I was happy to find this, because I've had a number of similar debates - some with very intelligent people! My appeals to the mechanism of action went over everyone's head and convinced no one. Citing studies got us lost in the weeds as they asked questions about the study that I didn't know the answer to. (Who paid for it? Did they adjust for ___? Did they try ___?)
I agree with the problem, but I don't agree with several points. I'm also not sure about the solution.
> "Today, it's common that a licensed doctor prescribes a homeopathic medicine, which is scientifically known to be ineffective."
Are there really? How common is "common"? This is the first I'm hearing of it, and I'd like more than the author's word. Perhaps a study? :)
>"the profession is regulated by the state and the doctor obtains his license only after finishing a school (where he is taught scientific method along with any specific knowledge needed in his field of expertise), having some actual hands-on experience and taking the Hippocratic oath."
This is actually one of the problems - our culture's over-reliance and expansive trust in state-mandated licensing. The state is simply not qualified to say who can do what or whether they're actually competent in a field, especially once we start talking about specialties.
Because the state lacks the time and experienced professionals in a given field, we came up with certification boards. There are some great boards made up of real-life specialty experts who certify doctors as being competent in their little niche.
Unfortunately, this gets us into the same problem: how do I know which boards I can trust? I guarantee there are homeopathy boards that certify doctors. Looking into the legitimacy of a board is just as hard as looking into the legitimacy of a paper.
The answer has to be education - anything you can do, the "alternative science" crowd and profiteers can do, too. Unfortunately, neither I nor the essay's author seem to have a great cure-all answer for people who don't have the time, interest, or intellect to educate themselves.
"How common is "common"? This is the first I'm hearing of it, and I'd like more than the author's word."
They're scientifically proven to be medically ineffective although for people with psychological non medical issues they are scientifically proven to reduce anxiety. Daughter's got a cough. Moms freaking out. Doc verifies its not bacterial so there's nothing to do but chill out, these viruses take care of themselves, rest and hydrate. Moms freaking out. You treat MOM not the daughter with a harmless magic potion. Mom is now calm, that makes daughter calm and unstressed, and thats medically proven to help or at least not harm someone who needs hydration and rest, and issuing poorly distilled water is medically proven to be much safer for everyone involved than giving antibiotics for a viral infection.
I'm a pretty strong supporter of homeopathic treatment of viral illnesses, at least in comparison to the US (edited: informal) standard of antibiotic treatment. Its enormously safer than antibiotics and its just as effective WRT virus infections. Just make sure its really viral in nature not just a poorly tested culture test in the lab.
(edited to explain I'm not talking theory here; my daughter's pediatrician has recently switched from antibiotic treatment of minor viral infections like coughs and colds to homeopathic treatment... when I found out from my wife what my daughter was prescribed, I was momentarily furious, come on lady I'm a hard science guy don't BS me with homeopathic stuff like that, but I thought about it for about five minutes and decided to high-five her next time I see her, it really is genius in that people too dumb to understand antibiotics have no effect on viruses are too dumb to know homeopathic stuff doesn't work, so the net result is positive)
I've been trying to figure out how to convince idiot industrial farmers that homeopathic water might be a better idea than pumping the livestock full of antibiotics. The problem is in filthy industrial farming operations, the livestock all die without antibiotics because ... drumroll ... filthy industrial farms are filthy.
Thanks for the insight. I've never thought of the possibility of treating the stressed-out parent with homeopathy. It seems brilliant!
My only problem is how does the doctor know that will calm the nerves? If my doctor prescribed my kid homeopathic medicine, I would never go to him again. Placebo only works when the people don't know they are being duped.
> Are there really? How common is "common"? This is the first I'm hearing of it, and I'd like more than the author's word. Perhaps a study? :)
Speaking from my own experience in Slovakia. It may be different in other countries.
> The answer has to be education - anything you can do, the "alternative science" crowd and profiteers can do, too. Unfortunately, neither I nor the essay's author seem to have a great cure-all answer for people who don't have the time, interest, or intellect to educate themselves.
I don't have an answer, but a suggestion: Let's make the processes such as publishing and licensing part of scientific method rather than a matter of political discourse. We can perform experiments to find out which processes do work and which don't. Once the successful processes become a part of the canon, violating them by a publisher or a licensing board can be pointed out as not compliant with scientific method.
This reminds me of another HN article this week, about trash journals and staged conferences. They accept any paper and give the participants a check-mark on their college graduation requirement.
In that case, its not hurting anyone (much). The experience is good for the participants, and if they're all sincere then some actual science may get done anyway.
I agree with the problem, but I don't agree with several points. I'm also not sure about the solution.
> "Today, it's common that a licensed doctor prescribes a homeopathic medicine, which is scientifically known to be ineffective."
Are there really? How common is "common"? This is the first I'm hearing of it, and I'd like more than the author's word. Perhaps a study? :)
>"the profession is regulated by the state and the doctor obtains his license only after finishing a school (where he is taught scientific method along with any specific knowledge needed in his field of expertise), having some actual hands-on experience and taking the Hippocratic oath."
This is actually one of the problems - our culture's over-reliance and expansive trust in state-mandated licensing. The state is simply not qualified to say who can do what or whether they're actually competent in a field, especially once we start talking about specialties.
Because the state lacks the time and experienced professionals in a given field, we came up with certification boards. There are some great boards made up of real-life specialty experts who certify doctors as being competent in their little niche.
Unfortunately, this gets us into the same problem: how do I know which boards I can trust? I guarantee there are homeopathy boards that certify doctors. Looking into the legitimacy of a board is just as hard as looking into the legitimacy of a paper.
The answer has to be education - anything you can do, the "alternative science" crowd and profiteers can do, too. Unfortunately, neither I nor the essay's author seem to have a great cure-all answer for people who don't have the time, interest, or intellect to educate themselves.