From: lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady)
Subject: Re: On pre-scientific traditions of medicine (was: Use of term
Followup-To: sci.med
Summary: The public deserves better from scientists than mere skepticism.
Organization: University of Hawaii (Mathematics Dept)
Distribution: sci
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:27:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.142600.7122@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.104014.3239@news.Hawaii.Edu> 
                              lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady) writes:
>> [It would be great is there was solid research proving that] 
>>therapies such as homeopathy and chiropracty don't work.
>
>That's the null hypothesis.  Research provides evidence (or not)
>that a therapy DOES work.  

The old "You can't prove a negative" platitude.  In fact, for practical
purposes one can.  If a reasonable study is done and the claimed benefit
does not show up at the 95% confidence level, as far as I personally am
concerned that's good enough to convince me that the therapy in question
is not worth my investing time and money in.  

>            When a therapy is not grounded in scientific
>paradigms, there is even less of an reason for a reputable doctor/scientist
>to take it seriously.  Tell me, Lee, if I proposed to cure your cancer
>today by agreeing to pray for you 10 years in the future, do you think
>that it would be worthwhile for the "scientific establishment" to waste
>its limited time, money and other resources in studying this?  Fine, I
>thought so.   So when a practitioner presumes to cure people by administering
>dilutions of substances which are so dilute that they aren't present
>anymore, I think a degree of skepticism is in order.  Similarly, if
>chiropractic presumes to claim that illnesses of all sorts can be cured by
>spinal manipulation, and their theory of illness is grounded in a pre-
>scientific understanding of the function of nerves, it is only proper to
>consider it with skepticism.  

I think that *very* strong skepticism is in order.  As far as homeopathy
goes, I think its proponents have pretty well discredited themselves in
this newsgroup without any help from their critics.  I'm sure that they
still believe in what they do but they've just made fools of themselves
with this ultra-dilution concept.

Still, with therapies that have been around for so long and are as
prevalent as homeopathy and chiropracty, I think that the public has a
right to expect more from the scientific community than mere skepticism.
The amount of money and time spent on these dubious cures justifies some
research that would enable scientific critics to offer more than just
"I'm very skeptical."  

One of the things I wanted to make people think about in my posting is
the fact that this argument, like most arguments on usenet, is conducted
in terms of great generalities.  Then people try to support their
positions by citing their favorite extreme examples.  We talk about
"alternative therapies" and you can cite prayer healing or homeopathy
and I can talk about my zinc lozenges.  Scientific truth is not found
on the level of vague generalities.

Also we can answer each other by moving to different frames of
reference.  I can say "There are degrees of certainty," which is certainly
true for me in making my personal decisions about what therapies to try.
Then you can jump to a scientific frame of reference and say "Obviously
you don't know much about science, making a statement like that," which
does successfully intimidate me, since I have to admit that I'm not an
empirical scientist.  

These patterns are typical of barroom arguments, which some people find
an interesting pasttime and where nothing is ever resolved.
Unfortunately, these kinds of arguments also often determine the policy
decisions of Congress and government agencies.  

--

Imagination is greater than knowledge.  -- Einstein 

lady@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu         lady@uhunix.bitnet