Homeopathy considers art as well as science as integral components in its clinical application. On a broader perspective, in every medical system, there is quite a lot of science to theorize its concepts and uses art as a means to apply the science to patients. Ayurveda, Chinese medicine, acupuncture, chiro practice, osteopathy, Unani, and other complementary practices are based on powerful principles, considered scientific at their time of origin, but, are now seen by many as redundant. These practices follow the approach based on their philosophy in managing illnesses and providing health care support to the patients. Similarly, homeopathy evolved principally due to the dogmatic practice that prevailed in the Western medicine of that time was very much a leading medical practice for over 200 years, now being questioned for its scientific basis. Allopathy, which evolved from the Hippocratic aphorisms and used unprincipled treatment modalities for over 2000 years, now adopted scientific innovations and transformed into pure biomedicine. Even though whether one medical system is more scientific or less scientific, public acceptance of treatment from these medical systems co exists in different countries and is contributing to their strength by using the science as they understand to be correct and art as they consider necessary. The extent to which one system presuppose the contemporary knowledge of science to explain its basis in a language understandable in a rational way makes it perceivably more scientific than other systems. If the knowledge is contemporary, that system becomes scientific and if not, it becomes unscientific. In all the traditional medical practices or CAM therapies, their approach towards disease, patient, and treatment remained constant. Therefore, it can be inferred that it is the time of assessment that makes one medical system more scientific or less scientific and not its approach toward the patient. Thus, Homeopathy which evolved from the dogmatic practice of Allopathy is being considered less scientific today in comparison to modern scientific medicine. The truth is that science, as it existed at a particular time, had provided the key to intellectual expansion. Homeopathy, many consider to be a cult and Hahnemann is a prophet! It is seen that all the medical systems have evolved from different philosophy and civilizations based on the ethos and cultures of their origin. Therefore, to understand the science of a particular medical system, one has to understand the traditions from which it got codified. Those who understand this premise shall easily comprehend the science of that system and those who decline to be acquainted with it shall perceive that system to be redundant. Thus, people who know Indian philosophy accept the tridosha theory of Ayurveda as scientific without any prejudice. The same is the case with Homeopathy; those who believe in vitalism, accept it as a refined medical practice. The argument as to what is science in a particular system continues amongst the academia without much significant impact on its public acceptability. Allopathy that evolved from the Greek philosophy of humoral theory (Hippocrates, 460–370 BC) in medicine is now relying on reductionist science to give thrust to physical evidence of diseases and uses biologically active substances to treat illness. In that process, during the last few years, the scientific basis in that system went ahead with material evidence. Consequently, it gave the advantage of explaining several aspects of health, diseases, and cures more rationally. Thus, the Allopathy of yesteryears has become the modern scientific today with more rationality in the explanation of the causation of diseases from biological causes of germ theory, hereditary causes, genetic theories, BEINGS theory, Web of Causation theory, Wheel theory, etc. Based on the understanding of causation the body is divided into systems and organs, compartmentalized treatment with multiple specializations. The flip side is that when we study any classical textbook of modern medicine there are more diseases with unknown etiology and the art component of understanding the patient has become irrelevant. In that process a new concern has emerged for more care of health, resulting in labeling persons with even minor aberration in biochemical parameters as sick. Thus, there is havoc in society with more diseased individuals, more hospitals, more specialists to treat different systems and organs, etc. The Cartesian concept of viewing mind and body as separate identities has taken away the holistic approach in health care in the name of modernizing scientific medicine. On the other side, those who attribute a more artistic approach to health consider every patient different. They propose that one standard treatment protocol to treat every patient is not possible. This concept is closer to the homeopathic theory of individualization, now being supported with genetic theories and gene expression models. There is also a view that when two doctors see the same patient, their approach differs, and the inferences also are bound to differ. Thus, the standard treatment protocol, even for the same disease in different patients differs. This has led to the emergence of personalized treatment as a new approach in medicine. The protagonists of this concept question the RCTs and other controlled models that are the backbone of research models in biomedicine. The science in medicine consists of theories and principles that form the basis for rationally understanding the system. This includes the process of the disease, its general management, and the therapeutic tools and methods to treat illness or preserve health. While art in medicine is considered the basis of understanding the patient and management of sickness including the selection of the medicine, the recent trend is to seek explanation more so satisfy others. The art includes understanding the constitution and temperament of the patient, medical humanities, compassion towards the sick, sensitivity to his illness, understanding the behavior in emotional distress, etc. This varies from individual based on the circumstance and social aptitudes. There may be less rationality on the above attributes when scrutinize from a rationalistic view, especially the physical ailments from a modern medical perspective. However, in circumstances dealing with patients, these attributes form a major factor. Thus, the art of medicine in Homeopathy deals with the whole gamut of doctor-patient relationships for example, a patient with typhoid, whether he is thirty or not, whether he prefers covering or uncovering, restless or calm is quite insignificant in biomedicine to understand the patient or for making prescription. The thrust given there is mainly on changes in bio-chemical parameters, evidenced through laboratory reports. Whereas Homoeopathy based on vitalistic philosophy, gives significant importance to emotion, feelings, understanding, etc. to know the patient also for a prescription. Here, there is a definite correlation between mind and body. That is why homeopathy is considered holistic. The following are the major factors that decide whether one is sick or otherwise a) The evidence of a disease felt or explained by the patient: a feeling that he is sick (subjective symptoms). b) The evidence of diseases elicited by the physician and or explained by the attendants: signs and objective observation etc. c) The evidence of diseases corroborated by clinical findings such as physical examination and laboratory data. d) Unless a physician gets positive information on any two or more of the above in one patient, making a treatment protocol for the disease condition is unethical.