From: terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: Unorthodox treatments are *not* the problem  (was: ... name right!)
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:04:27 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.153940.1802@island.COM> green@island.COM (Robert Greenstein) writes:
>In article <17e4s2INN732@cs.utexas.edu> turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) writes:
>
>>I cannot remember, in this newsgroup, *any* post being labelled
>>as quackery *because* it discussed non-orthodox treatment.  What
>>gets posts labelled as quackery is the silly theories that are
>>used to discuss the non-orthodox treatments.  This distinction
>>is crucial.  Consider the two example posts, below. 
>>
>>Example post A: 
>>
>>   I have noticed that in both the ancient Chinese and Indian
>>   traditions, the herb X is used to treat digestive disorders and
>>   hepatitus.  Does anyone know of any substance in this herb that
>>   might be useful?  Has this herb been investigated beyond these
>>   ancient traditions?
>>
>>Example post B:
>>
>>   The herb X calms the liver when it is angry, and invigorates 
>>   the spleen, which is crucial to digestion.
>>
>>Note that both posts discuss the same treatment.  The first would
>>raise no eyebrows.  The second is, in the light of scientific
>>knowledge, a bunch of hooey, and those in this newsgroup who know
>>better rightly point this out. 
>
>Your examples are biased. In Example A, you imply that herb X has
>little value unless 1) some "useful" portion of it is extracted
>and probably synthesized, and b) we need modern investigation to
>validate its use. Oriental herb medicine is an empirical science backed up
>by thousands of years of clinical observation and practice. It has 
>withstood the test of time and continues to be a strong vibrant and
>coherent system despite continuous attacks by proponents of so-called
>scientific medicine. 

1)	Russell appears to be citing rather than manufacturing examples;
	he isn't personally implying anything in the examples, only in
	his analysis following the examples.

2)	I believe that his fault finding in "Example post B" on the basis
	of ascribing a role in digestion to the spleen and volition (in
	the form of an ability to be "angry") to the liver.

	I have to agree with his fault finding in light of empirically
provable evidence to the contrary.  He is not attacking whether or not
"oriental herb medicine" works, but the story used to explain why it
should work.

	Physics is rife with similar examples of stories to explain the
equations which work; quantum electrodynamics and the controversy
surrounding the Copenhagen theory is a good example of this.  We all
know that the equations come up with answers, but *why* do they come up
with answers?  What is the physical reality being modeled by the equations?
There are several stories competing, even today.

	I think that nearly any scientist would agree that a so called
"modern investigation", which I would term a synonym for "scientific
method", is necessary to support or refute any historically authoritative
claims, regardless of their source.  Do you believe the Earth is flat?
That it resides at the center of the universe?  That the moon is cheese?
The first example asks for collaborative evidence.  The second is baldly
fictitious, given what we demonstrably know about these organs.


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu

---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.
Newsgroups: sci.med