Organon of Medicine §21: A Discussion

Jan Scholten, MD, Servaasbolwerk 13, 3521 NK Utrecht, The Netherlands

In the homoeopathic literature and discussion we often encounter strong dogmatic features. The recent discussions in Homoeopathic Links has given many examples. Sometimes it looks the religious fanaticism. in order to base one's statement one often finds 'Hahnemann has said...'. Open discussion is made difficult this way. Science has to do with arguments and facts, not so much with authorities. Following one example of such a viewpoint, we can make the situation clearer.

Only Proving symptoms

It's often said that the source of our Materia Medica is provings and only provings. We can find this idea in §21 of the Organon (Hahnemann): 'Now, as it is undeniable that the curative principle, and as in pure experiments with medicines conducted by the most accurate observers, nothing can be observed that can constitute the medicines or remedies except that power of causing distinct alternations in the state of health of the human body and particularly in that of the healthy individual and of exciting in him various definite morbid symptoms; so it follows that when medicines act as remedies, they can only bring their curative property into play by means of this their power of altering man's state of health by the production of peculiar symptoms; and that, therefore, we have only to rely on the morbid phenomena which the medicines produce in the healthy body as the sole possible revelation of their in-dwelling curative power, in order to learn what disease producing power and at the same time what disease curing power, each individual medicines possesses.'

Put in more modern language this paragraph looks like: ' The curative power of remedies can only be observed by their actions on human beings; therefore that curative power can only be learned from their action on health humans; this means provings.' It's clear from this paragraph that Hahnemann means that only provings symptoms are the source of Materia Medica. We can conclude from the use of 'only' and 'sole'.

This statement of Hahnemann is often repeated in Homoeopathy. Julian Winston writes:' All of Scholten's work, no matter how interesting and no matter how useful, is not, at this point homoeopathy because we have no provings - only some clinical data'. Heudens repeats this statement often in her seminars. Vithoulkas seems to promote the same idea: 'which means you don't prove a substance. If you prove a substance correctly, I have no problem at all.'

Practice

What is practice in homoeopathy? This is best illustrated with an example. The example is taken from 'Essence of Materia Medica' (Vithoulkas). These essences are used by many homoeopaths with great satisfaction and have become a kind of standard of the essence of remedies. Lycopodium is just taken by chance. When we check which symptoms from this essence are found in provings, we find the following results:

Symptoms not found (particularly not in provings of Hahnemann) are:

coward, inadequate, responsibility, image, friendly, courage, sexual gratification, one night stand, averse marriage, superficial sex, competent, premature ejaculation, intelligent, intellectual, priest, lawyer, teacher, politician, bluff, inferiority, exaggerate, bloating, ego, compensate, admiration, prove, loner, spinster, celibacy, spiritual, obsessed, dictatorial, tyrannical, passive, bolster, lies, fear dark, fear ghost, fear dog, imbecility, senility, emaciation face, emaciation neck, emaciation chest, wrinkled face, wrinkles, hair gray, flapping alae nasi, frigidity, nephritis, stomach ulcer, hemorrhoids, indulgence.

Symptoms found:

impotence, stomach pain, bloating abdomen, timid, fear alone, hypochondriasis, confusion, memory weak, flatulence, desire sweets, desire oyster, empty, liver.

So 52 symptoms cannot be found back in provings; 13 symptoms are found. This means 80% of symptoms in Vithoulkas's Essence are not found in provings. this is quite annoying when homeopathy has to based on provings. Some of the 52 unfound symptoms could be found in the repertory of Kent. But they cannot be traced back to provings as Kent has put a lot of clinical data in his repertory. The conclusion must be that the basic Materia Medica is far away from provings. General keynotes can even be in contradiction with the provings. The word 'left' is more prominent in proving of Lycopodium of Hahnemann, whereas the remedy is known as a right-sided remedy.

This is of course only one example. But the same procedure can be done for many other remedies and for many other Materia Medicas. It's a common experience that most homoeopaths have pictures in mind quite different from the provings. So most homeopath's won't recognize provings read to them. When I read the first page of the proving of Lycopodium to the audience of ECCH conference in Tromso, no one of the 400 homeopath's recognized it. The same happened in two other seminars. This can be attributed to the fact that provings are long listings of symptoms. But the fact that no one recognizes them means that those listings are far away from the pictures those homoeopath's have in mind.

Law of Similars states the efficiency of clinical data

We can also look at the statement of §21 from a theoretical point of view. The law of similars says: a remedy can cure what it can produce. A proving shows what a remedy can produce. Hence provings will show us what a remedy can cure. So proving symptoms and pictures can be used as a Materia Medica.

But the opposite is just as true: a remedy can produce what its can cure. So cured symptoms and pictures can tell us the proving picture. This means that clinical information is just as valuable for our Materia Medica as provings. This is inherent in the law of similars. But the conclusion of §21 is in contradiction with it.

§21 in contradiction with the law of similars

Its even the case that Hahnemann used clinical information to deduce the Law of Similars. He used the information of the curative power of China and compared that with his own proving of China. From similarity between the two, he concluded the Law of Similars. Hahnemann needed both the information of the curative powers of China and the proving power of China to derive the Law of Similars. Its one step further to state that the law of similars can only be deduced by also using clinical curative powers. Without comparing proving pictures with cured pictures, the Law of Similars cannot be deduced. (It would be more correct to use the concept of induction instead of deduction; deduction is a logical derivation from laws and axioms: induction is the generalization from a group of events). So the Law of Similars cannot be derived without using clinical data. The ultimate conclusion of this way of reasoning must be that homoeopaths, which are adhering §21 of Organon are in contradiction with the basic law of homoeopathy. this is so because §21 in itself is in contradiction with the Law of Similars.

How then did Hahnemann reach his conclusion of §21? His assumption was: 'The curative power of remedies can only be observed by their action on human beings.' From this assumption he deduced the conclusion: 'Therefore that curative power can only be learned from their action on healthy humans; this means provings.' In his assumption he speaks about the action on human beings, but in his conclusion he writes on the action on 'healthy'  human beings. So Hahnemann introduces a limitation of the action, first it was on all human beings, later only on healthy human beings. The limitation is introduced suddenly and without explanation. It's not backed up. Hence the deduction is incorrect, the 'therefore' isn't justified. It's a mistake in logic. The conclusion must be that the way reasoning in §21 is incorrect.

Of course there had to be something wrong in §21. The conclusion in it is incorrect, as we've seen before. Hence the assumption or deduction of Hahnemann have to be incorrect.

The Organon contains contradictions

So §21 of the Organon contains an illogical derivation and a statement in contradiction with the basic Law of Similars. If the Organon were seen as just a historical document, that wouldn't be a big problem. But the Organon is often seen as the basic text of homoeopathy. It's often taught in homeopathy schools as the basic homoeopathic theory. The Organon is often treated as a bible.

Some examples can make this clear. Thielens writes: 'Men who follow law should recognize Hahnemann's Organon as the fixed and settled authority and the opinion of one or many as of little value.' Stuart Close wrote (Saravan): 'He onle is "the Master" to whom the first great revelation of truth was made and by whom it was first developed and proclaimed.' Saravan writes: 'The only hero is Hahnemann. Loyalty is to the science and its only master.' From these statements a picture emerges as homoeopathy being a religion and Hahnemann being its prophet. These statements are sectarian, not scientific. A science has no masters, only promoters and developers.

Samuel Hahnemann

So Hahnemann is fallible, not a holy person that couldn't make mistakes, cannot be criticised. i often encounter situations in which I have to defend myself when I criticize Hahnemann. But to me Criticizing doesn't mean that I don't admire Hahnemann. I see Hahnemann as the Newton of medicine. he was the first to give medicine a firm ground and some basic laws whereas before that there were only scattered facts without theory. The same was the situation with Newton. He gave physics a firm basis with his laws of mechanics. But even with the enormous admiration for Newton in physics, no student in physics reads the original works of Newton, with far better ways of displaying his ideas and mathematics. It would even be an insult to stick to the exact writings and reasoning of Newton.

Some biologists, talking to a colleague homoeopath, were astonished that homoeopathy was still using books from two centuries ago as textbooks. How is it possible that homoeopathy still uses such books as the Organon? It is as if homoeopathy hasn't developed since its start. The biologists asked themselves and us how a science didn't evolve in two centuries and is still using the same books. Winston sees the adherence to the Organon as a criterion of 'good' homoeopathy: 'Vithoulkas did not spend much time discussing philosophy or the Organon in his in-person lectures.' But how can we adhere to a book like Organon as our basic textbook, when already in one paragraph there are violations of logic and of all the basic law of homoeopathy? That won't promote a lot of confidence in scientists or the public.

When we desire to seek homoeopathy as a science, then we have to hold to scientific principles. In science, people have no argument value. Facts, and ways of reasoning are the basic statements and arguments. Dogmas of authorities, whether they are Hahnemann or Kent or whoever, have no place in science.

References

1. Hahnemann S., Organon of medicine, Edition 6B, New Delhi, 1985
2. Heudens, seminar note.
3. Saravan, letters to the editor (pg.191), Homoeopathic links, Volume 13, Number 4, 2000
4. Thielens, E., Letters to editors (pg. 71-72), homoeopathic Links, Volume 13, Number 2, 2000
5. Vithoulkas G., The Essence of Materia Medica, New Delhi 1991
6. Vithoulkas G., A man with a mission, Interview with George Vithoulkas, (pg. 202-210), Homoeopathic Links, Volume 12, Number 4,1999
7. Winston J., Homoeopathy Today, Editorial, 2000

Reproduced from Homoeopathic Community Journal Oct-Dec 2002

<< Research & Philosophy