RSS 2.0 Feed
December 2006. The Pure Science and Art of Homeopathy: A Study of Proving Methodology (Vol. 11, #2), Featured Articles
A History of Provings - Frans Vermeulen
What if our classical provings on which most of our knowledge rests were defective? What actually is a classical proving, to which other designations have been given such as full proving and Hahnemannian proving? What is a proving supposed to prove except for recording the reactions of provers, with all the subjectivity and personal, private biases of the prover?
Homoeopathy is based on facts, not on theory. (In theory) this is true enough when taken at face value. Homoeopathy is generally believed to be a science and by some to hold the middle between science and art. It is what we tell our patients, it is what we tell our students, it is what we tell ourselves. However, since the greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind, an open-minded study of the so-called facts of homoeopathy may teach otherwise. Restoring objectivity to homoeopathy might be a good thing. Let me make clear from the start that I do not pretend to have an answer to the age-old question of objectivity versus subjectivity. I do not have the pretension to have answers to all questions.What I want to do is to ask a few questions and make some comments.
My first question is a very uncomfortable one:
What if our classical provings on which most of our knowledge rests were defective?
My second question is no less unsettling:
What actually is a classical proving, to which other designations have been given such as full proving and Hahnemannian proving?
And, thirdly:
What is a proving supposed to prove except for recording the reactions of provers, with all the subjectivity and personal, private biases of the prover?
The remainder of this article is not available.
To see the rest of the article you may:
- Pay for a Premium subscription to this publication
Frans Vermeulen is one of the great scholars and researchers in homeopathy. Author of many books, he has helped classify and arrange vast amounts of information on homeopathic materia medica and his research into the origin of substances has greatly enhanced our knowledge of homeopathic medicines.
In 1990 he was appointed managing director, teacher, and administrator of 'The School of Homeopathy' in Holland. In 1992 he wrote 'Synoptic Materia Medica 1' which originally emerged from remedy summaries made for the students in Holland, Ireland and Finland.
He followed this one up with the 'Concordant Materia Medica' published in 1994. Followed by a second edition of the Concordant, including Hering's Guiding Symptoms in 1997; a third edition was printed in 2000.
Out of his special interest in the small remedies, Frans wrote 'Synoptic Materia Medica 2'. In the completely revised edition of Synoptic 1, entitled 'Prisma', he introduces us to data from numerous non-homoeopathic sources as both reference material for the homoeopathic materia medica and as the source of potential symptoms. The significance and potential of such external data has been the subject of his numerous seminars in Europe, Israel and Australia.
More Featured Articles
A Conversation between Alastair Gray and Frederik Schroyens
Students and homeopaths alike often wonder about our repertories. In each new edition there are thousands of new symptoms and thousands of new remedy entries into existing rubrics: 'How big can they get?' 'Will it ever end?' I asked the writer of the Synthesis repertory, Dr. Frederik Schroyens what he felt.
Questions on Homeopathic Provings
We put a series of questions to of a number of homeopaths with experience in doing homeopathic provings: Jeremy Sherr, Todd Rowe Susan Sonz and Peter Fraser.