3 ms·

As opposed to holistic. Western medicine is excellent when you can diagnose a specific single issue and fix it. For issues that don't have a single-specific ca

As opposed to holistic. Western medicine is excellent when you can diagnose a specific single issue and fix it. For issues that don't have a single-specific cause, the western medicine won't help much - it can cover specific symptoms, and tell you to do more sport, fix your diet and go to a therapist. Example - all kinds of chronic pain (IBS etc), chronic tiredness, etc. Doctors will order all kinds of tests, and if there is no clear single issue, they won't help you. Eastern/holistic medicine may not be perfect, but if science-backed options are exhausted, it's all there is. Also, with all my respect and sympathy towards strict science, it has it's limitations - especially when it comes to complicated systems. That's why nobody argues for using science-based methods of running startups :) Finally, fun fact, if we use current medical criteria, parachutes were never proven to work. No double-blind placebo-controlled human trials. :)

crispinb 7y ago
it has it's limitations - especially when it comes to complicated systems. I agree - the science of complexity is in its infancy (as I mentioned in the parent). But your conclusion doesn't remotely follow. That there are conditions scientific medicine isn't yet much help with (truly!) does not connote that non-scientific systems must therefore do better. Eastern/holistic medicine may not be perfect, but if science-backed options are exhausted, it's all there is. But the treatments promoted by the major medival 'Eastern' systems don't work. You don't need a new understanding of complexity to demonstrate this - you give sick people the treatments, and see if they get better. They don't. So 'all there is' in this case is nothing. Hardly surprising from a prior plausibility angle: the 'whole' their so-called 'holistic' rubrics work with (chakras, qi, etc) are old metaphysical fictions.

crispinb 7y ago

it has it's limitations - especially when it comes to complicated systems. I agree - the science of complexity is in its infancy (as I mentioned in the parent). But your conclusion doesn't remotely follow. That there are conditions scientific medicine isn't yet much help with (truly!) does not connote that non-scientific systems must therefore do better. Eastern/holistic medicine may not be perfect, but if science-backed options are exhausted, it's all there is. But the treatments promoted by the major medival 'Eastern' systems don't work. You don't need a new understanding of complexity to demonstrate this - you give sick people the treatments, and see if they get better. They don't. So 'all there is' in this case is nothing. Hardly surprising from a prior plausibility angle: the 'whole' their so-called 'holistic' rubrics work with (chakras, qi, etc) are old metaphysical fictions.