12 ms·

> Rather, I think's saying that there are interactions and compounds in drugs we use that we don't (yet) fully understand. Unless there is evidence to support

> Rather, I think's saying that there are interactions and compounds in drugs we use that we don't (yet) fully understand. Unless there is evidence to support that position, that's indistinguishable from magical thinking rephrased to sound scientific.

jonnathanson 14y ago
Errr, no. Examples abound in the history of medicine of breakthroughs that were deemed effective before they were fully understood. Penicillin was shown to be an effective antibiotic agent long before science had a complete grasp on exactly why. Even basic sanitation (washing hands between surgeries) was a breakthrough that occurred before the germ theory of disease, and was originally believed effective for entirely different reasons. Today there are several classes of widely prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotics that work, but we don't really know why. Magical thinking is the belief that there is some fundamentally unknowable-to-man mystique underlying the workings of drugs. That's not what anyone's saying is the case here. Rather, they're saying that certain drugs work, and that the reasons are potentially knowable to science, but in many cases may not be known yet. (Or fully known yet).
- carbocation 14y ago
  So the argument is that because there are historical examples of the active ingredient of an herb being extracted into a useful drug, therefore the OP's personal belief that "constellations of chemicals in these concoctions which, in concert create an altogether particular and unique effect" is now a scientific claim? There is no scientific basis for that. It's just one guy's opinion. Could he investigate it in a scientific fashion? Sure. Could he convince me? Easily. Does asserting it to be scientific make it so? No.
  - jonnathanson 14y ago
    That's not at all what I'm saying, and to whatever extent you think it's what the OP is saying, I guess we are interpreting him very differently.

jonnathanson 14y ago

Errr, no. Examples abound in the history of medicine of breakthroughs that were deemed effective before they were fully understood. Penicillin was shown to be an effective antibiotic agent long before science had a complete grasp on exactly why. Even basic sanitation (washing hands between surgeries) was a breakthrough that occurred before the germ theory of disease, and was originally believed effective for entirely different reasons. Today there are several classes of widely prescribed antidepressants and antipsychotics that work, but we don't really know why. Magical thinking is the belief that there is some fundamentally unknowable-to-man mystique underlying the workings of drugs. That's not what anyone's saying is the case here. Rather, they're saying that certain drugs work, and that the reasons are potentially knowable to science, but in many cases may not be known yet. (Or fully known yet).

carbocation 14y ago
So the argument is that because there are historical examples of the active ingredient of an herb being extracted into a useful drug, therefore the OP's personal belief that "constellations of chemicals in these concoctions which, in concert create an altogether particular and unique effect" is now a scientific claim? There is no scientific basis for that. It's just one guy's opinion. Could he investigate it in a scientific fashion? Sure. Could he convince me? Easily. Does asserting it to be scientific make it so? No.
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  That's not at all what I'm saying, and to whatever extent you think it's what the OP is saying, I guess we are interpreting him very differently.