A science for many drugs
Globalization is a process that is affecting all disciplines and that leads to a broadening of our cultural boundaries. The scientific world is subject to this inevitable change and, as the expectation is that it demonstrates an openness to the wider integration of knowledge, often it is not. This is the case, for example, the difficult relationship between the Western scientific medicine, better known as "allopathic" medicine, and defined "alternatives."
The name of the two subjects already says a lot about the terms of the debate: the term "alternative" emphasizes how our science is considered an elite and gives the impression of a certain cultural closure, as if to say: "If you're not with me , you're against me ", so you can not deal with a speech diagnostic, but only to separate roads, divided, alternate.
My most influential teacher of Chinese medicine holds that the correct name would be "integrative medicine".
It is often said that the "alternative" medicine can not be considered valid because it does not meet the criteria of the scientific method. Given that I recognize the great value that science and its method, beyond how it is applied, I would like to focus on a few points:
1. The scientific method is based on 'independence between observer and observed object, and quantum physics has shown that This is not an assumption still valid, but rather an illustration: the electrons behave differently depending on how they are designed, light behaves in a wave or particle depending on how it is measured. Thus the axiom that considers independent subject and object that describes a way to present reality, and does not exclude the other. In practice, therefore, Galilean science can not claim that what is not within its canons is false, but can only speak about what you can dig through the methodology that is proper. On the other hand, in the latter case, as said Popper, science is much more useful in showing what is not true, than what it is, because it is based on the concept of reproducibility: the certainty of an experimental result is "asymptotic", because it would require endless repetitions of the experiment, but simply a failure to establish that the hypothesis is false postulated.
2. The fact that allopathic medicine is considered the '"other" as external to himself, is both a source of success and failure. The success is that it is reproducible, within certain limits. Therefore, regardless of who prescribes a drug, it will follow its course in the body of the patient and will, more or less what he does in the other. The reproducibility makes us confident to achieve an effect, if the causes are unknown, but is dangerous because it can make us too confident, so much so that we can be misled into thinking that scientific medicine can cure everything. The opposite is true: failure due to the separation between observer and observed (not present in the original medicine, Hippocrates and that of pre-Enlightenment) is that our medicine will not cure many diseases, and almost always treats the symptoms and not the causes. That's because it serves integrative medicine, because none of the two (or more) drugs is comprehensive.
It happens differently, for example, in acupuncture and Chinese massage, as in other holistic disciplines: the effect also depends on who acts on the body, ie the observer and the observed are united by a mutual exchange of energies.
3. From point 1 is understood that in order for the medicine "alternative" can be considered valid in science, it is essential that they respond to his method. There is, however, the difficulty of applying to them the concept of reproducibility, for several reasons: increased variability in the choice of treatment, greater subjectivity, and frequently focus on phenomena "energy", which are beyond the techniques of experimental investigation. Consider for a moment, then, the concept of reproducibility.
Reproducing something exactly, in fact, it is impossible: what we do normally is to set standards for which two conditions are quite similar, "almost equal", and therefore we can consider the second event as a replication of the first. If we think in terms of cause and effect, only the knowledge of all the elements that make up an event, or rather a causal circumstance, makes it much easier to know the effect (cf. T. Honderich, "Are you really free?" - The Assayer, 1996). In other words, if you struck a match, we expect to achieve the effect of fire ignition, but if the match is too wet, our prediction will be disregarded, because we considered that the humidity falls within the circumstances necessary causal for the ignition of the match, that is, we do not get the desired effect because we were not fully aware of the causes. That's why, for example, physics is considered a more robust science of biology (or medicine) in the second case because there are many other factors beyond our calculations. So we really think that other drugs such as China, do not take into account the reproducibility?
Definitely take it into account, which often only refer to a much larger number of "causal factors" (inappropriate term, but useful for illustration), symptoms and signs, compared to Western medicine, so to find two very similar cases, on which we can apply the concept of "replication", serves a much larger sample. Beyond the reproducibility of the method there is no big difference between the medical practices: observation, hypothesis testing (logical or empirical), and elaboration of a theory (or diagnosis).
Finally, one last observation: more than groped to verify the success of a medical science according to our standards, it might be more useful to investigate whether the knowledge of that can enrich our culture in the area?
In a recent interview, I heard a nephrologist well known that his team is conducting research on the association, not intuitive, including heart disease and kidney. Although the concepts of "heart" and "kidneys" are very different in China than in Western medicine, the heart-kidney axis is known in China for more than two thousand years and used for diagnostic purposes. I wrote an email to ask him if he took the opportunity to take a cue from the ancient reservoir of knowledge, in the course of the experiment. Unfortunately I have not received any response.
Category: East and West on: January 10th, 2008
What do you think?