From: dpipes@spica.srg (Dave Pipes x4552)
Subject: Re: Applied Kinesiology, or what? (Was: how I heard about it)
Organization: just me
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 17:05:48 GMT
Followup-To: sci.skeptic

In article <1992Aug19.145034.21044@colorado.edu> gordon@tramp.Colorado.EDU (GORDON ALLEN R) writes:
>
>If I might take a moment to be skeptical of the skeptics...
>
>That AK might not be science doesn't really bother me.  Science is not the be-
>all and the end-all, merely a way of looking at things.  Furthermore, when as
>in some postings, a great leap of logic is made in comparing AK to astrology
>etc, minds are already made up and any attempt I would make to explain AK
>would just be a waste of bandwidth.  

Science is not "just a way of looking at things".  That would put it on a
level with religion and Republicanism, to name two examples.  This point is
frequently explained here.
>
>However, I did do a search of medline for things related to AK and didn't find
>much.  I also did the same for acupuncture and except for references about
>electro-acupuncture or anesthesia, which is are very narrow applications of 
>acupuncture and traditional chinese medicine, there was not too much.  The
>paucity of 'scientific' literature does not lessen the potential value of these
>techniques and modalities.  It just means that its out of the main stream.  Its

Cool.  This is all fine, there are lots of undocumented treatments that
work.

>not that they are invalid.  Robert Becker, the author of "The Body Electric"
>was funded some years ago by the NIH to do some acupunture research.  He found
>superficial regions on the arms having some electical activity which 
>corresponded to acupuncture meridians.  However, for some unknown reason(s), 
>his grant was dropped by the NIH.  Becker is not a flake.  His work was out 
>of the main stream of "accepted" science and therefore poo-pooed.  He also 
>stepped on toes.  Other systems scientists, also find difficulty in getting
>work published, not because it isn't good, but in some cases it pushes the 
>publishing technology while in others its too revolutionary.

See, some of us have trouble with this attitude that science is a conspiracy
designed to hold back innovative new ideas, considering that science is a
way of *evaluating* innovative new ideas.  One of the themes of alternative
medicine - and I *am* familiar with the way it is taught around here - is
that science "poo-poo's" or "rejects" things out of hand, always.  Sorry,
just not true.

Science is a way of equating observed phenomena with what we know of the
world around us.  It *does* have a way of rejecting things which are not
demonstrably part of the world around us.  Funny thing, very many of those
ideas rejected are based upon belief rather than observation.

As an example, I offer up Dr. Becker, as described above.  Do we know how the
case came out?  No.  Do we know why the research stopped?  No.  Do we have
any citations to look up, to check for ourselves?  No.  And yet the assertion
that his grant was dropped because his work was non-traditional is enough
for you.  I ask you, is hearsay good evidence?  Perhaps the source for your
info had an agenda which (surprise!) included support for their alternative
medical theories.
>
>So I'm not worried that AK may not be science.  In the long run, science may 
>not be either.

Fascinating, that you refer to logic to denigrate science.  After all, without
logic, no science.  So if you assertions abouve are true, you are accepting the
base tenets of the scientific method...I believe :-).

>
>-- 
>Allen Gordon 		         *If the folly of but one of us was changed to*
>Research Associate         	 *intelligence, and divided amongst a thousand*
>gordon@tramp.colorado.edu   	 *toads, each would be more intelligent than  *
>				 *Aristotle				      *

It was nice hearing your views, until the agenda crept in.  Oh well.

	David Pipes
robear@digex.com