Pros y contra en el debate acerca de la homeopatía

Homeopathy is a controversial field of study, so much that it has even been considered by some philosophers of science as a fraud. The question of homeopathy as pseudoscience can be approached with at least two strategies: a) evaluating the main arguments of so-called skeptics of “pseudoscience”, and b) discussing the main demarcation criteria between science or pseudoscience proposed by the philosopher Mario Bunge. We take both approaches and will discuss some points to favor or against homeopathy.

Since the beginning, Bunge’s demarcation was considered as the most reliable “evidence” against homeopathy. A primary goal of this article is to provide some examples to illustrate the debate. At the end, this article demonstrates that the Bunge’s demarcation is an act of faith that is ultimately completely invalid in comparison to the contemporary growing body of scientific evidence. On the basis of the discussion presented in the article, the Bunge’s demarcation must not be
used to provide any definitive categorizations.