John, aka 'the Man',
I don't know that Jeff said that medicine is, by definition, based on
science. If he did, that's fine, but I would suggest that medicine is better
defined as being that practice of care-giving that is predominantly
distinguished by science, while placing emphasis on the fact that medicine
is a matter of practice and acknowledging the distinguishing role of science
in that practice.
If we emphasize that medicine is practiced, rather than performed or adhered
to, we admit that medicine is based foremost on the actions of
practitioners. Long before the practice of medicine had any significant
connection to scientific method, it was nonetheless known as medicine. Then,
and now, medicine fundamentally consisted of a person practicing behaviors
that were thought to be useful for treating injury and disease. In that
regard, medicine has much in common with other practices, such as those
listed previously in this thread.
A distinguishing trait of medicine, however, is that it unabashedly caters
to scientific method. One may or may not judge this association as one that
lends credibility to medical practitioners. Regardless, the association
remains. Moreover, the strength of the association that modern medicine has
with science appears to be the primary reason for the success practitioners
of medicine have when it comes to helping people. Incredibly intractable
problems are increasingly being met with solutions, and life-threatening
injuries and diseases are frequently resolved with speedy recovery by the
practice of medicine.
Yet there remains credibility in other methods, even if for no other reason
than medicine is a practice that actually moves forward slowly, encumbered
as always by the human intransigence of the practitioners. One case in point
is the extreme reluctance exhibited by the medical community when it was
discovered that stomach ulcers are normally caused not by stressful
emotional dispositions but by pathogens that can readily be destroyed with
available medications.
In truth, the practice of medicine does not march toward perfection with any
great speed, and just because a given practice lacks scientific validation
does not prove it is an ineffective approach. Other practices produce
desired results, and many advancements in medicine were achievements based
on intuitive decisions that gave rise to practices that later proved to have
a scientifically verifiable basis. Providing clean, sanitary, and humane
conditions for surgery patients, for example, was a practice introduced
without the use of conclusions based on scientific data to demonstrate the
efficacy of such an approach. In fact, even in times when it was already
understood that disease could be spread by contagious pathogens, medical
practitioners continued to dismiss the importance of cleanliness. Also, from
what I understand, even when it was understood that lead was poisonous,
medical practitioners continued to feed patients lead to treat illnesses. In
summary, practitioners of medicine can be at once stupid and arrogant.
Given time, however, medical practitioners prove willing to yield to the
findings of science, to a distinguishing degree. Sometimes the change marks
the end of a terrible legacy; sometimes it marks a step forward noticed by
few people, almost always it produces lasting improvements. Long gone are
days when doctors measured their proficiency by the quantity and variety of
blood soaking their surgery uniforms (Civil War). Also long consigned to
history is any reasonable practice of medicine that ignores contemporary
understanding of the importance of combating contagious infection.
For that matter, there are noteworthy, more recent strides against the very
human ignorance necessarily suffered by all people, including practitioners
of medicine. For example, if you as a client of a medical practitioner
suffer with a stomach ulcer, it is unlikely the first medicine practiced
will direct you to consume tranquilizers and relax your bad-ass type-A
personality. Instead, you will more likely be cured by the practice of
medicine. And that would be that, your bad-ass type-A personality
notwithstanding.
We get better.
mcrux
"John 'the Man'" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Once upon a time, our fellow Jeff
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Who where the Quacks who originally topically treated diseases like
syphilis with salves made from Mercury? Why it was the educated and
then politically correct professional physician, of course.
Quoted message said:So? The differnce is that medicine no longer uses mercury (it is not even
used in thermometers much any more). Chiropractors, homeopaths and
naturopaths still practice the same way, because they don't have science
to
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:help them improve their treatments.
So, it is all a matter of politics after all isn't it?
Anything that medicine says is Quackery is Quackery regardless of the
time period it was said in because Medicine by definition is based on
science, just because science geek name Jeff say that it is. 🙁
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
Hey Jeff, you sound an awful lot like George W. Bush. 🙁
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
Sorry, but I will call your comments as political as it gets.
By the way, Geek ,Evidence-Based Medicine says that the practice of
medicine has not been and still is not currently based on science.
After all, if medicine was truly based on science then there would be
no need for EBM. It is there because of Quacks like you.
Just thought that you might want to know. 🙂
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!
Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
