Comparison of Classical Homeopathic Methodology and Scholten's Theories
Critically evaluate one homeopathic methodology of your choice and compare it with the classical model. Give an account of the assumptions underpinning the method. Briefly discuss possible clinical situations where this method could be indicated and appropriate.
In Aphorism 21 Hahnemann wrote that it is “undeniable that the curative principle in medicines is not in itself perceptible” and that therefore we should “rely on the morbid phenomena which the medicines produce in the healthy body as the sole possible revelation of their in-dwelling curative power”. (Hahnemann, 2001)
Although it is possible that here Hahnemann was referring only to the “Doctrine of Signatures” (whereby it is considered that the shape of the plant reveals its medical properties) since he wished to promote the integrity of medical science, it has been argued that this Aphorism should also be applied to Jan Scholten’s theories regarding the Periodic Table and that therefore the use of remedies using Scholten’s methods cannot be considered homeopathy. (Habich et al, 2003).
Scholten advocates the use of compounds on which there have been no more than ‘meditative’ or ‘dream’ provings as opposed to physical provings. However although Scholten’s work on the periodic table has not promoted the use of physical provings; he originally studied both chemistry and philosophy (for two and three years respectively) and has applied logic to draw a picture of the homeopathic properties of all cations and anions using the periodic table and the compounds which they make.
Scholten’s work is based on key concepts rather than the individual symptoms from a proving and in his book Homeopathy and Minerals he describes a process called ‘Group Analysis’. In group analysis all the common symptoms in a family of salts or cations, (such as potassium), or anions (such as the carbonates, chlorides, phosphates and sulphates), are extracted and grouped together.
This way of looking at a remedy is in line with
In Aphorism 21 Hahnemann wrote that it is “undeniable that the curative principle in medicines is not in itself perceptible” and that therefore we should “rely on the morbid phenomena which the medicines produce in the healthy body as the sole possible revelation of their in-dwelling curative power”. (Hahnemann, 2001)
Although it is possible that here Hahnemann was referring only to the “Doctrine of Signatures” (whereby it is considered that the shape of the plant reveals its medical properties) since he wished to promote the integrity of medical science, it has been argued that this Aphorism should also be applied to Jan Scholten’s theories regarding the Periodic Table and that therefore the use of remedies using Scholten’s methods cannot be considered homeopathy. (Habich et al, 2003).
Scholten advocates the use of compounds on which there have been no more than ‘meditative’ or ‘dream’ provings as opposed to physical provings. However although Scholten’s work on the periodic table has not promoted the use of physical provings; he originally studied both chemistry and philosophy (for two and three years respectively) and has applied logic to draw a picture of the homeopathic properties of all cations and anions using the periodic table and the compounds which they make.
Scholten’s work is based on key concepts rather than the individual symptoms from a proving and in his book Homeopathy and Minerals he describes a process called ‘Group Analysis’. In group analysis all the common symptoms in a family of salts or cations, (such as potassium), or anions (such as the carbonates, chlorides, phosphates and sulphates), are extracted and grouped together.
This way of looking at a remedy is in line with
References: Habich, K. K. (2003). Magic or Science? Allgenmein Homoopathische Zeitung , AHZ Vol 248. Hahnemann, S. (2001). Organon of Medical Arts. California: Birdcage Press LLC. McTaggart, J. (n.d.). The proof is in the pudding: An exploration of Jan Scholten’s element theory. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from www.mctaggarthomeopathy.co.uk: http://www.mctaggarthomeopathy.co.uk/downloads/Lanthanides_article_web.pdf Scholten, J Scholten, J. (2008, September). Dogmatism in Homeopathy. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from www.interhomeopathy.org: http://www.interhomeopathy.org/fr-dogmatism-in-homeopathy Scholten, J Scholten, J. (2007, October). Provings_Theory of /2. Retrieved May 3, 2011, from www.interhomeopathy.org: http://www.interhomeopathy.org/fr-provings_theory-of-2 Scholten, J Scholten, J. (2005). Secret Lanthanides . Utrecht: Stichting Alonnissos. Scholten, J. (2007). Stages as a Universal Principle for Differentiation. Homeopathic links , 24-27. Vithoulkas, G. (1991). Essences of Materia Medica. New Dehli: B. Jain. Watson, I. (2004). A guide to Homeopathic Methodologies. Kendal: Cutting Edge Publications.