THE LOGIC OF
HOMOEOPATHY
Adapted from THE GENIUS OF HOMOEOPATHY by Stuart Close
Homoeopathy is founded and constructed upon logical
principles and all its processes may be conducted under the principles by t=
he
methods of good logic.
The science of logic exists in two parts – the log=
ic
of form and the logic of reality or truth; or technically, Pure or Formal L=
ogic
and Inductive Logic.
Form=
al
logic takes no account of the matter of reasoning – of t=
he
things reasoned about. Formal logic deals solely with t=
he
form, or skeleton of the reasoning itself. It does not concern itsel=
f in
the least with the truth or falsity of a statement as a matter of fact or
science. Its purpose is to provide the general or symbolic forms which
reasoning must assume in order to insure that the end of a proposition may =
be
consistent with its beginning.
An allopath who gives massive doses of combined drugs up=
on
empirical grounds maybe as consistent, from the standpoint of formal logic =
as
the homoeopath who gives minimum doses of the single similar remedy.
Indu=
ctive
Logic, the Logic of Bacon and Hahnemann, has a higher function
than the Logic of Aristotle, which exists and is used largely for the purpo=
se
of mere argumentation.
Inductive Logic co=
ncerns
itself with facts, with reality. Its primary purpose is the discovery and u=
se
of Truth. The first requirement of Inductive Logic is that the premises mus=
t be
true; the result of true and valid observation of facts, based, if need be,
upon pure experimentation.
Before one proceeds to make deductions, classifications =
and
generalizations, one must be sure of reliable facts. The induction must be
complete, without break from premise to conclusion.
This is ‘Logic of Homoeopathy’.
Not only are the conclusions of homoeopathy consistent with its
premises, but its premises are founded upon Truth.
Homoeopathy is drawn logically, according to the strictest rules of inducti=
ve
generalization, from data, derived from direct observation of facts and pure
experimentation. Every one of its processes, from the conduct of the provin=
g to
the making of a curative prescription is governed by the principles of
inductive as well as deductive logic.
This method was or=
iginated
by Lord Bacon, and set forth in his ‘Novum Organum’. It was further developed by John Stua=
rt
Mill in his great ‘System of Logic’ – it has been the
inspiration, the basis and the instrument of every modern science.
The Inductive Method in Logic is the scientific method t=
hat
proceeds by induction. It requires
=
(1)&=
nbsp;
Exact observation;
=
(2)&=
nbsp;
Correct interpretation of =
the
observed facts with a view to understanding them in relation to each other =
and
to their causes;
=
(3)&=
nbsp;
Rational explanation of =
the
facts by referring them to their real case or law; and
=
(4)&=
nbsp;
Scientific construction; pu=
tting
the facts in such co-ordination that the system reached shall agree with the
reality."
The search for the cause of anything may proceed accordi=
ng
to any one of four methods:
=
(1)&=
nbsp;
Method of agreement, in=
which
a condition uniformly present is assumed to be probably a cause;
=
(2)&=
nbsp;
Method of difference, in=
which
the happening of an event when a condition is present, and its failure when=
a
condition is absent, lead to the assumption of that condition as a cause;
=
(3)&=
nbsp;
Method of concomitant variations
=
(4)&=
nbsp;
Method of residues or of residual variations, wh=
ere
after subtracting from a phenomenon the part due to causes already establis=
hed
the remainder is held due to some other unascert=
ained
cause or to the known remaining causes.
As induction is the opposite of deduction it has been
supposed that the two processes are in some way antagonistic. This is an er=
ror.
They are simply opposite ways of arriving at the same conclusions; two mode=
s of
using the same general process, namely: inference, or inferring. All reason=
ing
is inference, and in the last analysis all reasoning is deductive.
By inductive
reasoning we ascertain what is true of many different things. Our senses
tell us what happen around us and by proper reasoning we may discover the l=
aws
of nature, in consequence of which they happen.
In deductive
reasoning we do the opposite and infer what will happen in consequence =
of
the laws.
Reasoning a priori and a posteriori =
are
not different modes of reasoning, but arguments differing in the character =
of
one of the premises. It is merely a difference of viewpoint. In one we reas=
on
from antecedents, in the other from consequents.
Analysis of the Organon, the
history of homoeopathy and the life of Hahnemann show clearly that homoeopa=
thy
is a product of inductive logic applied to the subject of medicine.
The law of similars was conc=
eived
by Hahnemann to be the general law of medical action.
· =
With this conception as a starting point, Hahnema=
nn
began to investigate. He reasoned that if there was any truth in the
proposition that ‘diseases are cured by medicine that have the power =
to
excite a similar affection’, the only way to determine it scientifica=
lly
would be to give a medicine to a healthy person and observe the effects, si=
nce
a healthy person would be the only kind of a person in whom an affection
similar to disease could be excited. This would give a scientific basis, and
indeed the only possible basis, for a comparison between the symptoms of dr=
ugs
and the symptoms of disease.
· =
Accordingly he began to experiment with cinchona =
bark
upon himself, while translating Cullen's work on Mater=
ia
Medica, where it was highly recommended as a cu=
re for
intermittent fever. Finding his theory strikingly confirmed by repeated
experiments, he began to search medical literature for records of poisoning=
and
accidental cures. Collecting these as a basis for further experiment and
corroboration, he enlisted the aid of a few students and physicians and
continued his experiments upon the healthy, carefully recording all the
phenomena elicited and verifying them in the sick he had opportunity.
· =
After several years of this work he had a collect=
ion
of reliable drug phenomena so large and comprehensive that he felt he could
complete the induction and independently and authoritatively formulate the
general principle which he had so long been working to establish.
This is Hahnemann's chief
contribution to science. He was the first to make a comprehensive induction=
of
medical facts, deduce therefrom the general law=
of
therapeutic medication and establish healing by medication upon a sound bas=
is.
Although Hahnemann's primary conception =
was a
flash of insight or intuition, it was subsequently developed by logical
reasoning and confirmed by a series of elaborate experiments extending over=
a
period of many years, before it was published to the world
The examination of a patient or a p=
rover;
the analysis of the mass of symptoms derived from such an examination; the
classification of symptoms for any purpose; the selection of the remedy and=
the
diagnosis of the disease are all properly conducted under the rules and by =
the
methods of applied logic.
As applied in the examination of a patient, the principl=
es
of inductive logic lead the examiner first to gather all the facts of a case
and to complete each symptom by careful inquiry into its origin, its exciti=
ng
or occasioning cause or causes; its history and duration; its relations to
other symptoms; and its modalities or modifying circumstances and condition=
s.
Logic then, by the processes of analysis, synthesis,
comparison and generalization makes it possible to determine the relative v=
alue
and importance, from the prescriber's standpoin=
t of
every symptom. It thus furnishes the means of discovering "characteris=
tic
symptoms," which are of such importance in the study of the case.
Characteristic symptoms are general symptoms, or
generalizations, inferred or deduced from particular symptoms by the logical
process of generalizing. By generalizing we learn what is true of many
different things; that in which they agree or have in common.
For example – consider the symptoms of Pulsatilla. ‘Aggravation in a warm room or bett=
er in
open air’ is a keynote, a characteristic or a general of Pulsatilla. These terms are used to describe those pe=
culiar
features that characterize the patient as an individual – facts that =
are
true of the case as a whole.
After deducing the general features of a given case or
remedy and logically grouping them, thus determining its individuality, we =
are
in a position to compare it with other similar, related remedies or cases f=
or
classification, selection of the curative remedy, or any other purpose.
The inductive method brings into view the pathological u=
nity
of the symptoms of which diseases consists, enabling us to identify and name
the various forms they take.
If it were necessary only to consider each symptom
separately, without regard to the individuality of the general abnormal
condition that they represent, we might place the symptoms of disease in
numerical order, like words in a dictionary, and select the similar medicin=
e by
a mere a mechanical comparison of symptom with symptom. But in this case we
should be working only with particulars none of which taken singly discloses
the individuality of either, the disease or the remedy.
Every disease is the result of the action upon the living
organism of some definite, specific, individual agent or influence from
without, and the phenomena of its action as a whole take on individualizing
general characteristics. By these we identify, name and classify diseases as
well as medicines. The names pneumonia, diphtheria, measles, smallpox, typh=
oid
fever, and many others, represent pathological forms which are in their
characteristic general features, constant in all ages and countries. They o=
we
their existence to causes, which are constant, although particular symptoms=
and
the conditions of their manifestations may vary in individual cases and at
different periods. Pathological symptoms, in definite diseases, derive their
meaning and relative value from their connection with a definite, general
pathological condition or state, exactly as pathogenet=
ic
symptoms derive their meaning and value from an individual definite drug, t=
he
action of which upon the vital substance they manifest and express.
Logic facilitates the comprehension of the related total=
ity
or picture of the symptoms of the case as a whole. From all the parts, logic
constructs the whole. By generalizing, it assigns each detail to its proper
place and gives concrete form to the case, so that it may be grasped by the
mind in its entirety.
The true totality is more than the mere numerical totali=
ty
or whole number of the symptoms. The ‘TOTALITY’ is that concrete
form that the symptoms take when they are logically related to each other a=
nd
stand forth as an individuality, recognizable by anyone
The practical work of the prescribe=
r
in constructing the totality and selecting the remedy is governed throughou=
t by
the logical principle of individualization.
=
1.&n=
bsp;
The Examination of the Patient – this must =
be
conducted in such a manner as to bring out all the facts of the case. Each
symptom must be rendered complete in the three elements of locality, sensat=
ion
and modality.
=
2.&n=
bsp;
The Examination of the Symptom-Record of the Pati=
ent
– this must be made in such a manner as to determine, in each particu=
lar
case, what symptoms have a counterpart in the Materia<=
/span>
Medica.
=
3.&n=
bsp;
The Examination of the Mater=
ia
Medica – for the purpose of discovering t=
he
remedy that is most similar to the symptoms of the individual patient, at a
particular time.
Generals are more important than particulars in construc=
ting
a case and as a basis of prescribing. The value of a generalization depends
primarily upon the data from which it is drawn.
The attempt to obtain a practical grasp or working knowl=
edge
of Materia Medica b=
y merely
memorizing details or single symptoms will always fail. Symptoms must be so
studied, as to impress upon the mind and memory an image of the individuali=
ty
of the drug as a whole, so that it may be recognized as we recognize any ot=
her
individual or person.
‘Personification’ of remedies by artistic
character delineation is an interesting form of Materi=
a
Medica study. This attempts to bring before the
mind’s eye, the imagination, a picture of the drug in human form.
<=
span
style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial'>
DR.
SUMIT GOEL M.D. (Hom)