"People" might do that, but science certainly doesn't. Theoretical plausibility guides research, which is reasonable (there's no point in amassing prior knowled

"People" might do that, but science certainly doesn't. Theoretical plausibility guides research, which is reasonable (there's no point in amassing prior knowledge if you don't use it). But empirical evidence is the determiner. And empirical studies of acupuncture have been a mixed bag - mostly it seems not to work, and where it does, sham treatments do just as well. Homeopathy is worse, but acupuncture is up there as a 'treatment' with a very poor empirical base. [an aside: I worked for a while in an fmri lab alongside a guy who did acupuncture reasearch. He was the most ideological researcher I've every come across in any field - flatly refusing to accept the validity of any data (even when collected by himself) that didn't support acupuncture's use. As someone now living in Australia's hippy zone, I find this a very recognisable & alarming trait of the 'alternative' health field.]