 |
 |
Yes indeed, Ronan, an important question. But, but...... Science is a form of socially constructed language on par with homeopathy and acupuncture? Well, yes if and only if you accept one important assumption, one that you state with so much certainty: that all such forms of knowledge can be judged only by their own models. That is where your argument leads us astray. Whether homeopathy argues that water has memory or not, whether acupuncture rests on the existence of meridians or not, they both lay claims to effecting observable phenomena: diagnosis and treatment. These claims can be put to the test of observation. This is one form of judgement that is EXTERNAL to their "paradigm". And what happens when that external test is applied? You know the answer. Yet people continue to believe in them, you are right on that. To understand why, turn to social psychology. Science starts with a belief that there is a world out there that we can observe and describe, leading us to develop theories and draw deductions which can then be tested by further observation. I repeat the challenge that I have made before, if anyone denies the existence of such a world, walk with me into the middle of a busy road and stay there, while I get out of the way of the oncoming social construct (Hopayian, K. (2004) Why Medicine Still Needs a Scientific Foundation: Restating the Hypotheticodeductive Model. Br J Gen Pract, 54, 400 - 403). Dr Kev (Kevork) Hopayian, MD FRCGP General Practitioner, Leiston, Suffolk Hon Sen Lecturer, Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia Primary Care Tutor, Suffolk RCGP Clinical Skills Assessment examiner On 20 Sep 2012, at 12:00, Ronan Conroy wrote: > On 2012 MFómh 20, at 11:07, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Is Ronan Conroy saying that complemtary medicine is not scientific? If so on what evidence is complementary medicine based? > > This is a very important question. > > Science is a form of socially-constructed knowledge. Other forms include ethics, fashion, stigma, folklore etc. One feature of all socially-constructed forms of knowledge is that they have an inbuilt paradigm for determining truth. > > In science, truth is the best explanation we have for the best data we have. So truth is always partial, unfinished and transient. In this respect science can be seen as a classical zen discipline! (In zen, the paradigm is called waba-sabi.) > > In homeopathy, on the other hand, truth is based on the axiom that like cures like, and the axiom of the potency of dilutions. If you accept these two premises, then homeopathy is true, otherwise not. > > Likewise in acupuncture, traditional medicines from various traditions, you find a paradigm that underpins the truth of the knowledge. Scientific medicine is simply medicine that is based on the scientific paradigm of truth: that truth is the best explanation we have for the best available data. > > > People tend to recognise this. If a doctor advises a course of treatment, the patient will ask what the evidence for its effectiveness is, and they will be expecting research. However, if someone in a health food shop recommends vitamin E, the same person will not ask to see the data. So people vary their criterion of truth according to the paradigm that applies to the situation. > > Asking what evidence complementary medicine is based on is missing the point. You are trying to judge the truth of complementary medicine using the paradigm of a different social construction. It's like trying to judge whether a doctor is performing well by having them reviewed by theatre critics. Homeopaths have never needed evidence that water remembers fantastically small dilutions of a substance. To them, the truth of the assertion is an axiom. To say that there is no evidence for the belief is like saying that a belief in god cannot be true because there is no scientific proof of her existence (or gender). It is applying a criterion of truth that is irrelevant. > > Or so it seems to me. > > r > >> >> I have heard terms like orthodox medicine to describe mainstream medicine versus complementary medicine. People know what orthodox medicine means, does and who is registered and monitored to practice it. >> >> My earlier co ntri bution sought to get someone to clarify those attributes for complementary medicine especially In developing countries. > > Ronán Conroy > [log in to unmask] > Associate Professor > Division of Population Health Sciences > Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland > Beaux Lane House > Dublin 2