Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
Actually, I think those examples are just fine.
|
Clearly, otherwise you wouldn't have chosen them :-)
However, there are explanations for why pressure points work (there are several, which one applies depends on the point).
Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
Saying that he was "susceptible to suggestion" isn't anything like a scientific explanation.
|
Actually, it is. If you want to know how suggestion works, then I can't tell you, because I don't know to any level of detail. But the information's out there if you want/need to look it up.
Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
And even if that was some sort of actual explanation as to what is occurring, it doesn't tell you one damned thing about how to go about doing it.
|
Well, it would if you learned how suggestion works :-)
Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
In many cases scientific knowledge simply lacks any explanation for how something works.
|
I believe I already said that :-) There would be no further point to scientific research of everything was known.
But the "works" part is also a problem. Scientific proof is more rigourous than some people are prepared to accept. It is also quite strict about the difference between observation and explanation, which many people are not. So you get the "but I had accupuncture and I got better, therefore meridians and ki exist" thinking, which is quite clearly logically flawed.
Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
Acupuncture has existed for a couple thousand years and modern medical science still has no adequate explanations for how the system works. It can be demonstrated to work
|
That's not strictly true.
Some of it works, and some of it doesn't. Because one part of a system demonstrably works, does not mean you have to accept that all of it works.
Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
the Chinese had a systematic explanation of what they were doing that was effective but had nothing to do with modern scientific theories of how things work.
|
The Chinese explanation is nothing to do with modern scientific thought because the Chinese explanation is provably wrong. Like I said last time, any "traditional" explanations that are provably correct are now part of the scientific corpus (like the Archimedean Principle, for example).
Science didn't suddenly pop out of nowhere. It was (and is) a long process, and it developed in part out of what people now consider "traditional" or "ancient" knowledge (some of it isn't either, actually, but that's another topic).
Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
Now we accept that there is a realm of "alternative medicine" that medical doctors concede has validity even though we haven't a scientific, research based explanation for how it works.
|
You might accept "alternative" medicine, but that is certainly not the majority view of medical professionals. Certain aspects of certain treatments are effective, but most of any "alternative" medicine is not proven to be effective (often the reverse is true, they have been proven to be ineffective).
Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
It is the same with Homeopathy. The system has been around since the 1700's. There is an absolutely massive body of empirical validation for the system.
|
There most certainly is not! Homeopathy is regarded as one of the worst of these "alternatives".
Quote:
George S. Ledyard wrote:
But the system exists and persists because it works.
|
There is a considerable body of scientific proof that it does not have any effect beyond the placebo effect (if people believe that it works, for some of them it will).
I'm sorry, but I still think you do not understand what science is about.
I have no issues with the rest of your post, just the section where you talk about science. I hear that sort of stuff so often (especially from Aikidoka - the art seems to attract woolly thinkers), and it just aggravates me when people get it so wrong.
It is especially troubling when it is presented by people who are respected for their knowledge in other areas (as you clearly are in this forum). Your influence is greater, therefore you need to be more careful than most with what you say.