It is clear that homeopathy and other alternative medical practices are
faith-based belief systems. There are uncanny similarities and analogies
between these medical belief systems, and new and old religious belief systems.
They are:
1. Both have a large faith-based following.
2. Both make extensive use of murky and spooky terms such as holistic, vital
force, spiritual energy, etc.
3. Their beneficial effects appear to stem from psychological factors such as
emotional satisfaction and spiritual appeal.
4. Some of their strongest promoters tend to be religious men and women.
5. They rely on anecdotes and testimonials.
6. They are in perpetual denial and defiance of blatant contradictions with
established scientific facts and principles.
7. Their knowledge is entirely based on categorical assertions (often already
proven to be false) from a historical authority or authoritative text.
8. Their approach to theory and practice is entirely subjective, temperamental
and idiosyncratic, which often involves attacking modern science and scientific
medicine, and their practitioners.
9. They do not reject, revise or update any of their principles or theories
based on evidence, or based on discoveries in science and modern medicine.
10. They are essentially static and stagnant; there is no intellectual progress
or new knowledge of any kind.
If one recognizes the above, it is easy to see why alternative medical
ritualistic systems have been, and should be tolerated by a pluralistic secular
society. There are, and there should be, alternative medical practitioners and
colleges, just as there are, and there should be, religious priests and
theological and atheological schools. Many people most definitely need their
services for psychological, emotional and spiritual reasons.
But none of these belief systems is even remotely scientific. The only way to
tolerate their mutually incompatible insular doctrines for anybody who
seriously cares about the universally applicable scientific knowledge and
method, is to either compartmentalize his/her own mind, or to strictly adhere
to the principle of pluralism, as long as the beliefs in question are harmless.
However, one should never uncritically tolerate the wild claims of miraculous
cures that they make. They are as capable of harm as any untested modern
medical treatment, if their safety and efficacy is not tested using the
scientific method. In the case of homeopathy the harm is in cases where the
practitioner tries to replace modern medical treatment with his own concoction.
The homeopathic remedies themselves do not contain any active drug in high
enough concentrations. But that is not true with ayurvedic and Chinese medical
treatments. The latter are known to contain toxic compounds such as heavy metal
salts.
As far as the following post is concerned, it is the same old nonsense. No
progress there either. Please see the incoherent statement below.
Cheers,
Santosh
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Fr. Ivo C. de Souza <icso...@bsnl.in> wrote:
>
>The article is a sample of stupid 'scientific quackery'!
>
