[lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Tue Aug 8 09:00:04 PDT 2006


At around 8/8/06 11:22 am, info at pulpculture.org wrote:
> At 11:00 AM 8/8/2006, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Ravi, d000d. Did you read the article? The guy actually makes these same
> points!
>
> He says that modern med. gets it wrong and was, indeed, based on total
> mythology in the beginning. He says that modern medicine borrows from
> hippie medicine.
>

Yes I actually read the article and even noted his passing mention of the above -- I referred to it as the equivalent of Fox News' "Fair and Balanced". He says [some of] the same things as me, but he *does not* make the same points (or so I believe).


> It's like you didn't get past the line in the opinion piece and decided
> to take issue!

Hmm! Did you read my initial response past the first line?


> Furthermore, given that it was an opinion piece, I'm guessing he didn't
> get into the nitty gritty since anyone can check his claims by reading
> the research and complaining to him if he got it wrong. Kinda scientific
> method, that!

Is it? I thought the scientific method (if there is such a beast) was to present the data and make your references explicit?

Since Doug brought up the issue of "idiots", I might as well borrow it: the problem with the reasoning offered by such defenders of Western medicine is that it is not parsimonious. The proof, otherwise, would have been in the pudding -- the rational choices that people make to deal with their most important problems: health. Instead, the reasoning relies (implicitly, or explicitly in the case of defenders such as the magician Randi) on some form of 'idiocy' of the public.

Here's my point: modern science is best used in its explanatory and predictive sense, not in its limiting capabilities. The anecdotal patient was partially correct with regard to the issue of "open mindedness". Studies such as those conducted by NIH etc are very important and are quite informative. What they do not, and cannot, tell us is whether any alternative can be eliminated. Add to that the fact that Western/orthodox medicine's own underpinnings (scientific/foundational) and performance are at best sketchy in terms of consistency (both theoretical and empirical).

--ravi

(unfortunately my last bit on this -- will try to respond off-list to any further responses to me)

-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list