C O R R ] ~ S P O N D ~ N C]~ 85

I am very glad that my article about Popper and his relevance to homceopathy should have produced a reply from Mr. Sholapurwala. As I pointed out in m y article, it is not of course incumbent on anyone to accept Popper 's view of science, and not everyone does; nonetheless, i t is not true tha t no "creative scientist" has found Popper helpful. I have already named some who think his approach most illuminating, and P. B. Medawar in particular finds his work of quite monumental importance.

Mr. Sholapurwala's objection to Popper 's view of science seems to me to rest on a misunderstanding. Theories of the kind tha t Popper describes as "metaphysical" (i.e. not refutable in principle) are not useless or meaningless-- they may well be extremely fruitful and s t imula t ing--but they are not scientific. The essence of the scientific approach is the testing of hypotheses; it is this practical att i tude which distinguishes modern science from most ancient science. The Greeks, for example, though they propounded a variety of theories about the natural world some of which (like the atomic theory) are still viable today, did not on the whole subject their speculations to experiment or observation. (Incidentally, though it is of course true that cosmological theories cannot be tested by experiment, they can be and are open to testing by astronomical observation; the "steady s ta te" theory of the universe is currently out of favour because i t failed to explain certain observations.)

So far as homceopathy is concerned, we have to face the fact tha t modern scientists are increasingly Popperian in their outlook even when they do not at t r ibute their views explicitly to Popper. Any serious scientist who puts forward a theory today must expect to have to defend it against his colleagues' criticism, and the only way he can do this is by making predictions on the basis of his theory and showing tha t these are fulfilled. Mr. Sholapurwala appears to concede that the similimum principle is not testable, but he maintains tha t i t is nonetheless scientific. On this point, he and I must agree to differ.

A N T H O N Y C A M P B E L L

To the Editor, T H E B R I T I S H H O N I ( E O P A T H I C J O U R N A L

Dear Sir,

Homoeopathie medicine has proved its effectiveness for two centuries, but one of its failings has been the lack of properly conducted research. R. H. Savage and P. F. Roe have a t t empted to place homceopathic medicine on a scientific basis by presenting an analysis of their research in "A Double Blind Trial to Assess the Benefit of Arnica montana in Acute Stroke Il lness" (T~E BRITISH I~OM(EOPATHIC JOURNAL, 66, 207 and 67, 210). Unhappily their research proved tha t modern methods cannot always be used in the effective s tudy of homceopathic medicine. Their final conclusion that Arnica is ineffective in cerebral apoplexy is therefore inconclusive. Eighty patients were used in their exhaustive analysis. Hal f were controls; of the remaining 40, Arnica 30 was given to 20 patients and Arnica 1M to another 20 patients.

Throughout homceopathie literature, authors have repeatedly stressed tha t patients must be individually assessed and the similimum prescribed. The authors admit that only four out of the eighty patients had an Arnica picture, and tha t Arnica is listed only as ~ second grade remedy in Kent ' s Repertory. Under the circumstances no homceopathie practitioner would