Yeah, but…

In my previous post I talked about how it’s important to consider opposing viewpoints when examining what you believe. My position is that while generally true, there are situations where opposing perspectives should not be given equal time. In other words not all viewpoints deserve equal consideration. I used the example that, when considering how the pyramids or Stonehenge were created, it’s OK to dismiss “space aliens did it” without critically examining that viewpoint.

The other side of that coin is that paradigms NEVER change from inside the system, so good things that should have been given a careful look have historically been dismissed as ridiculous; “Everyone knows that can’t possibly be true.” I heard once that there are three (tongue-in-cheek) stages to the acceptance of a novel idea by a former critic:

  1. “That is ridiculous; any reasonable person can see that.”
  2. “Well, maybe it’s true, but it’s irrelevant.”
  3. “Of course it’s true, and I’ve said so from the beginning.”

I have an acquaintance (actually, we’re “friends” on Facebook, but I’ve only met this person face-to-face once, so I’m not sure exactly where that puts us). Anyhow, I gained considerable respect for him from both our interactions when we met and from following his FB postings. We have similar political and social views; he is a respected and accomplished physician who loves the outdoors and leads a very active life, and I feel certain that if we lived closer together we could become actual (as opposed to just FB) friends.

Unlike me, he is not afraid to take strong positions on Facebook (I tend to keep those views somewhat private; not all my views are things I care to share with my business colleagues). And I find that some of his postings are, while not directly offensive to me, would be to people whom I respect. For example he has posted a number of attacks on chiropractic and homeopathy as fraud or quackery. This is a bit surprising to me; he is not a “conventional” MD and embraces much of what I would have called “complementary or alternative” medicine. When we met it was at a summit to discuss how lifestyle medicine could (and should) be incorporated into the medical treatment paradigm.

Anyhow, the point is that he considers quackery some of the things I believe to be useful tools. Knowing him, I think I’m safe in assuming the reason he believes as he does is that he thinks there is no scientific evidence to support them.

But what if his opinion, which he believes is based on science, turns out to be wrong? In the case of chiropractic, for instance, it turns out he’s just poorly informed; there actually is a fairly large body of studies indicating benefits to patients with back pain from chiropractic treatment. But for homeopathy that’s not true; the only serious studies of homeopathy have shown no benefit over a placebo. So he could, based on the current science, be justified in dismissing homeopathy as worthy of no further consideration. (Note that this is not the same thing as rejecting something that hasn’t been studied simply because it conflicts with “conventional wisdom”; homeopathy has actually been studied.)

But my personal experience (and that of very smart people whom I know and respect) is otherwise. I’ve used homeopathic remedies and found them to be effective. Not always (but then, neither is anything else), but often enough to convince me of a benefit. And on pets, which would reduce the likelihood of a placebo effect.

Admittedly there is always the potential for a confirmation bias, but still, it makes me wonder if the gold standard of a scientific trial is appropriate to study everything.

About BigBill

Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
This entry was posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Religion and philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *