: if homeopathy were truly scientific, it would be allopathy, in which case it wouldn’t be homeopathy.

But all that comes from definitions of science and evidence that are based on a particular point of view: a scientistic point of view. It’s the change of that point of view that Kuhn discusses. I disagree with the assumption you start with: “implicit in this claim is that their community is scientific.” I think you are misapplying Kuhn to homeopathy. Homeopathy is not leading a scientific paradigm change, but rather in order to make sense of things like homeopathy, a scientific paradigm change will occur.

And as for what you say is the need for homeopathy “to turn its collective back on its past (like physics has done with astrology and chemistry with alchemy),” what would be needed to follow Kuhn’s theory is for homeopathy to turn it’s back your materialistic scientism. In any case, you are misrepresenting modern science’s relationship with the past, according to Kuhn.

… one strong impression is overwhelmingly likely to follow: science has reached its present state by a series of individual discoveries and inventions that, when gathered together, constitute the modern body of technical knowledge. … One by one, in a process often compared to the additions of bricks to a building, scientists have added another fact, concept, law, or theory to the body of information supplied in the contemporary science text.
But that is not the way science develops. Many of the puzzles of contemporary normal science did not exist until after the most recent scientific revolution. (1)

In other words, a paradigm shift is not the logical next step, it is just written up that way after the dust settles. Moreover, following Kuhn’s thinking, in the future where homeopathy has become an obvious truth, people will see whatever scientific framework in which homeopathy makes sense as being the logical improvement over what you now worship as ”respectful science.“

1. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd Ed, Chapter 11, p. 140.

It’s just a shame that the homeopaths don’t seem to be having this debate themselves.

I entirely agree with you.

Thanks, I appreciate your comment; your blog is a very helpful resource.

Your idea is certainly provocative. Perhaps homeopathy needs to choose to be either scientific or mystic, and not try to keep a foot in both camps.

Both routes have pros and cons: I rather think that if tried to follow my “scientific manifesto” it would wither and die.

It’s just a shame that the homeopaths don’t seem to be having this debate themselves.