Conflict of interest statement: No conflicts declared
1467-8519/asset/BIOE_left.gif?v=1&s=3b05bc86c343041a1446a18dd409e5a52324e3dc)
1467-8519/asset/BIOE_right.gif?v=1&s=0d433c41384786c9c12157a472a71b210cad5219)
HOMEOPATHY AND EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS – A RESPONSE TO SMITH'S UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT
Article first published online: 17 APR 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2012.01950.x
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Additional Information
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
Publication History
- Issue published online: 14 OCT 2012
- Article first published online: 17 APR 2012
Keywords:
- homeopathy;
- inductive-idiographic method;
- provings;
- holism;
- ultra-high dilutions
ABSTRACT
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.