HOMEOPATHY has an ‘applied’ as well as a ‘theoretical’ part.
We should approach homeopathy not as ‘applying’ some theories, but making theories for ‘explaining’ what is experienced and applied. Hahnemann developed homeopathy not by making theories first, but by observing and experimenting real objective phenomena of nature, and then making theories to explain what he observed.
Applied part of homeopathy is primary, and it represents the objective reality, where as theoretical part is only a subjective explanation of this objective reality. Even if subjective part is proved scientifically wrong, objective part will remain, because it represents truth. We can explain this objective truth in a different way, more correctly, more rationally and more scientifically. Theory of homeopathy may change, but truth of homeopathy will not change.
What we call ‘theory of homeopathy’ is essentially a SUBJECTIVE explanation hahnemann provided for his OBJECTIVE observations regarding a peculiar kind of relationship between ‘drug and disease’ and the phenomenon of cure on the basis of that relationship. We have to differentiate between these ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ parts of homeopathy
Subjective or theoretical part of homeopathy is bound to have limitations, since it is based on the primitive forms of scientific knowledge available to hahnemann 250 years ago, when modern science was in its infantile stage of evolution.
When scientific community say ‘homeopathy is unscientific’, I will have to agree with that statement, in the meaning that ‘theory of homeopathy’ as it stands today is ‘unscientific’ and ‘scientifically implausible’. Many things in present theory of homeopathy are evidently incompatible with our most advanced and well proven scientific knowledge system.
According to SCIENTIFIC METHOD, anything not explained and proved scientifically are labelled UNSCIENTIFIC.
I do not think everything ‘not scientifically proved’are ‘scientifically implausible’. If something ‘really exists’, it could be and should be scientifically explained and proved in accordance with scientific method. Until that happens, it should not be considered ‘scientifically implausible’.
There are many phenomena which really exists or WORKS, but not ‘still’ scientifically explained or proved. But they are not ‘scientifically implausible’. Many things we NOW call ‘scientific’ were not ‘scientific’ in yesterdays, since they were not explained or proved scientifically. Gravitation, electricity, magnetism and many phenomena existed and worked here for centuries without any scientific explanation or proving- but everybody really experienced it.
My request to scientific community is, do not label or cast aside homeopathy as ‘unscientific’ or ‘scientifically implausible’, only because it is presently explained using most unscientific and scientifically implausible theories. Do not ignore the ‘objective truth’ involved in homeopathy that is being proved through thousands of cures experienced by homeopaths everyday.
At least, wait for a scientific theory of homeopathy to evolve in near future.