Most people in our culture treat science like a walled city. The good, right-minded folk are on the inside, on the high ground. On the outside are pseudo-scientific barbarians who believe all sort of weird things.
I used to be on the inside. I was into science and technology. It was my profession. I even enjoyed making fun of those pseudo-scientific barbarians from time to time, feeling clever and smug. But that was before I got mixed up in homeopathy. Now I’m on the outside. In woo-woo land.
Except that I’m still into science and technology. But from the outside I learned something about science: we treat it like a religion in our society. That metaphorical wall that keeps the barbarians out isn’t science, it’s scientism, the religion of materialistic science. According to that religion, if it isn’t objectively measurable, if it can’t be broken down into component pieces, then it isn’t science. I find that assumption to be, well, unscientific. The high priests of scientism say, “You don’t know the mechanism of action for homeopathic remedies? Then it’s obviously a lot of bunk.” That’s not good science in my book.
When I became a homeopath I didn’t abandon science, but I found that it was as if I had joined some religion or cult. People talk about believing in homeopathy. Old acquaintances and relatives are polite and don’t ask too much. You know, it’s better to just not go there when it involves people’s religious views. Not that I blame them. They don’t have personal experience with what homeopathy can do and they’ve always heard that practices like homeopathy are delusion at best and dangerous quackery at worst.
Of course, the religious/spiritual thing works both ways. Plenty of alternative folk like homeopathy because they believe it is spiritual and not scientific. Setting aside spiritual issues for now, for me homeopathy is a science. Not a pure science—it does have the woo-woo factor—but still very much a science.
That’s one of the great things about homeopathy. The main thing is it’s potential to cure, of course. But one reason for that is because its a blend of science and intuition, the objective and the subjective. Just like real life, whatever some inside the walls of scientism might choose to believe.
Comments:
“The high priests of scientism say, “You don’t know the mechanism of action for homeopathic remedies? Then it’s obviously a lot of bunk.” That’s not good science in my book.”
But that’s not what ‘the high priests’ - by which I assume you mean leading scientists who criticise homeopathy - say. They say, “Your claimed effects, which we are willing to consider as a possibility, simply disappear every single time we try to find them. And nothing that you offer as proof of your claims is in any way conclusive. Then it’s obviously a lot of bunk.”
That’s a very different argument.
Yes, a different argument—a make-believe one.
Saying it doesn’t make it so. Setting aside the questions of what the scientists you refer to are leading, who you mean by “we,” and what method they used, that is simply not what science says about homeopathy vs. placebo.
Others have already done a fine job of exposing this distortion in response to the recent editorial in the Lancet. Here are some:
Put a sock in it
Boiron Laboratories Disputes Editorial on Homeopathy
Here’s a brief summary: there is scientific evidence that homeopathy is more effective than placebo, but given it’s implausability—meaning the method of action cannot be explained with current scientific knowledge—more research is called for.
Those who state that science has disproved homeopathy are distorting the facts in favor of their beliefs, i.e. behaving like disciples of a dogmatic religion.
Hi John, merely referring to sites which state opinions you agree with doesn’t constitute an argument. The criticisms of the Lancet article are thoroughly dealt with and demolished in the author responses to the article linked to here
The “argument” of this entry is that this whole business claims to be about science but it’s really about scientism—the religion of science.
And for the record, I summarized the part I needed for my argument below my links; I didn’t leave a blind link as you did. (You did exactly what you accused me of doing.)
John, I think it’s pretty clear what was in my link as I stated what was in it. But I see this isn’t an evidence based discussion so I will withdraw.
Thank you very much, gimpy. Based on what I have read on your blog, you certainly will not find what you are looking for here. (See my About page.)
It’s becoming more and more clear as the discussions on these blogs continue, that the agenda of the skeptics is not to understand something they know little about and have not experienced first-hand, but a mental exercise in entrapment. The comment that “I can see you are not interested in healthy debate” I just read somewhere is a perfect example. I’m certainly not interested in debating homeopathy at this level. I’d rather spend my time learning about the wonders of the natural world, studying materia medica and trying to help alleviate suffering. Many of the brightest lights in the history of homeopathy started out by trying to disprove and discredit it. I can only hope that these discussions encourage an individual who may be skeptical to actually try some of this “placebo”. If it’s a hoax, what have you got to lose?
Great to see you here in internet land.
Some great points.
See my current one about “exact science” at freetochoosehealth.
“It’s becoming more and more clear as the discussions on these blogs continue, that the agenda of the skeptics is not to understand something they know little about and have not experienced first-hand, but a mental exercise in entrapment.”
Deciding what other people’s agendas are never makes for good debate and so often the inferred agenda is, as here, diametrically opposed to the real one.
A scientific agenda (and most of us ‘sceptics’ have this in common, whether or not we are actually scientists) is one which seeks constantly to understand things that we know little about. That’s what science is. However, we try to understand things by experimentation, not simple observation.
M Simpson has visited my blog and I haven’t noticed him trying to understand anything about homeopathy.
The original point of this post was that this all of this is as much “religion of science” (what I call scientism) as true science.
Since becoming a homeopath, which I did because of what I experienced, not because of something I learned or read, I’ve noticed that some people treat me as if I’ve joined a new religion. That made me realize that the reason for that is because they are a part of a religion that they aren’t even aware of: scientism. It’s what we all grew up with. We don’t even think to question it most of the time.
It hasn’t much been the case on my blog so far, but when I read things on other blogs from “skeptics,” I don’t see the scientific agenda that M Simpson speaks of. I see a scientistic, dogmatic agenda.
And no, I’m not advocating for simple observation as science. (Here is what I mean by science.)
In any case, what I am willing to debate is how essential materialism is to science. Facts are necessary, but I claim that materialistic reductionism is not.
I’ve noticed that on this and other blogs skeptics are incredulous that homeopaths are not moving heaven and earth to “prove that homeopathy works.”
I’m not out to convert anybody. It’s not a religion, but people keep expecting it to be. That’s my point.
I already know it works. (See the posts that follow about experience as evidence.) I just want the liberty to explain what homeopathy is and what it is not and to practice my art in peace. I know that the results will speak for themselves, and the “proof” and the acceptable number of clinical trials and the rest will come in time.
“I’ve noticed that on this and other blogs skeptics are incredulous that homeopaths are not moving heaven and earth to “prove that homeopathy works.””
NHS funds - my taxes - are spent on this stuff. Does that not put the onus on the homeopathic movement to prove that the money is not being wasted?
“I’m not out to convert anybody. It’s not a religion, but people keep expecting it to be. That’s my point.”
Yet it demonstrably has the same shape as a religion, its followers displaying an unshakeable faith in some intangible concept which they claim has wondrous powers and yet cannot be detected by normal means. You may not personally be out to convert people but the constant cry of the homeopath is ‘why not try it for yourself’. There’s even an ancient, revered, apparently infallible figurehead whose book is regarded as the source of great knowledge and wisdom.
All you’re missing is the prayers and the hymns. Everything else about homeopathy has ‘religion’ stamped on the side.
(in fact, if I may quote the original blog post: “I found that it was as if I had joined some religion or cult. People talk about believing in homeopathy.” ... “Of course, the religious/spiritual thing works both ways. Plenty of alternative folk like homeopathy because they believe it is spiritual and not scientific. “)
I’m arguing here that the reason homeopathy appears to have the shape of religion is because it challenges your de facto religion: scientism.
There is a difference between marketing and religion.
And if passion counts as religious fervor, than I don’t need to argue very hard that the skeptics of homeopathy are actually defending a religion of sorts.
I will admit there are those who make it seem like the church of homeopathy. But in my opinion that isn’t to do with homeopathy itself. It was to do with spiritualism vs. materialism. Homeopathy is “outside the wall,” using the metaphor I started with, and has an automatic appeal to others who are outside that metaphorical wall. However, while most homeopaths are spiritual people, and some do connect the two, homeopathy itself does not require belief.
I’d like to paraphrase something I once heard Jeremy Sherr say: I don’t study the Organon (the main book written by Samuel Hahnemann—that ancient, revered guy) because it is the Bible of Homeopathy, I study it because I’ve found it to be about 80% correct.
I’m saying that the materialism/spiritualism quasi-religious divide encourages people to think about homeopathy in religious terms. That doesn’t make it religion. I certainly don’t see or use homeopathy that way, and it works for me and the majority of my patients, even those patients who start out skeptical.
John - I think its worth considering what evidence is for. I don’t think that much evidence is needed at all for you to enjoy a private practice, and for people to visit you. It’s their time and money and they should be free to spend it as they wish.
I’m also sure that some people will benefit from visiting a homeopath (if only because in my experience a homeopath can play a similar role to a psychotherapist).
However, homeopaths make distinct claims that do require evidence.
First, some have actively campaigned for large amounts of public funding. That is a completely different context. My opinion is that to receive long term public funding, homeopathy has to prove that it is more deserving than whatever isn’t in receipt of thise funds. You can’t spend the same money twice.
Second, numerous homeopaths have claimed that homeopathy is as efective, or more effective, than conventional medicine.
Both these positions carry a very explicit claims about the efficacy of homeopathy. The position is, in short, homeopathy is superiour to those treatments for which you have evidence, so give us money.
In that context, I think its entirely reasonable for people to turn round and say - fine, where’s the evidence.
We then have a problem. A direct claim of comparison has been made. A comparison requires some means to judge and evaluate. But when people are asked to provide evidence that can be used in that comparison, the response is ‘trust us, it works’.
So, to conclude this unexpectedly long essay. In most cases I don’t think that calls for evidence come from obsessive religious scientism. For me they stem directly from the claims of superior efficacy made by homeopaths. If the claims made by homeopaths were more modest, I doubt that all these people would care enough to post on blogs like this.
It’s not the calls for evidence that I’m criticising, it’s the unfair judgment of that evidence and the double standard regarding medical claims.
As you mentioned elsewhere, the issue there is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Sure, some surgery may have been developed through trial and error. But then the claims made for it are pretty mundane.
The reason why I don’t think that there is a genuine double standard is that the claims made for homeopathy are very very very extraordinary (infinitesimally small quantities of active ingredient etc). Its therefore reasonable to ask for a very high standard of proof.
Alternatively, because of the incredibly low instance of side effects associated with homeopathic treatment, perhaps it is allopathic treatment that should be held to a very high standard of proof. Third or fourth leading cause of death in the U.S. is usually correctly (not a mis-spelling) prescribed medication.
I was taught in medical school—these drugs can be life-savers (allopathic medications) but they are all fraught with side effects, don’t use them unless you absolutely have to. I never saw that practice respected in clinical training at medical school or my residency, but have held to its principles nonetheless.
Post Your Comment: