> I have been mostly ignoring the implications of the introduction of
> "western" (which AFAIK I am not guilty of) into this discussion but
> perhaps I should make my thoughts known: "western" medicine is not
> entirely "western", nor is eastern medicine entirely non-establishment.
> Indian and Chinese establishment doctors are as much establishment
> doctors (when they are so) as western ones.
I've been chafing under this terminology as well.
> > Could you identify who is arguing that western medicine is the sole
> > contributor to public or any other kind of health?
>
> My claim is not that someone made that exact statement. My claim is: you
> cannot rule out alternative medication unless you can demonstrate that
> it has not contributed to any progress in health. (well I gave two other
> ways you can attempt to eliminate it, if not on empirical grounds, but I
> pointed out or hinted at the problems with each such approach).
But the article noted some examples where alternative medicine was adopted by mainstream medicine. That seems to preclude ruling it out.
> IIRC "No Alternative" was the very title of the original article.
I don't find the title terribly representative of the article, and I've heard that in newspapers it's not the author's to choose. As I wrote, the article noted where alternative medicine was adopted.
> > I don't think I understand the bit about establishment medicine
> > stealing alternative remedies. Should establishment medicine ignore
> > remedies that might work? Not even examine and test them?
>
> In fact, they definitely should. Opportunism and diversity are the best
> approaches to expanding human knowledge.
Then could you explain again what you mean by the following:
> I wrote: "alternative" remedies are stolen by establishment medicine and
> claimed as one of its successes.
Is is that FDA approved -- what we're calling establishment or western -- medicine tests some technique without taking the tradition's or practitioner's word for it, so to speak?
Is it that establishment medicine is claiming to have developed something like acupuncture and come up with it by deduction from theory?
> Thank you, thank you, thank you -- for spelling turmeric right! ;-) ;-)
<blush> Garsh, thanks. I've been perusing the Penzey's catalog. :-)
> No, not at all. I wouldn't object to any establishment (western if you
> like) researcher borrowing the results, findings and methods of other
> approaches. I do mind their bad-mouthing them while doing so.
Could you give some examples of this? I would think that adopting something you once dismissed as bogus takes a certain amount of humility. Part of the learning process.
Reading your other replies, I'm guessing that part of your beef with all of this is that alternatives get tested and eliminated while the tests come with a level of uncertainty, whether from small sample sizes, data points dismissed as outliers, corruption, failure to perceive, etc. Is this a correct characterization of your position?
-- Andy