The graduation courses in homeopathic research have a duration period of 1200 (twelve hundred) hours, completed in three years (AMHB Schedule). They have one subject called Methodology of Teaching and Researching, with 60 hours. The purpose is to provoke the student to start observing and criticising what he learns and how he learns (consequently we can evaluate what is a good scientific work, how to develop our own research methods, know how to make monographs, etc.).
Unfortunately, the Medical schools tend to brainwash us, they lack educational ethics, and we are constantly persuaded to think according to what the capital wants us to think (mainly in those countries identified as technology-users and technologically-excluded). They are trying to make us see ourselves as doctors who don’t have ideas, trying to make us act in the same limited and well behaved way, prescribing what the laboratories want, researching according to the academic scientific model (laboratories who have projects created according to their own interests, who offer a great amount of money to whom may sign them and assume their authorship), accepting fake results that are only attractive to the capital, and doing everything the health insurance companies want. In this section we intend to present the main guidelines to the appraisal of research, which means to work better with an open system like the human being, where two plus two is never four. We must contemplate what cannot be left out in homeopathic research, what are the different angles under which the publications must be examined, etc. There are plenty of constructive and destructive observations regarding Homeopathy. Let’s learn to discuss them inside what is particular to the homeopathic episteme.
"We are keeping the same discussion theme of the previous month so that others will still have a chance to add their comments and suggestions"
Monthly Discussion Theme – September 2019
To conduct research in Homeopathy requires accepting the challenge of investigating open systems, dwelling on the so-called “sciences of the uncertain”. At the practice we daily encounter unexpected answers, peculiar ways of recovery that belong to their own reply systems, and structured by that particular organism. Countless times, what we observe “cannot be found in the books”. As researchers and similitude practitioners, how should we be prepared to observe the unexpected and learn how to work with it? How should we prepare ourselves to research the unexpected? What are the minimum precautions/attentions required to develop strategies?
We shall present a monthly discussion theme that could address a new issue or a complementation to the discussions held in the previous month. The discussion theme could be proposed by us or by any party involved and interested in the discussions. After presentation of the new discussion theme, all previously discussed issues will be stored in sub-section Monthly Discussion Theme under section Teaching Research until all matters concerning the subject under discussion are thoroughly covered.
The whole and the divided. The ample and the circumscribed. The possible and the “will it be possible”? The truthful and the untruthful, subjective, seem to constitute at every instance the illusion of the practitioner/researcher where the mentally possible is mobilised at each moment and upon each one, the observer and observed. A constant challenge at the practice and in the research field.