Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?

Mandygring

I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.

Aaron_K123

Mandygring wrote: »

I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.

So...are there such things as facts or can this be said about anything? Because using homeopathy as an example it is fact that diluting something doesn't make it more potent and that water doesn't have some sort of selective "memory". Sure I was taught the things that inform me as to the reasons the claims of homeopathy are false but I didnt learn them because of a desire to disbelieve homeopathy I learned them in my studies in biology physics and chemistry because they are relevant to understanding how our world works. There are plenty of things I feel are completely fair to say are BS about types of "alternative" medicine because they are inconsistent with our understanding of reality. An understanding that has demonstrated predictive power and allowed us to progress our technology and understanding.

So is there no such thing as an expert in a field? Just arrogant people and those woke enough to know anything is possible and because we don't know everything it is wrong to dismiss ridiculous claims? How does one question ones own beliefs if one cannot consider expert opinion to be more valid than one's own beliefs on a topic? Who is arrogant here?

J72FIT

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts…”
–Daniel Patrick Moynihan

jgnatca

There is a correlation between good grammar and clear thinking. The book, "On Writing Well" by Zinsser is on my short list of life-changing books. Because it changed my thinking. The author emphasizes the importance of reviewing and editing to get down to the essence of what is meant. As I reviewed and edited my work, I had to ask myself, "Is this what I really mean"?

Mandygring

"I need a second opinion"....I've heard that phrase before.

Aaron_K123

If you would indulge a bit of a rant.

I hate the term "Western Medicine" that people who support so called alternative or holistic medicines parade about. There isn't a "western" medicine. Modern medicine is based on our current scientific understanding of both the world and our bodies, an understanding developed globally. Not only that but lots of things you would associate with "Western" medicine weren't even first developed in the West. Sushruta, who is considered to be the inventor of the modern concept of surgery was Indian who legend has learned the techniques from Lord Dhanvantari, the Hindu god of medicine. I can only imagine the term comes from the idea that in western countries we talk about the hippocratic oath for doctors which is based on Hippocrates and the concept of doing no harm and because Hippocrates happened to be Greek that must be a Western philosophy then. Like the West owns the concept of doing no harm.

But even for those techniques of modern medicine that were first pioneered in parts of the world that are considered to be "western" so what? That makes medicine "Western" then? Where else do we apply that principle?

The ability to build skyscrapers is based on the application and development of engineering techniques that are based on the physical understanding of materials and gravity. The first skyscraper was built in the United States but the United States doesn't somehow own the concept of skyscrapers or the knowledge used to build them. We don't go around the world referring to skyscrapers in China or in India as being "American buildings" or "Western buildings" do we. In fact that would sound rather insulting and weirdly ethno-centric wouldn't it?

A lot of the foundational concepts of modern mathematics were developed in the middle east. Things like algebra or the concept of algoritms were first conceived there (hence the sound of their names Al-gorithm, Al-gebra). That said if you solve a problem with algebra you don't refer to it as applying "Middle-eastern math" do you? Sounds a little silly doesn't it?

So why do it with medicine? Is it because in western countries the techniques of modern medicine are practiced where everywhere else in the world different techniques are used? No, not at all. If you get a bacterial infection while traveling in India and you go to a hospital guess what they are going to do...they are going to give you antibiotics. Same literally anywhere in the world. They aren't going to rub tumeric into it or give you apple cider vinegar. Because modern medicine is just that, the current application of medicine in the modern age globally. Would you complain to your Indian doctor in India that you are skeptical of "Western medicine"? Might sound a little insulting in that context wouldn't it?

ladyreva78

jgnatca wrote: »

There is a correlation between good grammar and clear thinking. The book, "On Writing Well" by Zinsser is on my short list of life-changing books. Because it changed my thinking. The author emphasizes the importance of reviewing and editing to get down to the essence of what is meant. As I reviewed and edited my work, I had to ask myself, "Is this what I really mean"?

Needs to go on my reading list.

ladyreva78

Mandygring wrote: »

"I need a second opinion"....I've heard that phrase before.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Aaron_K123

Mandygring wrote: »

"I need a second opinion"....I've heard that phrase before.

Diagnoses are opinions, the foundational concepts of science on which modern medicine is built are not.

It is wise to seek more that one diagnosis from multiple doctors in the case of a serious illness because the interpretation of a doctor trying to determine what is wrong with you by observing your symptoms is a somewhat subjective exercise. It is not however wise to use that as a reason to dismiss the opinions of experts or the culmination of our current understanding of the world and our bodies as expressed through the development of modern medicine and replace them with whatever "alternative" view appeals to you emotionally.

lemurcat12

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

If you would indulge a bit of a rant.

I hate the term "Western Medicine" that people who support so called alternative or holistic medicines parade about. There isn't a "western" medicine. Modern medicine is based on our current scientific understanding of both the world and our bodies, an understanding developed globally. Not only that but lots of things you would associate with "Western" medicine weren't even first developed in the West. Sushruta, who is considered to be the inventor of the modern concept of surgery was Indian who legend has learned the techniques from Lord Dhanvantari, the Hindu god of medicine. I can only imagine the term comes from the idea that in western countries we talk about the hippocratic oath for doctors which is based on Hippocrates and the concept of doing no harm and because Hippocrates happened to be Greek that must be a Western philosophy then. Like the West owns the concept of doing no harm.

But even for those techniques of modern medicine that were first pioneered in parts of the world that are considered to be "western" so what? That makes medicine "Western" then? Where else do we apply that principle?

The ability to build skyscrapers is based on the application and development of engineering techniques that are based on the physical understanding of materials and gravity. The first skyscraper was built in the United States but the United States doesn't somehow own the concept of skyscrapers or the knowledge used to build them. We don't go around the world referring to skyscrapers in China or in India as being "American buildings" or "Western buildings" do we. In fact that would sound rather insulting and weirdly ethno-centric wouldn't it?

A lot of the foundational concepts of modern mathematics were developed in the middle east. Things like algebra or the concept of algoritms were first conceived there (hence the sound of their names Al-gorithm, Al-gebra). That said if you solve a problem with algebra you don't refer to it as applying "Middle-eastern math" do you? Sounds a little silly doesn't it?

So why do it with medicine? Is it because in western countries the techniques of modern medicine are practiced where everywhere else in the world different techniques are used? No, not at all. If you get a bacterial infection while traveling in India and you go to a hospital guess what they are going to do...they are going to give you antibiotics. Same literally anywhere in the world. They aren't going to rub tumeric into it or give you apple cider vinegar. Because modern medicine is just that, the current application of medicine in the modern age globally. Would you complain to your Indian doctor in India that you are skeptical of "Western medicine"? Might sound a little insulting in that context wouldn't it?

NorthCascades

Mandygring wrote: »

I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.

Yeah, that's definitely a problem with "holistic" "medicine" - its salesmen love to claim that nothing else works. Good point.

Aaron_K123

Here is why I am accepting of science and dismissive of many "alternative" views.

There is a certain logical flow to the development of something that to me makes it much more plausible. That flow is you make observations about the world, you develop a model to help explain those explanations, you then make a prediction of something you have not yet observed using that model, you design an experiment that will allow you to make that observation and then you perform the experiment and publish the results. If the prediction you made turns out to be correct then that is one piece of evidence in support of that model. Others can then use that model to make other predictions and test them and see if their predicted observations are correct. If anyone uses the model to make a prediction that turns out to be not true then the model is either discarded or it is revised in such a way as to make it consistent with observation. Sometimes these models allow for predictions that make new technologies possible, technologies that are usually developed by other people (engineers etc) who have read the body of experimental evidence for a given model. Models developed in quantum theory that lead to predictions that were experimentally verified were the basis for the development of the transistor which enabled the creation of modern electronics.

The flow goes Observations>predictions>experimental confirmation>publication>reconfirmation>technology or technique. If something comes about from this process and is based on a model that has predictive power then I am much more likely to consider it plausible. I mean if you can predict that if someone looks here at this time they will see this and then someone goes and looks there and they see exactly that and that model can be used repeatedly to do that then I tend to believe there is validity to that model.

Then there is another method. You read about something in science or apply a previously developed model and you come up with a hypothesis. If X is true then Y should also be true. But then you don't actually develop an experiment to test it and see if it pans out, you just then assume Y is true based on the assumptions you made. You then develop a technique based on that. Electrolytes are important for our bodies function, electrolytes are therefore good for you, so I will rub an electrolyte solution on my skin and that will be good for me.

You start with predictions and you just jump right on to a technique. Predictions>technique. You skip all of the experimental testing. Things that come from this I am highly skeptical of. It is of course technically "possible" that they just happened to guess something right but that is like a broken clock being right now and again, it doesn't mean this approach is a good one.

I am waiting for an example of "alternative" medicine that is based on a model that has predictive power that lead to novel predictions about our world that turned out to be true when tested under laboratory conditions. When that happens I will be amenable to them but of course if that happened they wouldn't be "alternative" would they.

Mandygring

I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.

NorthCascades

Mandygring wrote: »

I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.

One time I got sick. Needles, massages, and witch doctors couldn't make me healthy again, but antibiotics did.

Another time, it was dark, so I used electricity to make light.

Yet another time, I had to travel far away, so I got on an airplane. It was made with science and engineering, not intuition and fear mongering.

Right now I'm using my phone to communicate with people who aren't even in the same room. That could only work if we're right about electricity and quantum mechanics.

Every year, I don't get the flu because I get immunized, not because I slaughtered a goat.

I could go on...

WinoGelato

Mandygring wrote: »

I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.

Testing both of what? I'm having a hard time following your one line logic in this thread.

Aaron_K123

Mandygring wrote: »

I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.

What is stopping you? College applications are freely available, that is a good place to start.

I assume you likely just have other priorities and commitments in your life which mean you don't have time to pursue that. That's fine of course but don't pretend that you are being somehow prevented from doing that, you have just chosen not to.

But having made this choice perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, perhaps it would be good to take into consideration the opinions of those experts in the field who have done exactly that and do work in labs and do publish on this topic and have devoted their lives to that career path. The world has grown far to complex for any one person to be an expert in all topics. That is why people focus in particular areas of study and build their careers and lives on that topic. The idea is that if you want to know something on a topic you have not focused on, you can have access to people that have focused on that and ask for their informed opinion.

Alternative medicine is basically just techniques some people are trying that they personally believe in but that haven't been verified experimentally. There is a reason it is referred to as "alternative", it is because it hasn't been experimentally verified. If it had been then it would just be called medicine. That does not necessarily mean that those techniques are for sure ineffective, it just means they haven't been demonstrated to be effective. Personally if given the choice I would choose the techniques that have been verified to be effective.

mph323

Mandygring wrote: »

I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.

If you mean testing homeopathic or alternative remedies vs. modern medical treatment on diagnosed illness, it's been done. A lot.

http://www.policymed.com/2011/08/modern-medicine-vs-alternative-medicine-different-levels-of-evidence.html

NorthCascades

WinoGelato wrote: »

Mandygring wrote: »

I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.

Testing both of what? I'm having a hard time following your one line logic in this thread.

She'd like to test medicine that works against medicine that doesn't work. A good way to compare: next time you have a tooth ache, go to an acupuncturist before you go to the dentist, and then compare the effectiveness of their treatments.

jseams1234

I don't get sick very often and it's been a couple of years since I've had a cold... but a few weeks ago I got a bad one. It felt like my head was was going to explode from the pressure - every symptom magnified 10x. I was miserable. I sent my wife off to CVS to pick me up some over the counter cold medication and she came home with Sambucol Cold & Flu. The packaging looked legit and advertised "Fast relief" from:

Nasal & Sinus Congestion
Runny Nose
Sore Throat
Coughing
Sneezing
Chills & Fever

So, I took it. Nothing happened. I still felt like absolute crap and finally read the package through bleary tear filled eyes.... homeopathic remedy. I didn't even know that CVS has an entire shelf devoted to this stuff. My wife didn't check, just grabbed something that listed my symptoms. lol

Sent her back and she got me a some DayQuil gel caps and wonder of wonders. I felt almost human again. Pretty good experiment, since I had no idea at first what I was really taking.

AnnPT77

jgnatca wrote: »

There is a correlation between good grammar and clear thinking. The book, "On Writing Well" by Zinsser is on my short list of life-changing books. Because it changed my thinking. The author emphasizes the importance of reviewing and editing to get down to the essence of what is meant. As I reviewed and edited my work, I had to ask myself, "Is this what I really mean"?

For myself, I agree . . . which is to say that I try to use good grammar, proper syntax, thoughtful editing of my own writing, etc.

Beyond that, I try to employ a thoughtful, active (and generous but critical) approach as a reader, too.

Errant nonsense couched in beautiful, glowing prose is a particularly pernicious form of nonsense (*).

Also, there's a certain type of language usage peevery that's thinly-disguised ad hominem argumentation, sometimes with a vague, unpleasant scent of class prejudice about it besides. (**)

(*) Often, the problem is implicit assumptions, or use of abstract terms that sound persuasive, but leave one thinking "What does that actually mean in applied, practical terms? Hmmm, pretty much nothing." - i.e., cotton candy reasoning.

(**) I explicitly don't think that was the nature of @NorthCascades' critique of this thread. I think that critique was spot on.

You can probably tell I'm a little touchy about language usage criticism. As a kinda educated person from a blue collar family, I've seen it used too often by not-very-smart educated people to dismiss the ideas of smart less educated ones. (That's also not what happened on this thread, IMO).

As you say, @jgnatca, "Is this what I really mean" is a good tool. It's one that any of us can use, because clear communication ought to be the objective for both writer and reader.