bassdriver wrote:
I think I really get your rational point of view. but in my eyes you're a believer as well. if you have a health problem and get a remedy from your doctor that solves your problem you probably won't be interested in seeing the double blind study of that drug. that applies to alternative therapies too.

ah ha! now we get into what michel foucault called "the medical gaze".... is it really all that different from, say, a "shamanic gaze"?

i agree with the notion that, especially in the west, there have been phony new age proponents of treatments based on some whacked out ultra-mystical take on things like qi. as an engineer, i also agree with the notion that science is capable of some really cool things that, say, shamanism is not. but dont idealize the medical community. i see a lot of that on this thread.

(note: shamanism was just an example, no shamanic tradition i know of (even that of korean shamans, the earliest shamans in east asia) has anything to do with qi)

wikipedia wrote:According to Foucault, the French and American Revolutions that spawned modernity also created a "metanarrative" of scientific discourse that held scientists, and specifically, doctors, as sages who would, in time, solve all of humanity's problems by abolishing sickness. For the 19th Century moderns, doctors in a way replaced the increasingly-discredited medieval clergy; instead of saving souls, medical professionals saved the body. This myth, according to Foucault, was part of a larger discourse of the humanist and Enlightenment schools of thought that believed the human body to be the sum of a person. This notion, known as biological reductionism, became a powerful tool of the new sages: Through thorough examination (or gazing) of a body, a doctor deduces symptom, illness, and cause, therefore reaching an unparalleled understanding of the patient.

The doctor's analytic gaze was thought to penetrate surface illusions in a near-mystical discovery of hidden truths.

gotta love mr. foucault

bassdriver wrote:

newberry wrote:I think we're straying off topic here, but I'd gladly participate in another thread about drugs vs. other treatments, or whatever.

yeah I got off topic. and it wasn't a very good idea. it's just hard for me to understand why you want to colour everything just black and white. I think there's a big range of helpful treatments between quackery and the scientific western medicine. I tried to point out that also scientifically proven treatments can do harm just to joggle your black/white view a little bit.

On the contrary; I'm well aware that these issues are not black & white, but complicated and nuanced. Could you provide an example of something I said that showed a black & white viewpoint? It seems to me that often when I get involved in discussions about natural/alternative healing vs. "Western medicine," I hear knee-jerk, black & white responses from others, along the lines of "pharmaceuticals=bad, natural/alternative remedies=good," which is an inaccurate oversimplification. Or Eastern whatever=good, Western=bad.

I prefer to take things on a case by case basis. I don't recall making any blanket generalizations, but if I have, please point it out.

but dont idealize the medical community. i see a lot of that on this thread.

Could you provide a quote from this thread that "idealizes" the medical community? Cause I don't remember that.

newberry wrote:

but dont idealize the medical community. i see a lot of that on this thread.

Could you provide a quote from this thread that "idealizes" the medical community? Cause I don't remember that.

its all over the thread. here are your own quotes:

newberry wrote:This is a strength of the scientific method; peer review journals/self criticism. I'm not sure how often one would find an article like this in the alternative medicine field (that is, an alternative healing publication detailing shortcomings of alternative healing). But if such a thing is common, please let me know.

newberry wrote:The scientific method is the best system we have, so far, for understanding the natural world and determining, to the best of our abilities, which drugs and remedies (Eastern, Western, whatever) are safe and effective. If anyone knows of a more effective system, please let me know what it is.

blah blah blah. the scientific method is for the education of scientists in academia, and evidently not for the practice of science in the medical establishment (given their history). in the mainstream, are we really dealing with a bunch of righteous scientists who are consistently mindful of ethics? you have to question the power stuctures that are set up. for instance, you assume that things are "peer reviewed" by a bunch of people who supposedly agree on a universal standard of ethics. but heres the all too prevalent theory: what if they only agree on the idea that "big pharma" is a good establishment whose power should be furthered financially because, hey, thats who pays them? is there really going to be a "peer review" that successfully puts a halt to whatever shady development the medical community conjures up next? countless examples can be cited: vioxx, the numerous conflicts of interest in the approval process of aspartame, etc etc etc....

wikipedia wrote:
There have been increasing accusations and findings that clinical trials conducted or funded by pharmaceutical companies are much more likely to report positive results for the preferred medication.

Between 1980 and 1997, drug industry funding for academic research rose eight fold, as research costs rose, and the rate of federal support fell. Drug researchers not directly employed by pharmaceutical companies often look to companies for grants, and companies often look to researchers for studies that will make their products look favorable. Sponsored researchers are rewarded by drug companies, for example with support for their conference/symposium costs. Lecture scripts and even journal articles presented by academic researchers may actually be 'ghost-written' by pharmaceutical companies. Some researchers who have tried to reveal ethical issues with clinical trials or who tried to publish papers that show harmful effects of new drugs or cheaper alternatives have been threatened by drug companies with lawsuits

ummm... peer review? the scientific method? theres economic "methods" at work as well. so, like i said, dont idealize the medical community.

now, back to what i was saying.... what say you of foucault and his idea of "the medical gaze"? it pretty much reduces the medical establishment to something not so far removed from shamanism under the guise of science. what the other dude said along the lines of "as you subscribe to mainstream medicine, youre a 'believer' also" really resonates with my opinions of mainstream medicine. and thats just my own opinion, being an engineer (read: very familiar with science) who doesnt subscribe to any alternative treatments myself.

its all over the thread. here are your own quotes:

I was explaining the value of the scientific method, not "idealizing the medical community." I'm well aware of the many problems in the medical community (I've criticized big drug companies many times on this forum). The scientific method requires peer review. Can peer review be faked or distorted? Of course. But when the scientific method is used properly, and not corrupted, it's the best system we have so far for determining the efficacy of treatments.

Bclark, do you know of a better way than science to do this? Do you agree that proper peer review is a strength of science?

in the mainstream, are we really dealing with a bunch of righteous scientists who are consistently mindful of ethics?

I'm sure there are self-righteous, unethical scientists, just as there are self-righteous, unethical alternative medicine practitioners. I certainly don't believe scientists or science is perfect.

you have to question the power stuctures that are set up.

I absolutely agree. The government, big corporations (including drug companies), the supplement industry, all should be questioned. I'm for consumer advocacy, and critical thinking.

for instance, you assume that things are "peer reviewed" by a bunch of people who supposedly agree on a universal standard of ethics.

No, I don't. I try to avoid making assumptions. Peer review is an important part of science. I don't assume that peer review is always handled ethically.

but heres the all to prevalent theory: what if they only agree on the idea that "big pharma" is a good establishment whose power should be furthered financially because, hey, thats who pays them? countless examples can be cited: vioxx, the countless conflicts of interest in the approval process of aspartame, etc etc etc....

ummm... peer review? scientific method? theres economic methods at work as well. so, like i said, dont idealize the medical community.

If "they" "only agree on the idea that "big pharma" is a good establishment whose power should be furthered financially..." I of course have a big problem with that. Again, I have repeatedly pointed out that big drug companies often behave badly, and sometimes unduly influence doctors, etc. Everyone here seems to agree with that. That's not good science. I'm a proponent of the scientific method being properly used. If doctors and drug companies are more interested in money than offering safe and effective treatments to their patients, of course I'm against that and I do know it happens.

I'm sure you agree that alternative/natural practitioners and manufacturers should be held to the same high standard as their Western couterparts, right? Both/all camps should be required to prove that their treatments or remedies are safe and effective, right? That's my main point. I'm not saying Western medicine is good, alternative/natural medicine is bad. I'm saying we should look at all treatments on a case by case basis, and there shouldn't be a double standard.
As far as "economic methods." Yes, money often corrupts. It corrupts our government, and can corrupt all walks of life. Whenever money is involved, you need to question if there is an ulterior motive. Big Pharma throws a lot of money around, which can get in the way of science and objectivity. I'm well aware of that and I'm against it. But alternative medicine has a profit motive too. It's a billion dollar industry. And I've talked elsewhere on this thread about the supplement industry lobby, and how Orrin Hatch helped pass a law that allows them not to be regulated.

it pretty much reduces the medical establishment to something not so far removed from shamanism under the guise of science.

Of course there are many serious problems with healthcare in the U.S. But I don't get the comparison of the medical establishment with shamanism. Has shamanism done away with polio? Can shamans do organ transplants? Remove brain tumors?

eta: Regarding Foucalt, and the "medical gaze." If this is a fair characterization of his views:

According to Foucault, the French and American Revolutions that spawned modernity also created a "metanarrative" of scientific discourse that held scientists, and specifically, doctors, as sages who would, in time, solve all of humanity's problems by abolishing sickness.

I certainly don't believe that scientists and physicians should be considered "sages," and I'm sure that neither will solve all humanity's problems. On the other hand, I doubt any credible person in the scientific community has ever made such a claim.

newberry wrote:On the contrary; I'm well aware that these issues are not black & white, but complicated and nuanced. Could you provide an example of something I said that showed a black & white viewpoint? It seems to me that often when I get involved in discussions about natural/alternative healing vs. "Western medicine," I hear knee-jerk, black & white responses from others, along the lines of "pharmaceuticals=bad, natural/alternative remedies=good," which is an inaccurate oversimplification. Or Eastern whatever=good, Western=bad.

newberry. I've been reading lots of your posts and I don't think I ever stated any sort of disrespect for your opinion.

if I'm not totally misunderstanding you, you would not consider any sort of treatment that is not proven to be effective. but it is a fact that all the alternative treatments that we were talking about here and on other threads are somewhere in this gray area between hocus-pocus and effective but unproven. I know people who practice these sorts of treatments and people who made good experience with alternative medicine. I can't imagine that all these treatments just work with the placebo effect. I would not ignore a treatment cos it's unproven, when I see that it's working fine for people that I know. that's my unscientific point of view.

newberry. I've been reading lots of your posts and I don't think I ever stated any sort of disrespect for your opinion.

True, except I'm curious to hear an example of my viewpoint being black/white, which you mentioned in an earlier post. If you think that's true, please provide a quote from me to support this.

if I'm not totally misunderstanding you, you would not consider any sort of treatment that is not proven to be effective.

I wouldn't say that I absolutely wouldn't consider any treatment that hasn't been proven effective. But generally speaking, I don't like to waste money on snake oil, and I don't want to take something that isn't proven to be safe.

but it is a fact that all the alternative treatments that we were talking about here and on other threads are somewhere in this gray area between hocus-pocus and effective but unproven.

I'm not sure what you mean by "effective" but unproven--that sounds like a contradiction in terms. The reason I keep bringing up the scientific method, is because without it we need to rely on anecdotal evidence, which is fine for a starting point, but it doesn't tell us much. If one is truly interested in distinguishing between a treatment that actually works vs. only seeming to work, one needs to rule out the placebo effect, and the symptom going away on its own (many ailments come and go, even without treatment), and other factors (maybe it wasn't the remedy I took that made my backache go away, maybe it was the long walk I took), observer bias, etc.

I know people who practice these sorts of treatments and people who made good experience with alternative medicine. I can't imagine that all these treatments just work with the placebo effect.

I too know many people who believe these kinds of treatments are effective. That doesn't mean that they truly are effective. I'm not suggesting that "all" of those treatments only seem to work via the placebo effect. I like to look at things on a case to case basis.

I would not ignore a treatment cos it's unproven, when I see that it's working fine for people that I know. that's my unscientific point of view.

I would not necessarily ignore a treatment because it's unproven either. Just because it has not been proven doesn't mean it doesn't work. But I'm not going to assume it works just because people believe it works.

Many people here seem to be very skeptical of Western medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs. That's good, we should be. But it seems that some have little or no skepticism when it comes to alternative medicine. I don't understand the double standard.

newberry wrote:Many people here seem to be very skeptical of Western medicine, and pharmaceutical drugs. That's good, we should be. But it seems that some have little or no skepticism when it comes to alternative medicine. I don't understand the double standard.

now thats funny - I always thought that it's the other way round.

and to get back on topic.... this is a nice form of tai chi in my opinion.

now thats funny - I always thought that it's the other way round.

Maybe, but not with me (that is, I believe it's very important to be skeptical of Western medicine; not only alternative medicine).

and to get back on topic.... this is a nice form of tai chi in my opinion.

Yes, it's beautiful. I've always found Tai chi to be lovely and fascinating.

Here's why I think we strayed off topic: I asked if chi was mystical or religious or natural or supernatural. If I'm not mistaken, most of the responses to that said no, it's not religious, it's natural. It has been described on this thread as energy, and someone said you can feel Chi's resistance. So if it's natural, not supernatural, and it's a palpable energy, perhaps science can measure it (in fact bassdriver or someone else said chi proponents are examining the science of chi). But it seems whenever I mention using science to understand something (this forum and elsewhere), someone brings up the evils of big pharma, and then we stray off topic.

Does anyone want to discuss science and chi? If chi can be measured or proven scientifically? Or does anyone here believe it to be religious or mystical? Is it unfair or misguided to try to use science to learn about chi?

bassdriver wrote:I googled this

Cool. So Bassdriver, do you agree that the scientific method is a good way to understand the natural world? Is there a better way?