You can’t detect it, but you know it’s there
As you may have seen in News the other day, David Colquhoun provides excerpts from ‘a lengthy set of notes for a first year course on “The Holistic Model of Healthcare”…from the 2005 course at Thames Valley University’ (along with a link to the whole thing). It’s fascinating stuff – and it raises a familiar question.
[T]he subject of Wholistic Nutrition transcends the area of human understanding for which science, alone, is appropriate. The reason is that it is ‘vitalistic’. It recognises the presence in all life forms including the human body, of subtle (or ‘etheric’) energy forces not easily measurable by the physicist’s equipment. It shares that position with the ‘energy medicine’ disciplines such as homoeopathy, traditional acupuncture and spiritual healing. It follows an approach to those subtle energies that is embodied in the discipline and philosophy of naturopathy. Vitalism is the notion that life in living organisms is sustained by a vital principle that cannot be explained in terms of physics and chemistry. This vital principle, often called “the life force”, is something quite distinct from the physical body and is responsible for much that happens in health and disease.
The question is familiar (around here) because I keep asking it. If there are subtle energy forces not easily measurable by the physicist’s (or anyone else’s) equipment, then how do Wholistic Nutritionists or Vitalists or anyone else know they are there or anything about them? It’s just like the god question. We’re always hearing that god transcends science and is completely different and can’t be measured by our mere scientific equipment. Okay, but then what equipment can it be measured by? Nobody ever says. In the god case some people do say it can’t be measured by any equipment, but then they still don’t say how they know it’s there. They pretend they say (it’s ‘experience’; one just knows; it’s an interaction), but they don’t.
But so then how do the Vitalists know any of the things they claim to know and pronounce on with such confidence? What is the source of all the palaver in the Thames Valley University course notes? There’s a grotesque disconnect between the frank declaration of Zero Knowledge at the outset and the abundant unbashful proliferation of truth claims in the rest of the document.
There is a kind of admission of the problem:
At the root of most hoIistic therapies lies the belief that all life is animated by a subtle force. We call this the Life Force. You either believe it or you do not. It cannot exactly be proved at the moment and the belief is not in accord with the yardsticks that we call ’scientific’, The belief is a little akin to the belief in God or in spirits or ghosts, and yet at the same time it is not, because the Life Force is by no means so remote from us.
You either believe it or you do not, but we will go right ahead and give medical advice as if we had something more than ‘belief’ backing up our whacked ideas.
As mentioned above, toxic foci (deposits) in the body show up in the iris of the eye. The iris is arranged so as to encompass a complete ‘map’ of the body. with all the organs and systems laid out upon it. Hence the location of a toxic deposit in the iris shows the iridologist its position within the body. The toxins may appear as colours, spots. blobs and smears in particular places in the iris, or as darkened areas.
Uh…right. Bye now.
Presumably this course results in a Bachelor of ‘Science’ degree.
Lovely, Don.
Thanks, good post OB!
“It cannot exactly be proved at the moment and the belief is not in accord with the yardsticks that we call ’scientific’”
At what moment was “exactly” re-defined to mean “in any way whatsoever”?
In case there’s anyone out there who doesn’t have it bookmarked already, here’s a link to Ben Goldacre’s incredibly excellent (only good thing about the Grauniad, possibly?) Bad Science” website.
“At the root of most holistic therapies lies the belief that all life is animated by a subtle force.”
So it’s not just Jar Jar Binks that we should blame George Lucas for?
Ben Goldacre – I only link to ‘Bad Science’ like twice a week or so.
Yeah, may the iris be with you.
They “believe” in this stuff because they cannot deal with the alternative – that there is little or no hope to cure the physical problems they have, because the underlying science is not good enough, yet.
Medical “science” is is just barely “science”, because the chemistry of the body is so complex and difficult to understand, much less control. Add to the complexity of the chemistry the fact that it is unethical to do real scientific experiments with real people, and it becomes real hard to figure out how to deal with medical problems. And lots of people have aches and pains and more serious conditions that modern medecine just can’t cure. People want relief from these problems, and if an “alternative medicine” practicioner sounds plausible, then the product will be purchased.
Sometimes, the placebo effect will kick in, and the alternative treatment might make the patient feel better. More power to them, as long as it doesn’t really hurt, or bankrupt the patient.
I don’t “believe” in any of these treatments any more than I believe in God, but there is probably a common thread here – looking for salvation from nice-sounding words when the facts on the ground do not provide much solace.
But as Ben has pointed out, placebo works – even when you know it is a placebo.
So maybe Bachelor of Placebo might one day be a recognised qualification.
May I suggest course 101? If the client is actually ill, send them to a real bloody doctor. (Not that you have any way of telling whether they are ill or not).