New approaches within the history and theory of medicine and their relevance for homeopathy

Conventional sciences have brought forth a wealth of knowledge and benefits, but they have not always been clear and precise about their legitimate scope and methodological limitations. In contrast, new and critical approaches in modern sciences question and reflect their own presuppositions, dependencies, and constraints. Examples are quantum physics, theory and history of science, as well as theory and history of medicine, sociology, and economics. In this way, deprecative dogmatism and animosity amongst sciences ought to be lessened, while the field opens up for each science to redefine its appropriate place in society. This would appear to be a chance for homeopathy, as new approaches, especially within the social and economic sciences, suggest that being a follower of Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) may have advantages and privileges that conventional medicine seems to be lacking and whose relevance was overlooked during the rise of economic thinking in the last two centuries.

Introduction

Basic research in medicine is commonly associated with laboratory, clinical, and epidemiological studies undertaken by highly specialised natural scientists. However, under the postmodern conditions of late capitalist societies, the assessment and development of medicine is no longer reserved to medical experts alone. Instead, a multitude of actors, from lawyers and politicians to economists and traders, are shaping the future of medicine. Accordingly, besides the natural sciences, the humanities are increasingly gaining relevance to observe and eventually supervise the many changes to which medicine is subjected at present. To be sure, within the social sciences basic research is also necessary and, in fact, under way. Against the background of relativism of values and crisis of authority, today every science permanently has to question and reassure its own basis, scope, and destination. Generally, a high level of dynamics in any field may signify problems, but also good prospects – for those who know how to profit from them. In particular, within the currently changing scientific landscape, homeopathy is being challenged to find and redefine its appropriate place – potentially with the help of new approaches within the history and theory of medicine.

Since its founding by Samuel Hahnemann (1755–1843) some two hundred years ago, homeopathy has accomplished impressive achievements. Examples being the curing of countless diseases, individually as well as in epidemics,¹ popularity among millions of patients all over the world, political successes, professionalisation and institutionalisation,² and scientific research, from case studies and clinical trials to basic laboratory research.³ Nevertheless, recognition and full appreciation by conventional medicine is still lacking.

How can this paradox be explained, how can it be resolved? The thesis suggested in the following is that conventional medicine's rejection of homeopathy's claim of being a scientific medicine stems mainly from an inaccurate understanding of the scope, task, and limits of sciences, and their appropriate status in our lives. On the other hand, if we actually take all sciences as tools for cognition and practice, rather than as authorities forcing us to subdue ourselves under their implicit reductionist world-view, and if we apply their critical approach to themselves, to their specific methodology and limited horizon, up to the point that they reveal their own presuppositions and restricted validity, we may regain a fresh and uncaged look upon reality.