User Tools

Site Tools


en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-final-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10572

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-final-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10572 [2012/11/05 19:48]
legatum
en:ahr:lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-final-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10572 [2012/11/09 10:36] (current)
62.65.168.3
Line 3: Line 3:
 {{:​en:​ahr:​lippe.jpg?​nolink&​100 |Ad. Lippe}} {{:​en:​ahr:​lippe.jpg?​nolink&​100 |Ad. Lippe}}
  
-{{anchor:​s2}}- To the Editors of the American Homoeopathic Review - <span grade2>​Gentlemen</​span>:​ In Vol. V., No.6, p. 279, you publish among your correspondence,​ a letter from Mr. Pope under the heading, "​[[en:​ahr:​pope-ac-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-reply-to-dr-lippe-158-10614|Drs. Lippe and Pope]].{{anchor:​s3}}"​ - Allow me to say, as regards the tone and style of Mr. Pope' a letter, "​Chacun a son gout.{{anchor:​s4}}"​ The invitation to have the last word, is <span grade2>​all</​span>​ I accept from Mr. Pope. {{anchor:​s5}}I cannot find time to refute <span grade2>​all</​span>​ of Mr. Pope's statements. {{anchor:​s6}}The points are before the profession, and I abide by their decision. {{anchor:​s7}}Whenever a discussion ceases to elicit the solution of a question at issue, as in this case, viz: "<​span grade2>​Who is a Homoeopathician</​span>,"​ it is not further necessary to continue that discussion. {{anchor:​s8}}It may still be possible to persuade Mr. Pope that <span grade2>​his</​span>​ logic leads him into <span grade2>​all</​span>​ his erroneous conceptions of Homoeopathy,​ and my invitation to follow out <span grade2>​his</​span>,​ logic, by showing him the way to do so, may probably either end the discussion or induce him to apologize. <span grade2>​{{anchor:​s9}}His</​span>​ logic is this: "​Clinical records in <span grade2>​England</​span>​ show that Arsenic was, at one time, the principal curative remedy in cholera",​ and therefore beyond all possible dispute, Arsenic has been, is, and will be, one of the principal remedies in that disease. {{anchor:​s10}}Had Mr. Pope shown the similarity between the known proving of Arsenic and of cholera, or had be explicitly stated the symptoms or groups of symptoms corresponding between the provings and the (so-called) disease, the point he aimed at, would have been established. {{anchor:​s11}}But on the other aide, if it is proved, that there exists <span grade2>​no</​span>​ correspondence between the ordinarily. characteristic symptoms of cholera and those of the provings of Arsenic, it is quite likely that the logical critic will doubt the reliability of the clinical reports, or the correctness of our Materia Medica, based on provings on the healthy, or the truth of the homoeopathic law of cure.+{{anchor:​s2}}- To the Editors of the American Homoeopathic Review - <span grade2>​Gentlemen</​span>:​ In Vol. V., No.6, p. 279, you publish among your correspondence,​ a letter from Mr. Pope under the heading, "​[[en:​ahr:​pope-ac-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-reply-to-dr-lippe-158-10614|Drs. Lippe and Pope]].{{anchor:​s3}}"​ - Allow me to say, as regards the tone and style of Mr. Pope' a letter, "​Chacun a son gout.(("​everyone has his taste" or "to each his own", French)){{anchor:​s4}}"​ The invitation to have the last word, is <span grade2>​all</​span>​ I accept from Mr. Pope. {{anchor:​s5}}I cannot find time to refute <span grade2>​all</​span>​ of Mr. Pope's statements. {{anchor:​s6}}The points are before the profession, and I abide by their decision. {{anchor:​s7}}Whenever a discussion ceases to elicit the solution of a question at issue, as in this case, viz: "<​span grade2>​Who is a Homoeopathician</​span>,"​ it is not further necessary to continue that discussion. {{anchor:​s8}}It may still be possible to persuade Mr. Pope that <span grade2>​his</​span>​ logic leads him into <span grade2>​all</​span>​ his erroneous conceptions of Homoeopathy,​ and my invitation to follow out <span grade2>​his</​span>,​ logic, by showing him the way to do so, may probably either end the discussion or induce him to apologize. <span grade2>​{{anchor:​s9}}His</​span>​ logic is this: "​Clinical records in <span grade2>​England</​span>​ show that Arsenic was, at one time, the principal curative remedy in cholera",​ and therefore beyond all possible dispute, Arsenic has been, is, and will be, one of the principal remedies in that disease. {{anchor:​s10}}Had Mr. Pope shown the similarity between the known proving of Arsenic and of cholera, or had be explicitly stated the symptoms or groups of symptoms corresponding between the provings and the (so-called) disease, the point he aimed at, would have been established. {{anchor:​s11}}But on the other aide, if it is proved, that there exists <span grade2>​no</​span>​ correspondence between the ordinarily. characteristic symptoms of cholera and those of the provings of Arsenic, it is quite likely that the logical critic will doubt the reliability of the clinical reports, or the correctness of our Materia Medica, based on provings on the healthy, or the truth of the homoeopathic law of cure.
  
  
en/ahr/lippe-ad-who-is-a-homoeopathician-02-final-reply-to-mr-pope-158-10572.1352144906.txt.gz · Last modified: 2012/11/05 19:48 by legatum