> 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).
I have to say I don't follow this line of reasoning at all. If we do careful experimental studies comparing the efficacy of St. John's wort to other treatments for depression and find that the SJW is no more effective than a placebo, we can quite clearly eliminate SJW as a "alternative" treatment for depression. Color me a naive empiricist (on pragmatic grounds), I guess: without systematic research, how can we figure out what therapies to recommend for people? Perhaps we should examine the entrails of chickens?
Miles