|
|
In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Robert Greenstein) writes: |
|
|
>In article <[email protected]> [email protected] (Gordon Banks) writes: |
|
|
>>One problem is very few scientists are interested in alternative medicine. |
|
|
>So Gordon, why do you think this is so? |
|
|
Probably because most of them come packaged with some absurd theory |
|
|
behind them. E.G. homoeopathy: like cures like. The more you dilute |
|
|
things, the more powerful they get, even if you dilute them so much |
|
|
there is no ingredient but water left. Chiropractic: all illness |
|
|
stems from compressions of nerves by misaligned vertebrae. Such |
|
|
systems are so patently absurd, that any good they do is accidental |
|
|
and not related to the theory. The only exception is probably herbalism, |
|
|
because scientists recognize the potent drugs that derive from plants |
|
|
and are always interested in seeing if they can find new plants |
|
|
that have active and useful substances. But that isn't what |
|
|
is meant by alternative medicine, usually. If you get into the Qi, |
|
|
accupuntunce charts, etc, you are now back to silly theories that |
|
|
probably have nothing to do with why accupuncture works in some cases. |
|
|
Perhaps another reason they are reluctant is the Rhine experience. |
|
|
Rhine was a scientist who wanted to investigate the paranormal |
|
|
and his lab was filled with so much chacanery and fakery that |
|
|
people don't want to be associated with that sort of thing. |
|
|
Gordon Banks N3JXP | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and |
|
|
[email protected] | it is shameful to surrender it too soon." |
|
|
|
