GameBanshee Forums

The effects of something can be measured without understanding of the principles behind it. If I have 1000 persons with ulcers and I give 500 of them Horse radish as an ailment, if they get better as compared to the 500 that don't get Horse radish, then Horse radish has an effect. This doesn't say anything about how Horse radish works, why it works, etc, and how reliable the measurement is depends both on the number of subjects and the size of the effect.

The orbits of the planets and Sun as they traveled around the Earth could also be measured by scientists since Ptolemy first announced his "earth-centric" model, using the unaided eye. Problems of improper speed could be accounted for by the pull of spheres, which were exhibiting an elementary form of attraction. It all worked...

...Until the telescope was invented, Brahe kept copious logs, and Kepler discovered that the best fit for speed and location among the planets was the Aristarchan theory that placed them--and Earth--orbiting the sun.

So in this case, lacking the appropriate tools of measurement, the conclusions reached were completely wrong, and remained so for nearly a thousand years.

Physical sensory evidence is a limited but useful tool in proving hypotheses, as scientists know. Scientific tools extend the range of our five senses, giving us access to data that allows us to make startling and accurate conclusions about things we otherwise wouldn't be able to even surmise existed if we relied solely upon physical evidence, like quarks, bacteria, and atomic structure. Bearing this in mind, and the example of Aristarchus and the solar system, it seems to me reasonable to assume that some phenomena that are either real still lie outside the realm of the provable. To conclude otherwise would be to fall into the errors of 19th century positivism, and its belief that all history was a lead up to that final point, with all knowable truths available, and all wisdom gathered.

Oh yes, He does...

Originally posted by frogus

I don't want to be cheeky, but has he ever said anything back?

...however in not ways you'd expect like your proverbial conversation.

Through Discernment and Reflections one gets from spiritual exercises (as taught to me by the Jesuits) as well as reading the Bible.

As I see it, it's all about selective hearing for most people... as I presonally experience things, I just give myself the time to pause and reflect then listen and discern that He indeed is around. God has a given us the freedom to choose, and that includes believing that He exists or not. Religion for me isn't meant to be empirically rationalized.

I do question certain tenets upheld by the Catholic Institution, and just like HLD, my beliefs "oscillates" from both ends of spectrum as a man of Faith and a man who rationalizes...

...yet it's simply Faith and not blind faith that keeps me believing in Him.

Originally posted by fable
The orbits of the planets and Sun as they traveled around the Earth could also be measured by scientists since Ptolemy first announced his "earth-centric" model, using the unaided eye. Problems of improper speed could be accounted for by the pull of spheres, which were exhibiting an elementary form of attraction. It all worked...

Yes, Ive seen some of the hilarious (well, nowadays...) calculations and principles imposed on celestial bodies to prove the geocentric "theory".

Physical sensory evidence is a limited but useful tool in proving hypotheses, as scientists know. Scientific tools extend the range of our five senses, giving us access to data that allows us to make startling and accurate conclusions about things we otherwise wouldn't be able to even surmise existed if we relied solely upon physical evidence, like quarks, bacteria, and atomic structure. Bearing this in mind, and the example of Aristarchus and the solar system, it seems to me reasonable to assume that some phenomena that are either real still lie outside the realm of the provable. To conclude otherwise would be to fall into the errors of 19th century positivism, and its belief that all history was a lead up to that final point, with all knowable truths available, and all wisdom gathered.

Ah, but I'm not stating that all can be proved. In fact nothing can be proved entirely, although there comes a point when something could be considered so likely it's probably true. In the case I describe, there is an expected effect that can be measured even though the actual principles for the effect are unknown. Methods of indirect measurement are also used in particle physics, astronomy, etc since we expect a certain effect even though we don't have full knowledge of the instrumentation of it. You don't even need to understand the principles of your measurement methods. For instance, light refracts when put through a gitter, if x-rays refract similarly, light and x-rays are somehow related. You don't need to know why light refracts. In medicine, comparative studies are the single most effective method, since you can test any (unknown or otherwise)substance/method/etc on one group and compare them with a control group. It is also a straightforward approach - patient gets well = good, patient same as control = no effect, patient gets worse = back to the drawing board. So even though we understand zilch about the principles for the various alternative forms of medicine, we can still see if they are good, bad or just indifferent. Most fall in the later category. Like Tom, I lack direkt pointers to references in this regard, but if we ask CE nicely (alternatively provoke her a bit ) she would probably produce them in a jiffy.
Most traditional healing herbs that appear in literature have been tested as medicines, and those that show results were usually refined to achieve the effect without the impurities of the plant. Just because something grows naturally in your back yard, doesn't make it less dangerous to your health - quite the contrary. I wouldn't try digitalis in any other form than pharmaceutical tablets and then only if I have a heart condition.

In the case I describe, there is an expected effect that can be measured even though the actual principles for the effect are unknown.

If you have a telescope, yes, along with a few other "modern" principles of astronomy. If you don't have these, and rely instead upon simple phyiscal observation, then you're back to backing a now-discredited theory based on observing with limited tools.

Which, again, is my point. Until the tools exist, it's always possible to make enormous errors regarding the forces and effects in the physical universe, and that's often been the case, historically. It's only when we reconfigure history that "the better tools prove the older assumptions" appears correct. The scientific tools have sometimes disproved the obvious, or proved something that seemed obvious only in retrospect.

...As a side note, it's funny how often I'm attacked on the notion of keeping an open though skeptical mind--by those who think that openess itself implies the slightest concession to faith, and is therefore reprehensible; and by those who think that anything less than full and complete commitment to the fad-of-the-day shows a disturbingly atheistic, scientific turn of mind.

Most traditional healing herbs that appear in literature have been tested as medicines, and those that show results were usually refined to achieve the effect without the impurities of the plant. Just because something grows naturally in your back yard, doesn't make it less dangerous to your health - quite the contrary.

Who said it wasn't? My remarks were in reply to Tom's comment, Recently the British government did a quite thorough study on a large number of alternative medicines and found that almost all of it was completely ineffective. Completely ineffective, in other words, nonsense, placebos; not medications-in-the-raw. I think you've missed the original comments on this one.

Originally posted by fable

Not quite. I've written that I'm not suggesting they work. I've also not suggested they're failures. Fairies, for example, sound completely preposterous. But let's remember that at the self-supporting nature colony of Findhorn, in Britain, a group of people who talk constantly to plants and spirits, believe a theory of a conscious Earth, and perform religious rituals among 'em grow 6' cabbages, strawberries as large as your fist, etc; and they've done this for more than 20 years. I'm sure much of this was a matter of intelligent planting and good soil, but not all; the question is, what among the non-traditional, seemingly frivolous New Age-y techniques of the Findhorn folks actually produces the remarkable results? And if the techniques are not capable of study through the scientific method, does that automatically mean these same techniques cease to contain any validity?

I don't know of the site you mention but I know that at farmers shows and at gardeners gatherings it is common that there a people who grow extremely large vegetables for competition (I'm pretty sure) without religious ceremonies.

But anyway I think you are getting me slightly wrong here fable. The aim was not to attack any particular theories (although sending some a grin might have been part of it) but rather to discuss why some people believe what is obviously false. Take for example Astrology - now I think that is obviously false mainly because of the way I view the world. Now I don't know if you consider anything like that to be obviously false, theories about fairies maybe, but if you do then the original question was focusing on why people still believe such a thing. I argued in the first post that I thought such belief was down to wishful thinking and then asked if others thought there was more to it.

I think it would be a good idea if you opened a thread about alternative medicine since you obviously know a lot about it whereas I know very little but am quite sceptical. Let me try though to deal with what you say in your post.

Originally posted by fable

Quickly? It took Pasteur more than a decade to gain support. Dic!son's results required more than 30 years before anybody would give them a serious glance. Artistarchus of Samos, who developed a solar-centric theory of the solar system, was discredited among his fellow Greeks. It took the development of tools sufficient to observe the epicycles of planets more than a thousand years later before he was slowly given his due. Does a thousand years sound quick to you? On a geological scale, certainly, but for us humans...

I think 10 years is quick for a major step forward in science. I don't know enough about the Greek scientists you mention to say whether they were wrong in not accepting "Artistarchus of Samos" theory on the evidence presented. But I think you overlook that science was in its infancy and that shortly after that period came the roman empire and then the dark ages - not a lot of science took place at all.

Originally posted by fable

In short, gathering evidence first requires possessing the tools to gain evidence. If we don't have the tools and out-of-hand completely dismiss the unprovable, we risk being the majority of doctors who called Freud a "quack," or the scientific community that claimed the earth was the center of the universe because it was, as so many ancient scientists maintained, physically demonstrable.

I don't know of all the scientists that maintained that the earth was at the center of the universe but I think that a few feared for their life because of the inquisition.

It is true that we need the tools to gather the evidence. But the people that initially put forward a theory - like crystal ‘A’ can cure decease ‘1’ - how do they discover this theory. they must have used some tools or just experiments, this can and should be investigated because I'm afraid that some people are being ripped off. My problem with this sort of thing is that they either use pseudo scientific talk to explain what they are doing or leave the mechanisms blank.

Originally posted by fable

This is a blanket statement beneath which we could, with respect, sweep the world. What study? What medicines? I could counter by pointing out that many of the herbal alternative remedies used by folk cultures across the world, from the Mayans to the Watuzis, to the Lapps to the Medes, have formed the core of prescription medication to this day. If you doubt this, I strongly suggest you check out the Professional's Handbook of Complementary & Alternative Medicines--a publication that's highly respected, and used constantly in almost all US hospitals. Its editors and authors and both doctors of pharmacology; the entire editorial board and contributing staff (more than thirty in number) is, as well. The work is nearly 800 pages long in its last edition, from Acidophilus to Yohimbe, and includes discussions of alternative medicines according to chemical components, actions, reported uses, dosages, adverse reactions, interactions, contraindications, special considerations, references, and analyses.

Again I think you got the main point of my argument wrong. I have heard that 40% of all drugs are derived from plants and while I don't know if it is true I have no problem with herbal drugs. What I do have a problem with is theories that use pseudo scientific language but have no clear explanation of how they are supposed to work, not any particular use of a plant although I think for safety reasons all things sold as medicine should be tested.

This is the study I had in mind

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-of ... /12301.htm

When I heard this reported in the press it was put forward as a study that cast a lot of doubt on many forms of alternative medicine. This does not quite appear to be the case - in fact they appeal for a lot more good science being done on the subject. I don't have time to read more than the summery but I will try to post more on it later.

Originally posted by fable

You'll find that it shows most alternative medicines have proven effectiveness of some sort, though usually without the broad application and ridiculous claims made by the modern equivalent of 19th century traveling hucksters and hysterical cure-all searchers. Even the old herbals (that is, the books that prescribed herbal remedies back in the early Renaissance, and largely reproduced an oral tradition going further back into the Middle Ages) often pointed accurately to herbal remedies for basic maladies.

you got to have some standards and criteria for when you accept something as bona fide and when you are sceptical. I choose to use scientific evidence for whether I believe a given treatment is effective. That means that I will suspend judgement when it comes to a large number of treatments and take a wait and see approach. Other treatments I feel certain that I can dismiss because of the things we know about the body and science in general.

We appear to be bursting our little discussion at the seams. That being the case, I thought I'd tidy up the smaller, hanging threads in one post, and treat the main theme separately.

Originally posted by Tom
I don't know of the site you mention but I know that at farmers shows and at gardeners gatherings it is common that there a people who grow extremely large vegetables for competition (I'm pretty sure) without religious ceremonies.

I'm pretty certain that manure can do wonders, too, but what I'm telling you is no manure. Findhorn's crop surpassed that of farmers using expensive fertilizers and pesticides, yet they used neither. Their methods and results have been repeatedly documented over the last 20+ years. This is what I mean by maintaining an open but skeptical mind. Did I suggest that it was the religious ceremonies that prompted the growth? But on the one hand, some people would be inclined to accept everything about Findhorn and formulate additional, specious theories involving the gods know what--maybe unicorns, angels, and Glinda the Good Witch. On the other hand, it's all too easy to latch onto the most apparently ridiculous aspect of the situation and express immediate riducule, without even checking it out.

There are many Web resources on Findhorn. Some actually move beyond automatic dismissal or dewy-eyed enthusiasm. And note, I am not suggesting that religious ceremonies can grow vegetables and fruits larger than any achieved by other methods. *Something,* however, is working, there, and it is neither conventional nor apparent in its methods.

I think 10 years is quick for a major step forward in science. I don't know enough about the Greek scientists you mention to say whether they were wrong in not accepting "Artistarchus of Samos" theory on the evidence presented. But I think you overlook that science was in its infancy and that shortly after that period came the roman empire and then the dark ages - not a lot of science took place at all.

If you find 10 years very short, examine the 1000+ years it took for the solar-centric theory to be supportable, *all because they lacked sufficient tools to extend the senses. The obvious answers were the wrong ones.* That's my initial point, rather than an individual example. And by implication, if we've seen how badly the obvious scientific answers have sometimes led us in the past due to a lack of tools, it seems to me reasonable not to rule out all possibility of some unprovable theories receiving scientific support in the future. It depends upon the evolution of tools, and the willingness of scienctists to keep an open mind before they apply tests.

I don't know of all the scientists that maintained that the earth was at the center of the universe but I think that a few feared for their life because of the inquisition.

This gets into another area, but as this is a sort of addendum post filled with stuff, I must disagree with you. The Inquisition did not generally operate in the sphere of science. There are some good, well-researched scholarly books out there, now, that use source texts to prove the Inquisition spent most of its time rounding up common, ordinary lower- and middle-class peasants and merchants which had been already accused by their communities of bizarre crimes and activities. (And typically, the Inquisition was *a lot* gentler than the hate-filled mobs that went after suspected heretics, pagans, etc. The Inquisition was slow and methodical in its documentation, and only applied torture as a last resort--which doesn't make it any more palatable, of course. The mob generally applied one solution: burn 'em now, torch their houses, keep their relatives and servants inside just in case they were infected with heresy, too.)

There was no reason for scientists to fear the Inquisition before Galileo; in fact, the bigger scientific fish in the European community became that way by gaining the interest and support of Church higher-ups who were influential and wealthy. It was not unlike the current US grants and foundation system, in a way. A bishop or cardinal could prove an extremely helpful sponsor for fledging researcher into ancient Greek texts or modern science. Kepler got Church support repeatedly; when he was in severe danger once because of wars as he traveled across country, the RCC went out of its way to secure his freedom.

Galileo caused a lot of headaches for everybody. It wasn't his doctrines that were the problem--it was his personality. The man was extremely unpleasant by all accounts, cringing towards those who had something he wanted, and an arrogant, smug SOB towards everybody else: a sort of early Renaissance equivalent of the modern specialist who thinks they're better and smarter than the world. His father, an important musician and composer, was like that, as surviving documents show; Galileo learned well by example. His method of dispensing Attitude was by writing satires rather than simple answers to those who asked questions about his theories in international journals or letters; he would take the theories of his opponents, and place them in the mouths of idiots who also spouted a load of ridiculous nonsense. Of course, the Galileo figure in such satirical dialogs was a benevolent, intelligent, kindly man who spoke at length, and proved everybody else to be wrong--even if he often ignored placing into such satires the sensible points his critics sometimes made.

It should be noted that Galileo also sought the protection and financial support of the RCC. He got 'em, in spades. But when the then-Pope suggested that both the solar-centric and earth-centric systems could be accurate when viewed in their own perspectives, Galileo responded by publishing an incredibly sarcastic, satirical reply, ignoring most of the Pope's reasoning, and focusing on personality attacks. (A very good, if abbreviated discussion of all this is to be found in Arthur Koestler's fascinating book, The Sleepwalkers. He includes some nice quotes, especially from Galileo's publications. They make uproarious reading.)

The RCC burnt as heretics people who were nominally scientists, but not because of that. They burnt heretical Christians and revolutionaries. Giordano Bruno, for example, was burned at the stake, not because he had pretensions to being a scientist, but because he spoke and published widely about a new religion that would incorporate some Christian tenets while witnessing the birth of a greater force (with himself at its head). He was too widely traveled, too prominent, and totally unwilling to recant.

It should be noted that science continued to develop at a steady pace in England, an anti-Catholic nation, and France, a Catholic one. Where science was discouraged, as in Spain, the cause was complex and cultural rather than simple and due to the RCC.

This is the study I had in mind

[url]http://www.parliament.the-stationer...h/123/12301.htm[/url]

When I heard this reported in the press it was put forward as a study that cast a lot of doubt on many forms of alternative medicine. This does not quite appear to be the case - in fact they appeal for a lot more good science being done on the subject. I don't have time to read more than the summery but I will try to post more on it later.

I got nothing when I tried the link, above.

Originally posted by fable
If you have a telescope, yes, along with a few other "modern" principles of astronomy. If you don't have these, and rely instead upon simple phyiscal observation, then you're back to backing a now-discredited theory based on observing with limited tools.

Actually, Western civilisation needed a telescope to draw the right conclusions - many other cultures throughout the world came to the heliocetric conclusion without it. Some of those same cultures also came to the conclusion that the earth was spherical without having to circumnavigate it. In short, western civilisation has at times been pretty thickheaded

Who said it wasn't? My remarks were in reply to Tom's comment, Recently the British government did a quite thorough study on a large number of alternative medicines and found that almost all of it was completely ineffective. Completely ineffective, in other words, nonsense, placebos; not medications-in-the-raw. I think you've missed the original comments on this one.

I have also seen references to the studies Tom referred to, and they did in fact show that a majority of the methods deemed "alternative" in fact were ineffective against disorders they claimed to cure. Thus, there is a claim and it is disproven by means of a comparative study. That doesn't say anything about what possible other effects a method may have, but it does show that it doesn't have the desired effect. If you ask for a cure for cancer, you don't want a muscle relaxant.

As for herbs and their use in alternative medicine, sure, many of them do have known curative effects. When they do, the pharmaceutical companies will usually have derived some scientifically tested substance from it. The advantage of this is that there is a higher awareness of side effects, less impurities with unknown effects, knowledge of interaction with other medicines and a substantial experience in how to administer the substance. One sad example of the consequences of an undesirable interaction between an alternative medicine and a pharmaceutical one is that between St. Johns wort and anti-HIV drugs. The herb, used by some HIV positive as an antidepressant, cancelled out the effects of the HIV medicine, making them contract AIDS much sooner.

Modern medicines aren't perfect (Thalidomide, Ercotina...), but when something goes wrong, someone is responsible and information about the ill effects of the substance is made public (well, most of the time...). If you buy non-FDA approved pills made from herbs that turn out to be dangerous to your health, then that's your problem.

But anyway I think you are getting me slightly wrong here fable. The aim was not to attack any particular theories (although sending some a grin might have been part of it) but rather to discuss why some people believe what is obviously false.

I suspect it was that last phrase, "obviously false," which caused me to misunderstand your main point, for which I tender my apologies. That, plus the examples you provided, which were by no means the most far-out, ridiculous theories currently promulgated on the face of this sad, mad, glad globe. Faith healing, for example, has been scientifically investigated; and very occasionally, spontaneous healing has been scientifically shown to have taken place. No one knows why. Faith may have been responsible, or partially responsible. My only point is that lacking the tools to measure anything but the results, we should not out-of-hand condemn the notion (in the particular instance of faith healing, that is) of some motive force operating beyond the measureable.

Are you perhaps suggesting quacks as your general target? If this is your aim, I'll gladly take up a rifle and stand alongside you.

Take for example Astrology - now I think that is obviously false mainly because of the way I view the world. Now I don't know if you consider anything like that to be obviously false, theories about fairies maybe, but if you do then the original question was focusing on why people still believe such a thing.

Again, it was that phrase, "obviously false," plus the examples, that led me to think you've made some strong conclusions about specific theories; and all I was suggesting is that strong conclusions on such matters have been proven wrong in the past. Mind, I don't think we'll find anybody being cured of diseases by discovering they were diseased, first, through elfshot, anytime in the near future. (That was a popular folk belief in medieval Europe.) But IMO, focusing on the quacks rather than ridiculing theories enables us to concentrate on things that are do-able, like locking up con artists who take money in self-help scams.

Again I think you got the main point of my argument wrong. I have heard that 40% of all drugs are derived from plants and while I don't know if it is true I have no problem with herbal drugs. What I do have a problem with is theories that use pseudo scientific language but have no clear explanation of how they are supposed to work, not any particular use of a plant although I think for safety reasons all things sold as medicine should be tested.

So you're not attacking alternative medicines; bringing it up was, perhaps, a bit confusing. Pseudo-scientific language is another matter, one in which I would agree with you heartily. It is an attempt to create an aura of authority through knowledge where little or no knowledge exists. In such cases, people who are desparately seeking answers may latch onto such language, or even disregard it in the hopes of finding a cure for whatever ails them. But debunking the quack doesn't necessarily mean the theories are all quackeries.

Mesmerists made all sorts of claims for their "art," hypnotism, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when it was a fad; claimed they could even cure paralysis and blindness. But hypnotism has been shown to be effective in some cases in dealing with psychosomatic ailments, including paralysis, as well as dealing with unwanted habits (like smoking). In this instance, the theories were wrong, but we fortunately didn't throw out hynotism as bunk because of 'em. Science took more than 100 years to catch up to a point where likely theories based on wave states and suggestion could be successfully promulgated.

I have also seen references to the studies Tom referred to, and they did in fact show that a majority of the methods deemed "alternative" in fact were ineffective against disorders they claimed to cure. Thus, there is a claim and it is disproven by means of a comparative study. That doesn't say anything about what possible other effects a method may have, but it does show that it doesn't have the desired effect. If you ask for a cure for cancer, you don't want a muscle relaxant.

But again, the comparative study depends upon having the knowledge of scientific tools that can test the hypothesis. If you don't have the tools, the claims may appear ridiculous, especially when the theories seem silly; and successful results can end up being thrown out. For the longest time, medical practicioners regarded herbal remedies of any sort as beneath contempt. So once again: the lack of scientific tools to investigate theories should not automatically consign the results identified by that theory to the dustbin.

Of course, I'm assuming you want to discuss scientific theory and results. If you're goal is to discuss alternative medicines, which Tom brought up, start up another topic.

Originally posted by fable
But again, the comparative study depends upon having the knowledge of scientific tools that can test the hypothesis. If you don't have the tools, the claims may appear ridiculous, especially when the theories seem silly; and successful results can end up being thrown out. For the longest time, medical practicioners regarded herbal remedies of any sort as beneath contempt. So once again: the lack of scientific tools to investigate theories should not automatically consign the results identified by that theory to the dustbin.

Science is little different from all other human activities, so the beliefs and feelings of those performing it will result in biased opinions and ridicule of the unknown. However, alternative medicine - be it healing, accupuncture, aromatherapy, mudbaths, etc - can be tested for its effectiveness against the conditions they claim to remedy. For instance, there is a wellknown "clinic" in poland claiming to have a cure for cancer, consisting of strict diet restrictions (such as no forms of sugar, etc) and staying at their ludicrously expensive spa. It has no effect whatsoever, although people still go there because they believe it to work. The reason we know it has no effect is because a large number of people have gone there and they have no better survival rate that those not treated at all. Perhaps the methods would work against obecity, but they sure don't work against cancer.

Herbs and other substances that have been refined and tested by modern medicine do not really constitute "alternative", except maybe if you eat the herb instead of the pill, so while medical practitioners may have frowned upon the herbs, it may well be that the drug he prescribes for the condition is derived from it.

So why do people believe in this stuff? Perhaps it is because we can't cure everything through conventional medicine, and people are clinging to hopes of being cured by "mysterious cosmic energies" or whatever it may be. Fear of death is a pretty powerful thing, and when facing your own death you are likely to test even the most farfetched of ideas to preserve it. What infuriates me is the large number of people who exploit this for profit or other ulterior motives (most often religious...).

Of course, I'm assuming you want to discuss scientific theory and results. If you're goal is to discuss alternative medicines, which Tom brought up, start up another topic.

Both are as much on topic, since both scientific theory and alternative medicine have as much to do with the question "why do people believe". There is no proof that science gives us any useful understanding of the universe around us at all, philosophically speaking. This doesn't do us much good however, and we can't wait for the Platonic "ideal principle" that is the true point from which all other principles derive to appear out of nowhere. So, science starts with what our senses see and what we can test. The methods for testing can be more or less advanced, but the results still must end up in one of our senses. Also, since we can see and test things, science makes sense to us. It tells us that if I throw a rock into the air, it will come down. I know that this will happen every time, so I consider it to be true.

Alternative medicine can be tested by science, since there is a simple cause and effect relationship between treatment and cure. So, if you believe in science, then you shouldn't believe in alternative medicines that have been shown to have no result. The alternative medicines that have shown positive results are being integrated into conventional medicine in numerous countries, and are as such not really "alternative". Healing, for example, relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and all negative finds are explained by the lack of faith in the recipient. Scientifically, it performs at the same level as "no treatment". Some practices may even be contraproductive, such as the example of St Johns wort.

Traditional medicine was in a way developed through comparative study. The medicineman (or whatever) tested a mystical mixture on a patient, and if it worked, he tried it again on the next guy with the same problem. When he grew old, he told his apprentice, who told his apprentice, etc. This is maybe not as statistically sound and it's difficult to certify validity, but done over a number of generations, it will give useful results.

Originally posted by fable

I got nothing when I tried the link, above.

I dont know why it doesnt work, its the right address. if you want to have a look try and do a search on "house of lords sixth report on CAM"