The thing I like most about being a homeopathic practitioner is the observation process. We all practise in slightly different ways according to our strengths, and whereas some of us are adept at reading body language my strength is in the language that people use when in the homeopathic conversation (reference Brian Kaplan’s book ‘The Homeopathic Conversation’) and out of it. My aim is to empathise with the person’s situation, understand how they think and feel and how their body reflects these.
What puzzles me about scientific papers is that observation is taken out of the process and reduced to statistics which are incomprehesible to the lay person and which are subject to statistical interpretation bias. Observation of effects is impossible and readers of scientific papers are literally ‘blind’ to their sense of the results.
The foundations of the scientific approach are suspicion and doubt: both are deeply negative mental processes. I am told that a good scientist should doubt his results as his first reaction; I would say that this is an unhealthy reaction in most normal situations: someone who doubts his reactions has poor intuition. Someone who is doubtful isolates themselves from experience. Suspicion causes peers to doubt each others results and slows progress.
Then there is the requirement to take an experiment into a laboratory both to control real world contamination and to simultaneously mimic real world conditions. How can it do both?
Skeptics believe that the scientific method is the answer to medical problems, I am unconvinced.
Dr Natasha Campbell McBride says it better than I : http://www.thehealthbank.co.uk/nutrition_articles/blind_and_double_blind.html