Sander's Reflexions

If you hit a finger nail with a frozen hamster the nail will become black (or blue). However, if someone has a black nail most people will think the finger has been squeezed by a door or hit with a hammer.

Iris has written a nice posting on this kind of logic. In brief, there is deductive reasoning which has the form:

1. If A is true then B is also true.
2. A is true.
3. B is true.
   

If sentences 1 and 2 are true, then sentence 3 must be true as well. Thus:

1. If you hit a finger nail with a frozen hamster the nail will become black (or blue).
2. You hit your finger nail with a frozen hamster.
3. Your nail becomes black.

Or:

1. If your finger gets squeezed by a door your nail will become black (or blue).
2. You squeeze your finger.
3. Your nail becomes black.

Another kind of reasoning is abductive reasoning. It works the opposite way:

1. If your finger gets squeezed by a door your nail will become black (or blue).
2. Your nail is black.
3. Your finger has been squeezed.

Or:

1. If you hit a finger nail with a frozen hamster the nail will become black (or blue).
2. Your nail is black.
3. You have hit your finger nail with a frozen hamster.

This form of reasoning is logically unsound.

(Many thanks to Menno Steketee (NRC Handelsblad) and Iris for this example.)


So far about hamsters. Let’s have a look at homeopathy.
Homeopathy works according to the law of similars, i.e. treating “like with like”. The practitioner considers the totality of symptoms of a given case. He or she then chooses a remedy that has been reported to produce a similar set of symptoms in healthy subjects.

Thus:

1. If you’ve got disease X then your head aches, you transpire, and have red spots on your nose.
2. You’ve got disease X.
3. Your head aches, you transpire and have red spots on your nose.

And:

1. After eating herb Y your head aches, you transpire and have red spots on your nose.
2. You’ve eaten from herb Y.
3. Your head aches, you transpire and have red spots on your nose.

The homeopathic practitioner compares symptoms, the effects. He looks for something which produces the same effect. His (abductive) reasoning is as follows

1. After eating herb Y your head aches, you transpire and have red spots on your nose.
2. Your head aches, you transpire and have red spots on your nose.
3. You should take a potentization (a special kind of dilution) of herb Y.

Note that the cause of the disease is not considered at all. It is not important what causes the symptoms. Homeopathy focuses on the remedy for the symptoms.

[NB: Vaccines also work with similarity, but there is an important difference. Vaccines work with something that is very similar to the cause for the disease, but does not cause the disease nor the symptoms (or very weak symptoms). However it does activate and train the immune system. The similarity is in cause, not in symptoms.]


Now, if my finger has been squeezed by a door I will get a black nail. According to the homeopathy I should consider a treatment with something that causes the same effect. Well, our frozen hamster... Will a male hamster give a better result or a female? I’ll put them in the fridge.



Final Note:
I tried to discus homeopathy with a brilliant scientist, M.D. Ph.D. professor and physicist. The only answer he gave me was, “I know nothing about this kind of medication. I can’t tell you anything about it.” It was hard for me to believe him, but after a while I realized this was the only right answer. For a scientist there is not much to say about a matter of belief.

There is no proof stronger than faith.