Our vet prescribed a homeopathic medicine to us today, which surprised me, since I’m aware that homeopathic medicine is shunned/scoffed at and thought to be impossible by the scientific/academic community, but it didn’t bother me. My point of view is that, since homepathic medicine is still going strong and readily available despite the apparent absurdity of it and ~100 years of scientific/academic pushback, there have to be tons of people who are actually noticing results. My vet tech himself said that the healing can be amazing and observed over a relatively short period of time.
He said that the medicine works with “energy” (as in a nebulous/abstract, mystical, non-physical definition of “energy”), which really can be the only way it can work because, as far as I’ve heard, they dilute the active ingredient in homeopathic medicine so much that there are practically no molecules of it left in the final product. This is completely plausible to me because the scientific/physical/chemical/biochemical/biological accounts of reality could very well be incomplete. They can only account for what can be empirically (i.e., physically) measured, and the idea that physics, the nuclear model, etc. fundamentally account for everything that exists is weakened by the fact these models take zero consideration of any lived psychic, paranormal, etc. experiences or anything else that scientists readily facilely dismiss as “anecdotal evidence” en masse (to say nothing of the many times such phenomena actually have been statistically proven under controlled conditions).
(The fact that the mystic’s account of “energy” is nebulous/not wholly defined is not actually a point against it, because it perfectly suits the fact that the subject matter itself is something that’s inherently difficult for us to know about and/or understand because we can’t observe it empirically and it’s probably not even a mechanistic process.)
The last time I debated with somebody about homeopathy, his entire argument was that he thinks it’s impossible and absurd because there’s no evidence that it’s legitimate, and when I asked him if he was aware of whether there’s any evidence either way–for or against it–his answer was, “no.” And yet he continued to make the same argument after that. When I pressed him further, he broke all civility and called me a dumbass, at which point I promptly dressed him down and he shut up. I think his sort of thinking is typical of people who reflexively scoff at homeopathy.
Facebook follow-up:
Anela Puljic:
I think that we should use science to vet things (no pun intended 
As with human and vet medicine … the foundation should always be “whole/real grown foods” and to supplement essential vitamins/nutrients as needed depending on dietary preference whether human or animal. When preventing or treating illnesses… science has given us so many tools… but everything should be looked at from a holistic standpoint… you still may need the Rx to treat something, but you should also always optimize home remedies and use nature to work with medicine hand in hand to achieve the best/safest/most efficacious outcome for human or dog 
I’m very passionate about harmony, homeostasis, science and living well… if you ever find yourself at an extreme end of any opinion, it’s fine to step back and learn more about everything so that progress can be made in a healthy way.
I think science and nature work well together and we should be open to sharing and educating ourselves, rather than dividing or only sitting in one corner of the room of ideologies and opinions.
Richard A. Nichols III:
Anela Puljic My post was less about “homeopathy definitely works” and more about “we should have an open mind about it.” I think science itself has systemic biases (as in the scientific community, which is made of people who are flawed, and popular scientific opinion), so we should take its positions with a grain of salt. That being said, if there have been studies of homeopathy’s effectiveness that showed it’s not effective, that’s important. I’ve yet to bother to look that up. As for safety, I don’t think homeopathic medicine introduces any risk, because the potency is so diluted.
Anela Puljic:
I’m a supporter of both sometimes side by side as long as there is not harm (ex: homeopathic supplement can alter enzyme function that metabolizes medicines the human/animal is on, some have blood thinning properties, etc. ), provides some benefit even if it is minimal or subjective, and is accessible/made well.
That’s why it’s important for the science people to be open minded and learn about homeopathic stuff and for homeopathic people to also realize there is so so much science stuff enzymes, systems, etc that can be altered even from a natural substance. I don’t think we can survive without nature and science holding hands. One on its own couldn’t sustain population the way it is 
Richard A. Nichols III:
Anela Puljic Agreed that we probably couldn’t sustain 8 billion people without science, and science is definitely very useful. (though we probably shouldn’t have 8 billion people anyway, and I tend toward neo-Luddism, so science’s necessity is more incidental and contextual.) The question of whether we should defer to it for every question is a different matter. Though I’ll concede/acknowledge your points about homeopathic medicine having dangerous effects, I didn’t know that.
