Homeophobes and homeophiles

The second memorandum of the commission for combating pseudoscience caused a storm of emotions often manifested in aggressive form (see, for example, www.gazeta.ru/science/news/2017/02/07/n_9657773.shtml ). I don’t know what is worse - the complete indifference with which the people meet any news, or similar aggressive electrification, when everyone is ready to cling to the claws at any bearer of a different point of view. I think indifference is worse. Aggression is still a sign of life. Not the best sign, but still life.

Most attacks on a memorandum come from those who have not read it. Even when a person says that he reads from further discussion that a person, reading, saw not what it is written there, but his a priori ideas about the text. We can do it.

Therefore, it is useful to retell the essence of the document in one paragraph.

Firstly, in the memorandum there is a clear definition of what is meant by homeopathy. “ Classical homeopathy is a miracle of visually diluted drugs , so much so that often the dose should not contain a single molecule of the active substance .” There is no talk of any herbs. Secondly, in the randoma , it is not proposed to prohibit the homeopa Tiya . It is proposed to separate it from the state , more precisely , from state medical institutions . And also clearly marked and sell as homeopathy, spreading in separate pharmacy windows. Thirdly, in the memorandum, the results of experiments on checking the action of homeopathic preparations are quite fully listed and appropriate links are given.

Why is it important to dot I over I in relation to homeopathy? Because here it is brighter than anywhere else, a rather fundamental question is manifested about the relationship of science, state and society. On the one hand, a practice that cannot work and does not work from the point of view of science, on the other hand, the official status and state recognition of this practice.

From the point of view of science and common sense, the authors of the memorandum are certainly right, but among those who agree with this, the question arises: are they right about the form of submission? The epithet "pseudoscience" in itself is quite aggressive and free or involuntarily associated with the persecution of genetics and cybernetics. On the one hand, he is fair: many adherents of homeopathy position it as a science, dissertations are defended in homeopathy, science articles are written. On the other hand, an aggressive offensive gives rise to an even more aggressive opposition - and so on. Many participants in the discussion on social networks believe that it was necessary to use a more neutral term such as “pseudo -nouses”, “quasinauka”, but the language is poor and the optimal epithet in this account simply does not exist.

The public reaction to the memorandum is quite fully analyzed in the following article by L. Borusyak. Taking into account this reaction, I would propose to attribute homeopathy to the category of beliefs. Then everything falls into place. Faith, on the one hand, falls under the protection of the principle of freedom of conscience, on the other, it should be separated from the state.

It is the last requirement that sounds most clearly in the memorandum. And it is pointless to fight homeopathy as such: a person is a master of self -deception and is ready to protect his self -deception until the last. Science, among other things, is a tool to combat self -deception. And in this clash, a person often chooses a self -deception (a placebo backed by the effect) and rejects science. Instead of the fight, positive activity is more useful - Education. This is a common place. And by the way, just in terms of ascetic enlightenment, the main authors of the memorandum are in the forefront.

Boris Stern