Filed under: Science, Skepticism | Tags: alternative medicine, placebo, Science, skeptic, Skepticism
I am fascinated by alternative medicine. For centuries people have claimed to be able to heal others by the power of touch alone, whilst the belief in prayer as a healer is just as long running. A lot of people say they have a friend or relative that suffered from some mystery ailment that was cured after a visit to the Reiki master, church, homeopathist or chiropractor. I often hear the friend of the healed then scoff at the notions of science and skepticism, suggesting they’re some way off the mark. Making fun of the men in white coats aside, claims of these miracle cures are certainly very interesting, even more so given there are methods of validating them.
Yet validation means different things to different people. Some proponents of alternative medicine will simply turn around and say ‘hey, it worked for him and that person’s word is all I need’. Many alternative praticioners’ websites abound with such testimonies, but the skeptic isn’t so readily convinced. The skeptic likes to look at all sides of the story and weigh up the evidence. After all, anybody can claim anything – it doesn’t necessarily mean its true.
Alternative medicine often states it can produce factually measurable effects – i.e. the killing of diseased cells, the healing of broken bones – on a patient. Clearly, this impedes upon the realm of science and medicine and therefore it becomes fair game to employ scientific scrutiny upon these claims. Generally speaking, good science (as opposed to pseudoscience – more on that soon!) will not reach a conclusion on any claim until it can produce, or fail to produce, repeatable results in fair experimental conditions (where what is normal is established [control condition] and factors [dependent variables] which could affect the results are accounted for and, if possible, removed).
Under such scientific scrutiny it can be established whether a treatment actually produces the outcome the alternative medicine practitioner claims. For example, taking Reiki as a possible cure for cancer, scientific studies have found no evidence to support this. Funnily enough there is well documented evidence to suggest that patients anticipating improvement following certain treatments will actually feel better in the short term. This is the placebo effect and is accounted for in medical trials by use of a control group given a fake, placebo treatment.
When it comes to viewing the resulyts many alternative practitioners may tend to cry foul, state they were having an ‘off day’ or claim their treatments don’t work on those of a skeptical persuasion. They deny the science rather than accepting it. At this point it would be easy to wander off down the route of answering accusations, but this piece is about the basics of the skeptic’s relationship to science. The side shows can wait.
So, on one hand we have the positive yet subjective, anecdotal claims of healers and patients. On the other we have the scientific study which produces measurable empirical data. Again, one is based upon personal interpretation, the other on hard results. Given that the skeptic is after reliable, empirical data to assess the worth of a treatment, it makes their decision a no-brainer.
Leave a Comment so far
Leave a comment
