An expert in homeopathy – or a virtuoso in ignorance?
In a previous post, I have tried to explain that someone could be an expert in certain aspects of homeopathy; for instance, one could be an expert: in the history of homeopathy, in the manufacture of homeopathics, in the research of homeopathy. But can anyone really be an expert in homeopathy in a more general sense? Are homeopaths experts in homeopathy? OF COURSE THEY ARE!!! What is he talking about?, I hear homeopathy-fans exclaim. Yet, I am not so sure. Can one be an expert in something that is fundamentally flawed or wrong? Can one be an expert in flying carpets? Can one be an expert in quantum healing? Can one be an expert in clod fusion? Can one be an expert in astrology? Can one be an expert in telekinetics? Can one be an expert in tea-leaf reading? I am not sure that classical homeopaths can rightfully called experts in classical homeopathy (there are so many forms of homeopathy that, for the purpose of this discussion, I need to focus on the classical Hahnemannian version).
Post to Tumblr