A question about Charles Darwin and Homeopathy?
Sunday, January 17th, 2010 at
2:41 am
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “A question about Charles Darwin and Homeopathy?”.
Filed under: Homeopathy
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
Darwin and Homeopathy — V.D. Kaviraj
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EditorialIntroductions/Freeman_ThePowerofMovementinPlants.html
Charles Darwin published The Power of Movement in Plants — on phototropism and vine behaviour — in 1880, but the concept of plant intelligence has been slow to creep into the general consciousness. He also did some experiments on plants with homoeopathic remedies. He did not call his experiments homoeopathic, for that would have been scientific suicide in his day. We know it is little different today, as many are opposed to homoeopathy through ignorance. Darwin was experimenting in a scientific manner when he did his experiments on plants.
He did some very interesting experiments with Drosera or Sundew, a flesh-eating plant, well known today. He discovered that however much he reduced the dose of the substance he used, salt of ammonia – prepared according to the homoeopathic method with dilution and succussion – the effects were always visible in the plant. He was quite astonished by these effects and their consistent appearance with every new dilution. He compared the substances pheromones, which a dog can smell from a great distance in the case of, for instance, a bitch in heat.
His frame of reference was the molecule – then the smallest known particle of matter that was able to show particular characteristics. He did not realise that the doses he prepared no longer had any molecules in them, while still being increasingly active. It stimulated the glands and the plant’s tentacles and caused the plant to turn inward. Avogadros’ limit may have been known to him. In 1903 he wrote to the well-known physiologist Prof F.C. Donders of Utrecht Netherlands, that he observed 1/4,000,000th of a grain of the salt had a demonstrable effect on Drosera. Here is what he said about his experiments:
"And that the 1/20,000,000th of a grain of the crystallised salt does the same. Now I am quite unhappy at the thought of having to publish such a statement. The reader will best realise this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask or barrel and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added – only half a drachm or thirty minims of the solution poured over the leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of the leaf. My results were for a long time incredible, even to myself and I anxiously sought for every source of error. The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water and declared that there could be no doubt as to the differences in their appearance. In fact, every time that we perceive an odour, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves. Moreover, this extreme sensitiveness, exceeding that of the most delicate part of the human body, as well as the power of committing various impulses from one part of the leaf to another, have been acquired without the intervention of any nervous system."
(Darwin The Power of Movement in Plants 1875)
He also demonstrated that Drosera is not sensitive to just any substance. He tested several alkaloids and other substances that have a powerful effect on the human and animal body, which possesses a nervous system, but that had no effect on Drosera. He decided that:
"The power of transmitting an influence to other parts of the leaf, causing movement or modified secretion or aggregation does not depend on the presence of a diffused element allied to a nervous system."
(Darwin The Power of Movement in Plants 1875)
He thus confirmed the homoeopathic consensus that living systems react only to those substances that are in harmony with their own pattern of energy.
When you talk about homeopathic doctors centuries ago, you have to remember that the mainstream or "alleopathic" doctors they were being compared to were far less effective. A hundred years ago, doctors were more likely to kill you then help you. A doctor that did nothing was an improvement.
No Darwin did not believe in homeopathy. He did take it, as it was given to him by a friend.
From his writings:
"You speak about Homœopathy; which is a subject which makes me more wrath, even than does Clair-voyance: clairvoyance so transcends belief, that one’s ordinary faculties are put out of question, but in Homœopathy common sense & common observation come into play, & both these must go to the Dogs, if the infinetesimal doses have any effect whatever…
Read a good article on this here:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/charles-darwin-and-homeopathy.html
EDIT: regarding the answer given by "A Guy Named Pinky":
I cannot find what you posted at the Darwin Online source you provided, and I doubt that’s where it would come from. But I did find what you posted, word for word, including the link, at a homeopath’s website: http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/kaviraj-darwin-homeopathy.asp This homeopath links to Darwin Online as a source for the quotes that he is presenting – but he is presenting them out of context, and presenting false conclusions.
This article has been discussed at http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/12/homeopathic-revolution-by-dana-ullman.html :
"There are three things wrong with this: one, Darwin never says anything about his research being homeopathic in nature; two, homeopaths tell us that dilute solutions are not homeopathic – succussion is necessary (apparently); and thirdly, the solutions are still light by homeopathic standards – homeopaths dilute beyond the point that the original chemical will be present…
Darwin was shocked at the results of his dilution experiments, not because he thought that it confirmed homeopathy, but because he did not expect such dilute substances to have such a dramatic effect. This was new science and he was instinctively cautious. Darwin wanted to replicate his own work and confirm his findings. He doubted his own experience, experiments and capabilities and made doubly sure he was not deceiving himself. This is something that homeopaths could learn from."
Darwin actually ridiculed homeopathy.
it sounds like total bull,
1 theres no conclusive blinded data which demonstrates homeopathy’s usefulness, no data to show it works.
2 what Darwin thought about it on passing is irrelevant. data is what matters, and Darwin didn’t present any data whatsoever that shows it works.
Darwin was treated with homeopathy while he was at the health spa in Malvern getting the hydrotherapy he enjoyed. There are letters from him saying he took the homeopathic remedies because the spa owner insisted and that he didn’t have a jot of faith in it.
Note that Darwin was a man who complained of feeling ill from the time he returned from the Beagle voyage until his death. No remedy of any sort brought him long-term relief, whatever any high profile homeoquack trying to sell his own books says.
It’s interesteing how much evidence there is proving that homeopathy works and how huge a bias there is towards publishing those studies which would pass the most stringent standards (unlike the standard pharmaceutical study)
Cuba is inocculating 2.5 million people against leptospirosis for the past 2 years with results significantly higher than when they used traditional vaccination. What bigger a study could you ask for? No one is willing to publish this information and risk the loss of billions of dollars to the pharmaceutical industry.
anyways I just want to thank pinky for his information and link.