Posted by dj on April 3, 2001, at 10:57:44
In reply to Re: Truth?, posted by JahL on April 3, 2001, at 9:54:31
Blind faith can apply to science as well as other 'realities', 'religions', 'dogma', however you want to call it. The 'truth' has many dimensions and the subjective is as valid as the so-called 'objective' oftentimes. Patients/peoples experiences are as valid as 'science' and sometimes more so, though they can be viewed through various prisms and distorted, just as science can be.
One only has to look at some of the barbaric experiments that took place in mental instituitions in Canada, with funding from the CIA, to realize that scienc(tists) have their quirks and quacks too. True story. A Dr. Ewan or something like that did brain-washing experiments with LSD and such on various institutionilized patients - including the wife of a former member of parliment from Winnipeg, I believe - back in the 50's or 60's. Been in the courts and the media over the past few years... And then there was lobotomy...and trepanning...,etc...
And then there's eugenics... However closer to home one can look at the fact that PDocs and MDs often den(y)ied the reality of the negative side effects of ADs on patients, when they are coming off or going on, because there was no literature on them. The good/better docs weigh and sift the patient's experience and the 'scientfic data' and make decisions based on both.
In places like the artic and the ocean some scientists are now paying attention to the 'folklore' and observations of natives and local fishermen and such, who've tracked patterns over generations and sometimes have oral histories that are more accurate than some of the 'scientific observations' in terms of climate change and such.
One only has to look at the ongoing debate by academics, writers, researchers, PB participants, etc. on the efficacy (sp) of different ADs on different folks to see that there are contending theories. Yes one can use the scientific method to tease through various alternative explanations, however there are alternative explanations and science doesn't necessarily explain them all well or accurately as sometimes the wrong questions are asked or the right questions aren't posed.
The NewYorker had a great article a few years ago about how the then widely accepted scientific dogma was that one's 'gut' was a completely sterile enviroment and that ulcers were purely the result of stress. An australian researcher believed that microbes (or viri or some such thing) in the gut were the source of ulcers (though likely triggered by stressors) and could hence be treated with simple, appropriate medication - in this case one of the inexpensive elements in Pepto-Bismal vs. expensive meds.
The dogma was that microbes (or such) could not exist in the supposedly sterile (because of all those stomach acids) gut. Testing this out on himself (by drinking a mix with the microbes (or whatever they were - why not on others, I forge..) the ozzie researcher proved out his thesis. According to the article others had seen but denied the existence of the microbes because then current theories did not support them being there... Now I may have gotten some of the details a bit wrong but the general thrust is bang-on.
Biases exist in all realms. We are all biased by our experiences and we all test out our own hypothesises in our own way. Some are just better and more thorough at doing so, sometimes using the scientific method, sometimes not. And then there's cold fusion, etc, etc, etc....
poster:dj
thread:966
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/977.html