3 ms·

It doesn't follow the western model of logic, which is why uninformed people who cannot understand subtleties insist on displaying their boarishness. For insta

by amalag 14y ago

It doesn't follow the western model of logic, which is why uninformed people who cannot understand subtleties insist on displaying their boarishness. For instance ayurveda says the stomach has digestive fire, it does not give you a list of chemicals which break down food. Rather it seeks to strengthen that digestive fire. If you want to peek in there with a catheter and say "Nope, there is no fire, ayurveda is bullshit" Well then, best of luck with your clinical trials trying to experiment on the newest medicines. There is value in that. It is not based on an inductive experimental approach so it does not fit with most western scientists. The idea is it is like an instruction manual, not reverse engineering. The human body was not evolved from some random processes for us to reverse engineer, rather there is an inherent design and ayurveda explains it. People may not agree with those depths of it, but that is the origin and philosophy.

Nursie 14y ago
"The human body was not evolved from some random processes for us to reverse engineer, rather there is an inherent design and ayurveda explains it." Hooray, you've admitted you're peddling religion, and creationism at that. Well done.
dalke 14y ago
You ascribe an overly reductionist viewpoint on scientific thought. The scientific analysis would be to note that 'digestive fire' might not literally be a fire (just like 'I've got the runs' doesn't mean that I want to run). The corresponding experiment would be "if person X is treated with Y1 then does outcome Z occur with any statistical difference compared to treatment with Y2", where "Y2" can be "doing nothing." This has nothing to do with peering inside the body, only with outcomes. Once a difference has been identified, then it's reasonable to try to identify how 'digestive fire' might map to aspects of the body. There are well more than trillions of possible treatments, so as a strategy a scientist will use a model of how the body works in order to prioritize the investigation. For example, the presence of a single butterfly between 50 and 100 meters away certainly does not affect most people's digestion, and can be put very low on the list of parameters to explore. The only part of the "western model of logic" which applies is determining if the treatment had an beneficial effect. If you say that that doesn't apply, then you also throw out the possibility of determining if a treatment isn't actually effective.
- amalag 14y ago
  Yes there can be scientific determinations done on ayurvedic treatments and some are done. I should not through the baby with the bathwater as they say. Ayurveda is largely about lifestyle and diet. But varies from person to person. I am sure there will be more sophisticated tests done which can show efficacies of the results. A gross example is heartburn. if you have heartburn do you just take a pill for it or adjust your lifestyle and diet? I am sure there can be more sophisticated experiments done which can show efficacies of treatments. You are right that we cannot through out logical thinking.
  - dalke 14y ago
    I looked for those scientific determinations. I couldn't find anything substantial. Mostly I saw a bunch of "ayurvedic treatments suggest X for Y, X contains A, B, and C, and C is seems to affect Q, which may be related to Y, so if there's an effect then that effect might be mediated through Q. But we need more studies to be sure." As to your heartburn example, here's what Western medicine suggests. 1) While true for <1% of the population, the heartburn could be caused by ischemic heart disease. An adjustment of diet or lifestyle won't make a big difference at this point. Diet and lifestyle makes a much bigger difference in the decade leading up to the problem, but you chose an example of treating heartburn, not of general health. 2) If it's caused by an H. pylori infection, then proscribe an triple therapy of of amoxicillin, clarithromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. This not only treats the immediate disease but eradicates H. pylori from the body. Western medicine learned about this in the 1980s. A change of diet might help with the immediate disease, but patients must follow that diet in order to avoid a recurrence. History shows that people don't like sticking to diets. If a patient can't follow the diet, and the heartburn comes back, is that a failure in the patient, for not following the treatment, or a failure in the treatment, for being hard for patients to follow through on? I place the blame more on the treatment than the patient. Especially when there's a two week treatment which will eradicate the bacteria. 3) If it's caused by GERD then patients might try lifestyle changes. But here's what Wikipedia says on the topic: > Certain foods and lifestyle are considered to promote gastroesophageal reflux, however most dietary interventions have little supporting evidence.[23] Weight loss and elevating the head of the bed are generally useful.[24] Moderate exercise improves symptoms however in those with GERD vigorous exercise may worsen them.[23] Stopping smoking and not drinking alcohol do not appear to result in significant improvement in symptoms.[24] Avoidance of specific foods and eating before lying down should only be recommended to those in which they are associated with the symptoms.[19] Foods that have been implicated include: coffee, alcohol, chocolate, fatty foods, acidic foods, and spicy foods.[19] (Note: [23] from 2009 says "it is possible to hypothesize that GERD may be a curable condition through the control of body weight and, in particular, by reducing abdominal obesity." while [24] from 2006 says "Therefore, although weight loss seems to have a promising effect on pH measures and symptoms, further randomized controlled studies are warranted to determine its exact effect on GERD outcomes". I suggest that the Wikipedia summary, that weight loss being generally useful, is not backed up by the citation.) So, three different causes of heartburn, but lifestyle and diet changes have at best little effect. What is the ayurvedic treatment for heartburn? Does it distinguish between these different reasons for getting heartburn, each of which has a different set of treatments in Western medicine? Or is the answer for all cases to change diet and lifestyle, even where Western medicine has show that those changes aren't effective?

by amalag 14y ago

Nursie 14y ago

"The human body was not evolved from some random processes for us to reverse engineer, rather there is an inherent design and ayurveda explains it." Hooray, you've admitted you're peddling religion, and creationism at that. Well done.

dalke 14y ago

You ascribe an overly reductionist viewpoint on scientific thought. The scientific analysis would be to note that 'digestive fire' might not literally be a fire (just like 'I've got the runs' doesn't mean that I want to run). The corresponding experiment would be "if person X is treated with Y1 then does outcome Z occur with any statistical difference compared to treatment with Y2", where "Y2" can be "doing nothing." This has nothing to do with peering inside the body, only with outcomes. Once a difference has been identified, then it's reasonable to try to identify how 'digestive fire' might map to aspects of the body. There are well more than trillions of possible treatments, so as a strategy a scientist will use a model of how the body works in order to prioritize the investigation. For example, the presence of a single butterfly between 50 and 100 meters away certainly does not affect most people's digestion, and can be put very low on the list of parameters to explore. The only part of the "western model of logic" which applies is determining if the treatment had an beneficial effect. If you say that that doesn't apply, then you also throw out the possibility of determining if a treatment isn't actually effective.

amalag 14y ago
Yes there can be scientific determinations done on ayurvedic treatments and some are done. I should not through the baby with the bathwater as they say. Ayurveda is largely about lifestyle and diet. But varies from person to person. I am sure there will be more sophisticated tests done which can show efficacies of the results. A gross example is heartburn. if you have heartburn do you just take a pill for it or adjust your lifestyle and diet? I am sure there can be more sophisticated experiments done which can show efficacies of treatments. You are right that we cannot through out logical thinking.
- dalke 14y ago
  I looked for those scientific determinations. I couldn't find anything substantial. Mostly I saw a bunch of "ayurvedic treatments suggest X for Y, X contains A, B, and C, and C is seems to affect Q, which may be related to Y, so if there's an effect then that effect might be mediated through Q. But we need more studies to be sure." As to your heartburn example, here's what Western medicine suggests. 1) While true for <1% of the population, the heartburn could be caused by ischemic heart disease. An adjustment of diet or lifestyle won't make a big difference at this point. Diet and lifestyle makes a much bigger difference in the decade leading up to the problem, but you chose an example of treating heartburn, not of general health. 2) If it's caused by an H. pylori infection, then proscribe an triple therapy of of amoxicillin, clarithromycin and a proton pump inhibitor. This not only treats the immediate disease but eradicates H. pylori from the body. Western medicine learned about this in the 1980s. A change of diet might help with the immediate disease, but patients must follow that diet in order to avoid a recurrence. History shows that people don't like sticking to diets. If a patient can't follow the diet, and the heartburn comes back, is that a failure in the patient, for not following the treatment, or a failure in the treatment, for being hard for patients to follow through on? I place the blame more on the treatment than the patient. Especially when there's a two week treatment which will eradicate the bacteria. 3) If it's caused by GERD then patients might try lifestyle changes. But here's what Wikipedia says on the topic: > Certain foods and lifestyle are considered to promote gastroesophageal reflux, however most dietary interventions have little supporting evidence.[23] Weight loss and elevating the head of the bed are generally useful.[24] Moderate exercise improves symptoms however in those with GERD vigorous exercise may worsen them.[23] Stopping smoking and not drinking alcohol do not appear to result in significant improvement in symptoms.[24] Avoidance of specific foods and eating before lying down should only be recommended to those in which they are associated with the symptoms.[19] Foods that have been implicated include: coffee, alcohol, chocolate, fatty foods, acidic foods, and spicy foods.[19] (Note: [23] from 2009 says "it is possible to hypothesize that GERD may be a curable condition through the control of body weight and, in particular, by reducing abdominal obesity." while [24] from 2006 says "Therefore, although weight loss seems to have a promising effect on pH measures and symptoms, further randomized controlled studies are warranted to determine its exact effect on GERD outcomes". I suggest that the Wikipedia summary, that weight loss being generally useful, is not backed up by the citation.) So, three different causes of heartburn, but lifestyle and diet changes have at best little effect. What is the ayurvedic treatment for heartburn? Does it distinguish between these different reasons for getting heartburn, each of which has a different set of treatments in Western medicine? Or is the answer for all cases to change diet and lifestyle, even where Western medicine has show that those changes aren't effective?