Calling homeopathy lethal and homeopaths fraudsters, who are
deliberately harming children [1] can hardly be regarded as words used by
“calm and sensible” people as Simon Grant alleges. [2] Rather than
recognise it as the angry rhetoric which it is, Grant reveals his own
extreme views. Of course, homeopathy is unscientific in the sense that it
runs counter to molecular expectations and it would be foolish to deny
this. It breaks the apparent rules of science, but for people who have
never studied nor tried homeopathy it seems astonishing that they can
formulate rational, sensible, calm or credible views on such a complex
subject, let alone pontificate about it so emphatically.
Regarding Grant’s views on evidence and anecdote, then neither can
actually be defined as absolute values, just as assumption and inference
cannot. Therefore, an argument over that might amount to pointless tail-
chasing. Evidence, I’m afraid, is a loaded term that can mean anything to
anyone. There is no consistent definition universally accepted either in
science or philosophy.
Evidence means “a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or
judgment…something indicative; an outward sign, to indicate clearly;
exemplify or prove…plainly visible; to be seen,” [3] An anecdote means a
one-off or accidental piece of knowledge, an example, “a short account of
an interesting or humorous incident…secret or hitherto undivulged
particulars of history or biography.” From the Greek anekdota, meaning
unpublished: “unpublished narratives.” ”a particular or detached incident
or fact of an interesting nature; a biographical incident or fragment; a
single passage of private life.” [3] Thus, anecdotal evidence means a one-
off event that suggests a theory but which is unconfirmed. When it becomes
repeated it thus becomes a more substantial piece of evidence. Thus
anecdote does travel towards evidence when it is repeated, precisely as
Grant denies.
However, to maintain that accumulated anecdotes do not constitute
evidence, is, of course, merely a personal opinion – an anecdote in
itself. Yet, the history of science is littered with examples of chance
observations [anecdotes] being the start of big evidence leading to
fantastic discoveries. For example, many of Darwin’s observations of the
South American flora and fauna can be seen as definite precursors of his
more mature views. Likewise, with Fleming’s discovery of penicillin. Even
Kekulé’s discovery of the benzene ring has been attributed to a dream he
had. Presumably Grant would disallow that too as too anecdotal by far.
There is no doubt that much good in science has issued from one-off weird
hunches and chance anecdotal observations. Thus, it is not valid to state
in some absolutist sense, as Grant has, that anecdote cannot blur into
evidence; it is just not true. It can and it very often does.
The point I did make was simply that wild allegations and angry
rhetoric of the type deployed by Brookman - hateful bluster and blather -
based on negligible study, do not win arguments and can hardly be
construed as neutral and dispassionate evaluations of evidence by an
unprejudiced observer - which is afterall a sound definition of what
science is about. Therefore, they cannot be considered as scientifically
constructed arguments.
Time will certainly tell whether homeopathy ‘works’ or not [according
to the definitions of patients, homeopaths, allopaths, or whoever], but
this time-lag should not be allowed to inspire the truly unprejudiced
observer [the ‘good scientist’] to claim that homeopathy is lethal, to
call homeopaths fraudsters or that they are deliberately damaging the
health of children by not recommending vaccines, which are the claims
Brookman has made. Such are outrageous, provocative and emotive claims,
rooted in superficial study and ignorance; they are not designed to
inform, but to polarise and inflame, the opinions of others. Emotive
allegations of that type based on scant and anecdotal ‘evidence,’ cannot
in any sense be construed as scientifically constructed views and
therefore Brookman undercuts his own enfeebled arguments by the very
language he employs, eagerly supported it seems by Grant.
What I also suggested was that any professional opinion – angry or
not – should be based upon a thorough and sustained evaluation of
homeopathy or it will simply carry zero credibility. Such a point is
obvious enough. Therefore, it behoves people who express their views in
such colourful and emphatic terms, either to face the criticism they
attract or to study the subject in more detail first. These seem entirely
obvious, self-evident and uncontentious points.
The opinions Grant and Brookman have presented, regarding homeopathy,
are wholly unscientific by their own definition and highly prejudicial. I
thank them both for proving the very point I had originally made. For
those intelligent and open-minded clinicians there are valid reasons why
homeopaths have been opposed to and should still question if not reject
routine vaccination. These need to be explored in more detail at some
stage.
Rapid Response:
Such “calm and sensible” clinicians
Sir,
Calling homeopathy lethal and homeopaths fraudsters, who are
deliberately harming children [1] can hardly be regarded as words used by
“calm and sensible” people as Simon Grant alleges. [2] Rather than
recognise it as the angry rhetoric which it is, Grant reveals his own
extreme views. Of course, homeopathy is unscientific in the sense that it
runs counter to molecular expectations and it would be foolish to deny
this. It breaks the apparent rules of science, but for people who have
never studied nor tried homeopathy it seems astonishing that they can
formulate rational, sensible, calm or credible views on such a complex
subject, let alone pontificate about it so emphatically.
Regarding Grant’s views on evidence and anecdote, then neither can
actually be defined as absolute values, just as assumption and inference
cannot. Therefore, an argument over that might amount to pointless tail-
chasing. Evidence, I’m afraid, is a loaded term that can mean anything to
anyone. There is no consistent definition universally accepted either in
science or philosophy.
Evidence means “a thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or
judgment…something indicative; an outward sign, to indicate clearly;
exemplify or prove…plainly visible; to be seen,” [3] An anecdote means a
one-off or accidental piece of knowledge, an example, “a short account of
an interesting or humorous incident…secret or hitherto undivulged
particulars of history or biography.” From the Greek anekdota, meaning
unpublished: “unpublished narratives.” ”a particular or detached incident
or fact of an interesting nature; a biographical incident or fragment; a
single passage of private life.” [3] Thus, anecdotal evidence means a one-
off event that suggests a theory but which is unconfirmed. When it becomes
repeated it thus becomes a more substantial piece of evidence. Thus
anecdote does travel towards evidence when it is repeated, precisely as
Grant denies.
However, to maintain that accumulated anecdotes do not constitute
evidence, is, of course, merely a personal opinion – an anecdote in
itself. Yet, the history of science is littered with examples of chance
observations [anecdotes] being the start of big evidence leading to
fantastic discoveries. For example, many of Darwin’s observations of the
South American flora and fauna can be seen as definite precursors of his
more mature views. Likewise, with Fleming’s discovery of penicillin. Even
Kekulé’s discovery of the benzene ring has been attributed to a dream he
had. Presumably Grant would disallow that too as too anecdotal by far.
There is no doubt that much good in science has issued from one-off weird
hunches and chance anecdotal observations. Thus, it is not valid to state
in some absolutist sense, as Grant has, that anecdote cannot blur into
evidence; it is just not true. It can and it very often does.
The point I did make was simply that wild allegations and angry
rhetoric of the type deployed by Brookman - hateful bluster and blather -
based on negligible study, do not win arguments and can hardly be
construed as neutral and dispassionate evaluations of evidence by an
unprejudiced observer - which is afterall a sound definition of what
science is about. Therefore, they cannot be considered as scientifically
constructed arguments.
Time will certainly tell whether homeopathy ‘works’ or not [according
to the definitions of patients, homeopaths, allopaths, or whoever], but
this time-lag should not be allowed to inspire the truly unprejudiced
observer [the ‘good scientist’] to claim that homeopathy is lethal, to
call homeopaths fraudsters or that they are deliberately damaging the
health of children by not recommending vaccines, which are the claims
Brookman has made. Such are outrageous, provocative and emotive claims,
rooted in superficial study and ignorance; they are not designed to
inform, but to polarise and inflame, the opinions of others. Emotive
allegations of that type based on scant and anecdotal ‘evidence,’ cannot
in any sense be construed as scientifically constructed views and
therefore Brookman undercuts his own enfeebled arguments by the very
language he employs, eagerly supported it seems by Grant.
What I also suggested was that any professional opinion – angry or
not – should be based upon a thorough and sustained evaluation of
homeopathy or it will simply carry zero credibility. Such a point is
obvious enough. Therefore, it behoves people who express their views in
such colourful and emphatic terms, either to face the criticism they
attract or to study the subject in more detail first. These seem entirely
obvious, self-evident and uncontentious points.
The opinions Grant and Brookman have presented, regarding homeopathy,
are wholly unscientific by their own definition and highly prejudicial. I
thank them both for proving the very point I had originally made. For
those intelligent and open-minded clinicians there are valid reasons why
homeopaths have been opposed to and should still question if not reject
routine vaccination. These need to be explored in more detail at some
stage.
Sources
[1] Brookman, BMJ letter, Lethal Homeopathy, 21 January 2003
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7381/164#28972
[2] Simon R Grant, BMJ letter, Re: re: Lethal Homeopathy, 24 January
2003
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7381/164#29071
[3] Definitions obtained from www.dictionary.com [accessed 25-1-2003]
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests