yossarian, I’ve no problem with medicine broadening it’s understanding as long as it’s done in a repeatable and rigorous way, just trying things at random with no understanding of how they work was what the quacks in the 18th century did. As for dogma being offended, it’s the established medical professionals way of doing things, if the alternative medicine brigade want to submit to the same controlled trials as main stream pharma then great.
Can I say from the outset that I’m not interested in having an argument about this? I am interested in discussing the role of as yet scientifically unproven remedies. I reckon that anyone in either side who thinks that they are conclusively ‘right’ is excluded 🙂
I should also say that I’ve never had any complimentary therapy that has skewed my judgement one way or the other. I’ve pretty much never been to see a doctor as it goes.
The comment above about 18 century ‘quacks’ interests me. Where did previous medicinal knowledge and experience come from? It wasn’t plucked from the air that’s for sure. There is a heritage of nature remedies and therapies, hedge lore to some I suppose, that pre dates what we consider to be rational. I wonder if it’s rationale, which must exist on some level, is not yet clear to us because our limited, proven understanding of the universe doesn’t allow for it. For me that’s not a valid reason to dismiss it, quite the opposite. Maybe there are cheap/free, easily distributable and teachable solutions right around the corner. Not looking for them because they don’t fit with a traditional view would’ve exactly the sort of obstacle that mankind would throw at itself.