HOMEOPATHY AND EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS – A RESPONSE TO SMITH'S UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT
Kevin Smith's utilitarian argument against homeopathy1 is flawed because he did not review and refute the relevant basic science literature on ultra-high dilutions. He also failed to appreciate that allopathic medicine is based on a deductive-nomothetic method and that homeopathic medicine is b...
| 1. VerfasserIn: | |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2012
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Jahr: 2012, Band: 26, Heft: 9, Seiten: 504-505 |
| weitere Schlagwörter: | B
inductive-idiographic method
B Holism B ultra-high dilutions B provings B Homeopathy |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Zusammenfassung: | Kevin Smith's utilitarian argument against homeopathy1 is flawed because he did not review and refute the relevant basic science literature on ultra-high dilutions. He also failed to appreciate that allopathic medicine is based on a deductive-nomothetic method and that homeopathic medicine is based on an inductive-idiographic method, and thus that the implications for clinical research are very different. His misunderstanding of provings and of the holism of homeopathic medicine also demonstrated his failure to understand the history, philosophy and method of homeopathy. Finally, I questioned the value of introducing ethical judgment into an ongoing scientific debate. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01950.x |