Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared
HOMEOPATHY AND EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS – A RESPONSE TO SMITH'S UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT
Article first published online: 17 APR 2012
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Volume 26, Issue 9, pages 504–505, November 2012
How to Cite
SEBASTIAN, I. (2012), HOMEOPATHY AND EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS – A RESPONSE TO SMITH'S UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT. Bioethics, 26: 504–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01950.x
- Issue published online: 14 OCT 2012
- Article first published online: 17 APR 2012
- inductive-idiographic method;
- ultra-high dilutions
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.