3 ms·

> The practice relies on two false principles: the "law of similars," aka "like cures like," meaning a substance that causes a specific symptom in a healthy pe

> The practice relies on two false principles: the "law of similars," aka "like cures like," meaning a substance that causes a specific symptom in a healthy person can treat conditions and diseases that involve that same symptom, and the "law of infinitesimals," which states that diluting the substance renders it more potent. These "principles" are actually true sometimes, to a certain extent in specific cases. Vaccines, for example, or hormesis. Similarly, bloodletting as practiced in the Middle Ages was actually the right treatment for a few specific diseases. But when these concepts become disconnected from empirical reality and turn into sacred doctrine, that's when the trouble starts.

hn_acker 3y ago
>> The practice relies on two false principles: the "law of similars," aka "like cures like," meaning a substance that causes a specific symptom in a healthy person can treat conditions and diseases that involve that same symptom, and the "law of infinitesimals," which states that diluting the substance renders it more potent. > These "principles" are actually true sometimes, to a certain extent in specific cases. Vaccines, for example, or hormesis. You're being too charitable with "true sometimes", in my opinion. I've unbent a paper clip into a nearly straight strip of aluminum before. The result was a "paper clip" in name and origin only. I would call it a "paper clip" for convenience, and I might jokingly consider it a paper clip "to a certain extent". But calling the strip a paper clip wouldn't be useful unless I were to describe it as "a paper clip if I bend it back into the original shape". The "law of similars" and the "law of infinitesimals" as described by the article are like the straightened "paper clip": understandable generalizations from a practical truth, but too far from the initial practical truth for "true sometimes" to be a useful rule of thumb. (It is useful, however, to find out how a useless "principle" came about.) A vaccine is not a cure. It's training for the immune system. The response to small amounts of a harmful substance can prepare the body to respond more quickly and/or more correctly to a future exposure. Giving yourself a vaccine while you're already infected with the virus would have little benefit if any. I could call a vaccine a cure "to some extent" if I wanted to be broad with my definitions, but would it be useful to do so? Not to me, so I might as well not call a vaccine a cure at all. Hormesis is less about "small amounts can be more potent than large amounts" than "small amounts can actually help you at all compared to large amounts".
nearting 3y ago
This argument is essentially "a broken clock is right twice a day - so if your clock is broken, don't bother fixing it".
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  I'm not arguing in favor of homeopathy at all, quite the opposite! It's nonsense, banning it is good IMO. Just pointing out that the nonsense has origins in something sensible.
jiggawatts 3y ago
The most charitable explanation I heard was that homeopathy was developed in an era when insanely toxic substances like mercury salts were regularly used as medicine. Someone noticed that using “less concentrated medicine” resulted in healthier patients. Then obviously even less concentrated medicine “worked” better, and so on… You can easily see how a simple logical extrapolation from there would result in ardent believers of homeopathy. (To make matters worse: Simply hydrating patients with water is a fairly effective treatment all by itself!)
arp242 3y ago
Not really, because "like cure like" in homeopathy is based on symptoms only, whereas vaccination isn't. Some things may be slightly superficially similar by pure coincidence, because there's a large amount of things in the world and there's always something that's accidentally similar, but this kind of observation is meaningless and devoid of any value.

hn_acker 3y ago

>> The practice relies on two false principles: the "law of similars," aka "like cures like," meaning a substance that causes a specific symptom in a healthy person can treat conditions and diseases that involve that same symptom, and the "law of infinitesimals," which states that diluting the substance renders it more potent. > These "principles" are actually true sometimes, to a certain extent in specific cases. Vaccines, for example, or hormesis. You're being too charitable with "true sometimes", in my opinion. I've unbent a paper clip into a nearly straight strip of aluminum before. The result was a "paper clip" in name and origin only. I would call it a "paper clip" for convenience, and I might jokingly consider it a paper clip "to a certain extent". But calling the strip a paper clip wouldn't be useful unless I were to describe it as "a paper clip if I bend it back into the original shape". The "law of similars" and the "law of infinitesimals" as described by the article are like the straightened "paper clip": understandable generalizations from a practical truth, but too far from the initial practical truth for "true sometimes" to be a useful rule of thumb. (It is useful, however, to find out how a useless "principle" came about.) A vaccine is not a cure. It's training for the immune system. The response to small amounts of a harmful substance can prepare the body to respond more quickly and/or more correctly to a future exposure. Giving yourself a vaccine while you're already infected with the virus would have little benefit if any. I could call a vaccine a cure "to some extent" if I wanted to be broad with my definitions, but would it be useful to do so? Not to me, so I might as well not call a vaccine a cure at all. Hormesis is less about "small amounts can be more potent than large amounts" than "small amounts can actually help you at all compared to large amounts".

nearting 3y ago

This argument is essentially "a broken clock is right twice a day - so if your clock is broken, don't bother fixing it".

Georgelemental 3y ago
I'm not arguing in favor of homeopathy at all, quite the opposite! It's nonsense, banning it is good IMO. Just pointing out that the nonsense has origins in something sensible.

jiggawatts 3y ago

The most charitable explanation I heard was that homeopathy was developed in an era when insanely toxic substances like mercury salts were regularly used as medicine. Someone noticed that using “less concentrated medicine” resulted in healthier patients. Then obviously even less concentrated medicine “worked” better, and so on… You can easily see how a simple logical extrapolation from there would result in ardent believers of homeopathy. (To make matters worse: Simply hydrating patients with water is a fairly effective treatment all by itself!)

arp242 3y ago

Not really, because "like cure like" in homeopathy is based on symptoms only, whereas vaccination isn't. Some things may be slightly superficially similar by pure coincidence, because there's a large amount of things in the world and there's always something that's accidentally similar, but this kind of observation is meaningless and devoid of any value.