4 ms·

Unfortunately, we're not at the point where science possesses a monopoly on working medicine. Believing that every pre-scientific practice is pure hocus-pocus

Unfortunately, we're not at the point where science possesses a monopoly on working medicine. Believing that every pre-scientific practice is pure hocus-pocus that should be rejected out of hand seems to be a strange conceit.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> we're not at the point where science possesses a monopoly on working medicine Science is the best mechanism we’ve found for developing towards truth. > Believing that every pre-scientific practice is pure hocus-pocus that should be rejected out of hand seems to be a strange conceit Red herring. I’m not saying it should be dismissed for research purposes. It is a pseudoscience because its practitioners make unfounded, and in certain cases false, claims.
- etiam 9y ago
  > Science is the best mechanism we’ve found for developing towards truth. Mostly by destroying theories that don't hold up to scrutiny. Possibilities still need to come from somewhere. > I’m not saying it should be dismissed for research purposes. It is a pseudoscience because its practitioners make unfounded, and in certain cases false, claims. Good. We're mostly in agreement then. The nuances of that position were hardly clear from your original short post though, so I sympathize with smallnamespace's remark.
losteric 9y ago
However, science does have a monopoly on proven medicine. The scientific method is literally how we understand what and why things work. Traditional medicine is just cultural memory from millennia of blind trial and error... medicinal dogma. Some of it works, but research and clinical trials have repeatedly shown most traditional treatments are placebo at best.
- m_fayer 9y ago
  A millennia of trial and error vs a century or so of methodical science. Certainly the science is much more effective, but there must be some gems in that great big pile of trial and error too. Also we shouldn't underestimate the healing power of careful attention, empathy, and placebo effects.
  - losteric 9y ago
    Yes... that's what I said... finding new treatments is like finding needles in a haystack, and science is the magnet. When it comes to traditional medicine, most of the haystack is really just hay. Historical trial and error told people what not to do, but it did not distinguish between ineffective and successful treatment due to generally high mortality rates and lack of rigorous testing. If you have time, browse through ancient western medicine - you will notice almost none of it passed scientific rigor.
    - smallnamespace 9y ago
      > most of the haystack is really just hay Citation needed? You can't blindly assert that something doesn't work by appealing to scientific methodology and its heavy reliance on proof without actually bringing that proof to the table. Otherwise you're just arguing from your own heuristics and prior beliefs—just like other non-scientific traditions. You might be right, or you might be wrong; but cloaking that claim with the mantle of science is the exact opposite of careful scientific scrutiny. > but it did not distinguish between ineffective and successful treatment due to generally high mortality rates and lack of rigorous testing. And we're sure this is true for all cultures over all times how, exactly? > ancient western medicine This might be much more likely to be true since modern Western medicine developed from pre-modern Western medicine, so early modern doctors were intimately familiar with how effective (or not) those approaches were. How likely is it that Western medicine has rigorously and thoroughly investigated non-Western medical traditions though?
      - losteric 9y ago
        Of course, no one can't assert that any one treatment does or does not work without scientific testing. However, we can make educated guesses about the overall success rate using other cultures. Ancient Europe had many dogmatic medicinal practices based on tradition (trial and error), yet almost none survived the scientific revolution. Given pre-science Europe's high failure rate, why do you believe other cultures will fare better?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> we're not at the point where science possesses a monopoly on working medicine Science is the best mechanism we’ve found for developing towards truth. > Believing that every pre-scientific practice is pure hocus-pocus that should be rejected out of hand seems to be a strange conceit Red herring. I’m not saying it should be dismissed for research purposes. It is a pseudoscience because its practitioners make unfounded, and in certain cases false, claims.

etiam 9y ago
> Science is the best mechanism we’ve found for developing towards truth. Mostly by destroying theories that don't hold up to scrutiny. Possibilities still need to come from somewhere. > I’m not saying it should be dismissed for research purposes. It is a pseudoscience because its practitioners make unfounded, and in certain cases false, claims. Good. We're mostly in agreement then. The nuances of that position were hardly clear from your original short post though, so I sympathize with smallnamespace's remark.

losteric 9y ago

However, science does have a monopoly on proven medicine. The scientific method is literally how we understand what and why things work. Traditional medicine is just cultural memory from millennia of blind trial and error... medicinal dogma. Some of it works, but research and clinical trials have repeatedly shown most traditional treatments are placebo at best.

m_fayer 9y ago
A millennia of trial and error vs a century or so of methodical science. Certainly the science is much more effective, but there must be some gems in that great big pile of trial and error too. Also we shouldn't underestimate the healing power of careful attention, empathy, and placebo effects.
- losteric 9y ago
  Yes... that's what I said... finding new treatments is like finding needles in a haystack, and science is the magnet. When it comes to traditional medicine, most of the haystack is really just hay. Historical trial and error told people what not to do, but it did not distinguish between ineffective and successful treatment due to generally high mortality rates and lack of rigorous testing. If you have time, browse through ancient western medicine - you will notice almost none of it passed scientific rigor.
  - smallnamespace 9y ago
    > most of the haystack is really just hay Citation needed? You can't blindly assert that something doesn't work by appealing to scientific methodology and its heavy reliance on proof without actually bringing that proof to the table. Otherwise you're just arguing from your own heuristics and prior beliefs—just like other non-scientific traditions. You might be right, or you might be wrong; but cloaking that claim with the mantle of science is the exact opposite of careful scientific scrutiny. > but it did not distinguish between ineffective and successful treatment due to generally high mortality rates and lack of rigorous testing. And we're sure this is true for all cultures over all times how, exactly? > ancient western medicine This might be much more likely to be true since modern Western medicine developed from pre-modern Western medicine, so early modern doctors were intimately familiar with how effective (or not) those approaches were. How likely is it that Western medicine has rigorously and thoroughly investigated non-Western medical traditions though?
    - losteric 9y ago
      Of course, no one can't assert that any one treatment does or does not work without scientific testing. However, we can make educated guesses about the overall success rate using other cultures. Ancient Europe had many dogmatic medicinal practices based on tradition (trial and error), yet almost none survived the scientific revolution. Given pre-science Europe's high failure rate, why do you believe other cultures will fare better?