Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is Homeopathy a Science?—Continuity and Clash of Concepts of Science within Holistic Medicine

  • Published:
Journal of Medical Humanities Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The question of whether homeopathy is a science is currently discussed almost exclusively against the background of the modern concept of natural science. This approach, however, fails to notice that homeopathy—in terms of history of science—rests on different roots that can essentially be traced back to two most influential traditions of science: on the one hand, principles and notions of Aristotelism which determined 2,000 years of Western history of science and, on the other hand, the modern concept of natural science that has been dominating the history of medicine for less than 200 years. While Aristotle’s “science of the living” still included ontologic and teleologic dimensions for the sake of comprehending nature in a uniform way, the interest of modern natural science was reduced to functional and causal explanations of all phenomena for the purpose of commanding nature. In order to prevent further ecological catastrophes as well as to regain lost dimensions of our lives, the one-sidedness and theory-loadedness of our modern natural–scientific view of life should henceforth be counterbalanced by lifeworld–practical Aristotelic categories. In this way, the ground would be ready to conceive the scientific character of homeopathy—in a broader, Aristotelian sense.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Schmidt, “Merging with the University of California.”

  2. See Coulter, “Divided Legacy”; Schmidt, “Die Entwicklung der Homöopathie.”

  3. See Gypser, “Homöopathie.”

  4. See Schmidt, “Taschenatlas Homöopathie,” 10–19.

  5. Hahnemann, “Gesammelte kleine Schriften,” 461. Hahnemanns definition read: “Homeopathic is what tends to evoke a hómoion páthos, i.e. a similar ailment.”

  6. See Rogers, “An Alternative Path.”

  7. See Schmidt, “Taschenatlas Homöopathie,” 86–95.

  8. See http://www.grundlagen-praxis.de—Click on “News” and “Grundlagendebatte”; Habich, Kösters, and Rohwer, “A step forward.”

  9. See Wichmann, “Defining a different tradition.”

  10. See Fräntzki, “Die Idee der Wissenschaft.”

  11. See Schüppel, “Evidenzbasierte Homöopathie.”

  12. See Gypser, “Homöopathie.”

  13. Mason, “A history of the Sciences.”

  14. Hobbes, “Leviathan,” 13.

  15. Paradigmatic protagonists for seventeenth century’s mathematics were Descartes, Leibniz, and Newton, for eighteenth century’s physics Newton and Huygens, for nineteenth century’s chemistry Dalton and Liebig, and for twentieth century biology Watson & Crick, Eigen, and Eccles.

  16. See Ritter and Gründer, “Naturwissenschaften,” 642.

  17. Kant, “Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft,” A IV–VI.

  18. Bernard, “Introduction a l’etude de la medecine experimentale,” 69 and 80.

  19. Du Bois-Reymond, “Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens,” 6.

  20. Collingwood, “An Essay on Metaphysics,” 33.

  21. Stegmüller, “Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie,” 2, 585.

  22. Mutschler, “Naturphilosophie,” 90–96.

  23. Strawson, “Einzelding und logisches Subjekt,” 175.

  24. Aristotle, “De motu animalium,” 698a27.

  25. Leiber, “Kosmos, Kausalität und Chaos,” 101–104.

  26. Mutschler, “Naturphilosophie,” 133–151.

  27. Spaemann and Löw, “Die Frage Wozu,” 51–78; here 57.

  28. Robert Grosseteste (1168–1253), Roger Bacon (1214–1292), and William of Ockham (1285–1349) may be considered forerunners of modern natural science.

  29. See Shapin, “The Scientific Revolution”; Schreier, “Geschichte der Physik”; Agassi, “Science and Culture.”

  30. See Porter, “The Greatest Benefit to Mankind”; Eckart, “Geschichte der Medizin.”

  31. Schmidt, “Hahnemann’s Concept of Rational Therapeutics,” 81–87.

  32. Jütte, “Samuel Hahnemann.”

  33. Hahnemann, “Organon der Heilkunst” (1842), § 145/1. Until 1833 he used the term “certainty.”

  34. See Schmidt, “Believing in order to understand.”

  35. Schmidt, “Anthropology and Medicine,” 288–296.

  36. See http://www.grundlagen-praxis.de; Habich, Kösters, and Rohwer.

  37. Dinges, “Weltgeschichte der Homöopathie.”

  38. Walach, “Wider naiven Empirismus und verkleidete Machtansprüche,” 72–75.

  39. Foerster and Glasersfeld, “Wie wir uns erfinden”; Glaserfeld, “Konstruktivismus statt Erkenntnistheorie.”

  40. Kuhn, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”; Feyerabend, “Against Method.”

  41. Küppers, “Chaos und Ordnung.”

References

  • Agassi, J., ed. Science and culture (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003).

  • Aristotle. De motu animalium, 698a27.

  • Bernard, C. Introduction a l’etude de la medecine experimentale (1865). Engl. edition (New York, 1957), 69 and 80.

  • Collingwood, R.G. An Essay on Metaphysics (1940) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coulter, H.L. Divided Legacy. The Conflict between Homoeopathy and the American Medical Association. Science and Ethics in American Medicine 1800–1914. 2nd edition (Berkeley, California: North Atlantic Books, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  • De La Mettrie, J.O. “L’homme machine” (1748). Man A Machine (Kessinger Publishing, 2004).

  • Dinges, M., ed. Weltgeschichte der Homöopathie. Länder, Schulen, Heilkundige (München: C.H. Beck, 1996).

  • Du Bois-Reymond, E.H. Über die Grenzen des Naturerkennens (1872). German Standard Edition (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1961), 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckart, W.U. Geschichte der Medizin. 5. Auflage (Heidelberg: Springer, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. Against Method. Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (London: Verso, 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foerster, H. von and E. von Glasersfeld. Wie wir uns erfinden. Eine Autobiographie des radikalen Konstruktivismus (Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-Systeme-Verlag, 1999).

  • Fräntzki, E. “Die Idee der Wissenschaft bei Samuel Hahnemann.” (Heidelberg: Haug, 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaserfeld, E. von. Konstruktivismus statt Erkenntnistheorie. Ed. W. Dörfler and J. Mittlerer (Klagenfurt: Drava, 1998).

  • Gypser, K.H. “Homöopathie. Grundlagen und Praxis.” (München: C.H. Beck, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Habich, K., Kösters, C. and J. Rohwer, ed. A Step forward that makes sense—or a Step back to the days before Hahnemann? An international discussion about modern trends, diversity of methods, and genuine homoeopathy, including contributions, comments, and articles from J. Winston, A. Saine, J. Sheppard, [etc.] and approx. 70 other authors (www.grundlagen-praxis.de).

  • Hahnemann, S. Gesammelte kleine Schriften. Ed. J.M. Schmidt and D. Kaiser. (Heidelberg: Haug, 2001), 461.

  • Hahnemann, S. Organon der Heilkunst (1842). Neufassung. Ed. J.M. Schmidt (München: Elsevier, 2003).

  • Hobbes, T. “Leviathan” (1651). In The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Vol. 3. Ed. W. Molesworth (London, 1839), 13.

  • Jütte, R. Samuel Hahnemann. Begründer der Homöopathie (München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (Riga, 1786), A IV–VI.

  • Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).

    Google Scholar 

  • Küppers, G. Chaos und Ordnung. Formen der Selbstorganisation in Natur und Gesellschaft (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Leiber, T. Kosmos, Kausalität und Chaos. Naturphilosophische, erkenntnistheoretische und wissenschaftliche Perspektiven (Würzburg: Ergon, 1996), 101–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, S.F. A history of the sciences. Main currents of scientific thought (London: Routledge & Kegan, 1953).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutschler, H.D. Naturphilosophie (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 90–96 and 133–151.

  • Porter, R. The Greatest Benefit to Mankind. A Medical History of Humanity from Antiquity to the Present (London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, J. and K. Gründer. “Naturwissenschaften.” In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie. Vol. 6 (Darmstadt, 1984), 642.

  • Rogers, N. An Alternative Path: The Making and Remaking of Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital of Philadelphia (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J.M. “Hahnemann’s Concept of Rational Therapeutics: Principles and Problems.” Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 85 (1992): 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J.M. “Anthropology and Medicine. The Image of Man in Different Therapeutic Approaches.” British Homeopathic Journal 82 (1993): 288–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J.M. “Die Entwicklung der Homöopathie in den Vereinigten Staaten.” Gesnerus 51 (1994): 84–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J.M. Taschenatlas Homöopathie in Wort und Bild. Grundlagen, Methodik und Geschichte (Heidelberg: Haug, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J.M. “Die Entstehung, Verbreitung und Entwicklung von Heilsystemen als Gegenstand der Medizingeschichte—am Beispiel der Homöopathie.” Sudhoffs Archiv 91 (2007): 38–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J.M. “Believing in order to understand: Hahnemann’s hierarchisation of values.” Homeopathy 97 (2008a): 156–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, J.M. “Merging with the University of California: History of the Homeopathic College and Hahnemann Hospital in San Francisco.” Medizin, Gesellschaft und Geschichte 27 (2008b): 173–204.

  • Schreier, W., ed. “Geschichte der Physik. Ein Abriss.” 3. Auflage (Berlin: Diepholz, 2002).

  • Schüppel, R. “Evidenzbasierte Homöopathie (EBH). Irrglaube aus der Schulmedizin oder Gebot der Stunde?” Allgemeine homöopathische Zeitung 248 (2003): 173–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapin, S. The Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaemann, R. and R. Löw. Die Frage Wozu? Geschichte und Wiederentdeckung des teleologischen Denkens (München: Piper, 1985), 51–78; here 57.

  • Stegmüller, W. Hauptströmungen der Gegenwartsphilosophie. Vol. 2 (Stuttgart: Kröner, 1989), 585.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P. F. Einzelding und logisches Subjekt (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1972), 175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walach, H. “Wider naiven Empirismus und verkleidete Machtansprüche—politische und wissenschaftstheo-retische Splitter.” Forschende Komplementärmedizin Klassische Naturheilkunde 11 (2004): 72–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wichmann, J. “Defining a different tradition for homeopathy.” Homeopathic Links 14 (2001): 202–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Geschichte der Medizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Lessingstr. 2, 80336, Munich, Germany

    Josef M. Schmidt

Authors
  1. Josef M. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josef M. Schmidt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, J.M. Is Homeopathy a Science?—Continuity and Clash of Concepts of Science within Holistic Medicine. J Med Humanit 30, 83–97 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-009-9080-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10912-009-9080-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation