The emergence of modern therapeutic similarity

One of the roots of modern therapeutic similarity might be retraced to the work of Samuel Hahnemann at the end of the 18th century. His particular formulation arose from an original synthesis of traditional therapeutic similarity, dating from classic Antiquity and mantained as an undercurrent in medical thinking, and contemporary theories, particularly counter-irritation (antagonistic fever) theory. Against historical readings asserting that modern therapeutic similarity is either a mere a continuation of the ancient, or a historical orphan, it is possible to verify that Hahnemann’s work belonged within the specific framework of 18th medical science. The formulation of modern therapeutic similarity is best described as a process combining both continuity and epistemological break. Keywords: History of Medicine; 18th century; Pharmacology; Peruvian bark; Modern therapeutic similarity.  O surgimento da semelhança terapéutica moderna Resumo Uma das raízes da semelhança terapéutica moderna pode ser localizada na obra de Samuel Hahnemann, no final do século XVIII. Sua formulação particular surgiu da síntese original da semelhança terapéutica tradicional, procedente da Antigüidade clássica e conservada subterraneamente no pensamento médico, com teorias contemporâneas, especialmente a teoria da contra-irritação (febre antagonista). Por oposição a leituras históricas que afirmam que semelhança terapéutica moderna é uma mera continuação da antiga ou, alternativamente, um ófão histórico, pode-se constatar que a obra de Hahnemann corresponde ao marco específico da ciéncia médico do século XVIII. A formulação da semelhança terapéutica parece ser melhor compreendida como um processo que combina continuidade e ruptura epistemológicas. Palavras-chave: História da Medicina; século 18; Farmacologia; semelhança terapéutica moderna.  El surgimiento de la similaridad terapéutica moderna Resumen Una de las raíces de la similaridad terapéutica moderna puede ser localizada en la obra de Samuel Hahnemann al final del siglo XVIII. Su formulación particular surgió de la síntesis original de la similaridad terapéutica tradicional, procedente de la Antigüedad clásica y conservada subterráneamente en el pensamiento médico, con teorías contemporáceas, especialmente la de la contrairritación (fiebre antagonista). En oposición a lecturas históricas que afirman que la similaridad terapéutica moderna es una mera continuación de la antigua o un huérfano histórico, se puede constatar que la obra de Hahnemann corresponde al marco específico de la ciencia médica del siglo XVIII. La formulación de la similaridad terapéutica moderna parece ser mejor comprendida como um processo que combina continuidad y ruptura epistemológicas. Palabras-clave: Historia de la Medicina; siglo 18; Farmacología; similitud terapéutica moderna.  Correspondence author: Silvia Waisse Priven, [email protected] ; http://www.pucsp.br/pos/cesima How to cite this article: Waisse Priven S. The emergence of modern therapeutic similarity. Int J High Dilution Res [online]. 2008 [cited DD Mmm YYYY]; 7(22): 22-30. Available from: http://journal.giri-society.org/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/252/335. ÂÂÂ

Ayurveda awaits a new dawn

Ayurveda is a valuable legacy bequeathed to us by ancient Indian sage-physicians. The present paper discusses the epistemology of this ancient science and the misconceptions surrounding it. Diligent research, both theoretical and experimental, in the twentieth century could have ensured the graduation of this proto-science into a full-fledged science. Instead, epistemological misconceptions and intellectual sloth have thwarted its refinement and progress. The paper appeals for an epistemological break that would facilitate an evidence-based appraisal of Ayurveda’s theories and practices. Such an appraisal would help realise Ayurveda’s full potential in serving India’s healthcare needs, especially at the level of primary care.

Reflections on an academic life

David Harvey traces his intellectual journey reflecting on what he calls “the central animating theme of his thinking” starting from his days as a positivist geographer and the publication of Explanation. Harvey clarifies that his transition from Explanations to Social Justice, which has often been touted as a radical-epistemological break in his work should actually be seen as a complimentary productive tension. In making this transition, Harvey decided to reject the scientific orthodoxy of positivist science and instead, use dialectics derived from Marx as alternative mode of scientific inquiry. Harvey narrates his Baltimore experience of combatting local racial discrimination as formative in his understandings of the motions of capital and dynamics of uneven development thus imbricating personal politics and Marx's theory of capitalism in his work ever after. Harvey also recalls how teaching of Capital furthered his exploration of the urban condition and accumulation of capital, ultimately leading to the concept of “spatial fix.” Conditions of Postmodernity contends Harvey, taught him the importance of gender and feminist perspective and Justice, Nature written under extreme physical, professional, intellectual duress was intended to bring the “metabolic relation to nature” at the forefront. Economic liberalism propelled Harvey to introspect on his many volumes on the global neoliberal conditions, which he argues is now imbricated with issues of identity and intersectionality involving Black Lives and Me too. Harvey concludes that his intellectual journey has been a preoccupation to understand “contradictory unity between social relations in constant transformation” through Marx's power of abstraction to imagine an “anti-capitalist” future.

French Colonialism and The Making of the Modern Sahel

French colonial rule played an important but not determinative role in making the modern Sahel. By the 1950s, the region was more integrated politically and infrastructurally than it would be in the decades that followed. At independence, the new governments of the Sahel featured identical, if parallel, political institutions modeled on those of the French Fifth Republic (1958–). They also shared a secular character, a military culture, a history of slavery, entrenched inequality, and labor migration, and the subordination—without integration—of Saharan societies to their southern neighbors. Yet, if colonialism contributed to making the modern Sahel in an institutional sense, it did not represent a profound epistemological break. Rather, longue durée internal dynamics continued to prevail. If any single event or phenomenon “made” the modern Sahel, it was postcolonial drought and its political effects rather than imperial domination.

Introduction: The Philosophical Conjuncture

The Introduction argues that the mutually reinforcing relationship between speculation and critique depends upon sustaining a methodological tension between rationalism and empiricism. I explicate the stakes of this tension through engagements with Gaston Bachelard’s epistemology of science and Louis Althusser’s theory of the epistemological break. I frame the contemporary relevance of the “rationalist empiricist” approach developed by these thinkers through Quentin Meillassoux’s After Finitude, showing how tools from Bachelard and Althusser enable the construction of a more rigorous materialist epistemology than that offered by Meillassoux. I conclude with a critique of the “subjective dogmatism” of Kant’s theory of purposiveness and with a reflection upon Alfred North Whitehead’s definition of philosophy.

Scientific Inquiry in Educational Administration

I build my argument on two key points, first, the centrality of administration in our understanding of the social world, and second, the intellectual gaze of the embedded actor, to argue for a re-thinking of scientific inquiry in educational administration. As with Bourdieu, I seek to cast doubt on orthodoxy, or, to make the familiar strange. This is a necessary, and important, task when working in the social world that the researcher is involved. Importantly, such a move requires explicit attention to the epistemological break of the embodied agent, and the construction of the research object, rather than just the confirmation, or disconfirmation, of the researcher’s model of reality. To engage with these issues, I do not offer a fully articulated theory, research programme or even ‘how to’ description, that is the intent of the book at large. Rather I sketch an argument centered on the need to interrogate the construction of the research object as a means to extend current deBates on leadership, management and administration of educational institutions in new and more fruitful directions.

How Should We Study Relational Structure? Critically Comparing the Epistemological Positions of Social Network Analysis and Field Theory

I argue that the main difference between two schools of relational sociology – field theory and social network analysis – lies in the difference between their respective epistemological stances rather than between their ontological assumptions. While social network analysts have developed sophisticated quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods, they epistemologically rely on their commonsensical understanding of relational structure. In contrast, field theorists are expected to study relational structure by making an epistemological break from their commonsensical understanding of relational structure. Social network analysts’ epistemological position reveals only social ties as the form of relational structure. Field theory’s epistemological position reveals multiple forms of relational structure, including but not limited to those formed by social ties. The main lesson to be learned is that relational sociologists must develop their notion of relational structure by investigating the history of contests among field actors over the meaning of being a member of their field.