The Article:
Scientific Evidence, NASA, and
Homoeopathic Rx
Title:
An Analysis of the Concept Scientific Evidence of Technologies as it Relates to NASA’s TRLs & Technoscience, Medicine, and Homoeopathic Therapeutics.
"Your excellent paper is worth its weight in
gold"
Prof BM
Hegde, Retired Vice
Chancellor, MD, FRCP (Lond.), FRCP (Edin.), FRCP (Glas.), FRCP (Dub.),
FACC (U.S.A.), FAMS
My article on which my oral presentations at the Liga2011 Congress in New Delhi on the 3rd December 2011 is based, has been published in the Homoeopathic Heritage Journal by B Jain Publishers of New Delhi, one of the world's leading publishers of homoeopathic literature. On another note, Prof Hegde's very kind words were only meant to see the light of day in a book on this subject - alas, my energy is being redirected to other endeavours. For that reason, Prof Hegde's words I now use with humble gratefulness.
Nevertheless, the article analyses critically the scientific evidence of technologies using a wide range of institutions. What therefore represents the scientific evidence of therapeutic technologies within the dominant medical system (which I term official medicine)? Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, a very prominent personality in official medicine, made the following astounding statement. He said that "the nature of the evidence which should support the use of therapeutic interventions" is "hotly, and sometimes bitterly, argued." Thus, which evidence truly represents the scientific evidence of a therapeutic technology? Is the "nature" of that evidence represented by the technology's experimental evidence, or by its clinical real-life results which were attained on the basis of sound principles, instead of being achieved by chance? Therefore, of incalculable importance, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins confirms that medical practitioners cannot agree on the 'nature of the evidence' - and when they cannot among themselves on it, how would they respond to homoeopathic therapeutics? Not kindly indeed - it is simply disparaged.
Nevertheless, how does one proceed to establish and confirm the scientific evidence of homoeopathic therapeutics? It became obvious that this problem can never be resolved from within the black box/walls of official medicine, a conviction supported by the wisdom of Albert Einstein - he wrote that the scientist must be an 'epistemological opportunist'. It is essential to avoid the black box of official medicine, as it and homoeopathic therapeutics are incommensurable systems - they have precious little in common. What is not incommensurable between the systems is their employment of the same natural sciences and their products - both are "applied sciences". A decision was made to subject homoeopathic therapeutics to an conceptual analysis by comparing it critically to the principles and standards of the sciences and Technoscience. This was approached with immense trepidation, as the outcome would either have meant immense grief and sorrow when it would have been confirmed that homoeopathic therapeutics is baseless, or bliss and happiness if the research verify that it fulfils the criteria of all the above institutions.
My full article can now be accessed here - please take note that it's a 1,5Mb file. Thanks for your interests in it.
© Dr. HJD Jeggels 2012. Updated December 2013.