Like Hans, I'm completely fascinated by the thought processes going on. To me, the systematic investigation of cause and effect seems like the natural way to think.
They, on the other hand, construct a belief system, then twist every observation to fit in with this. If the patient got better, whoopee, the remedy worked. If the patient got worse, this is an aggravation, and again whoopee, it shows the remedy is doing something and we're on the right track. (Remember Kumar? He couldn't be persuaded that the patient getting worse after treatment wasn't excellent proof of the power of the remedy.) If the condition didn't change, we need to retake the case, we obviously haven't yet hit on the right remedy. Choose another remedy and repeat until some change is seen, then interpret as above.
It's all miracle cures and astounding, self-evident, predictable effects....
Our remedies can stop heart attacks, for heaven's sake!
our Chamomilla will cause screaming babies with teething pain to quiet down and fall asleep within seconds of taking the remedy! "Let us loose in an emergency room!" our side could have said. "Just let us have our Arnica and Aconite and follow us with your camera!"
(both from
this thread here.)
But then when you start to look at cases other than the ones they like to boast about, the backpedalling and the excuses start. Everybody's different. What works for one won't necessarily work for another. It's very difficult, and we often fail. (
) Then when controlled trials are designed, this self-evident, predictable, miraculous treatment repeatedly fails to show any effect above chance.
Ah, but all anyone needs to do to prove a homoeopathic remedy is to take it for themselves - then they can't fail to be convinced. Until someone like Hans actually takes them up on it, and the get-out clauses start appearing on that one too.
I suppose the really surreal bit is the way they always accuse us of being closed-minded and suffering from cognitive dissonance, when they really need to look in a mirror.
Sure, scientific medicine can be closed-minded and reactionary too. People are human. But in the end, if you shove the evidence in their faces often enough, they'll get it.
The
Helicobacter pylori story is a wonderful example. Warren and Marshall were outsiders to the closed clique of gastroenterology. They challenged accepted thinking. Those in the clique reacted badly. They went into denial. They behaved in a closed-minded manner. They scorned the outsiders and ridiculed their theory.
At first. In fact, this only went on for about five years or so. In one sense, five years too long. But in another sense, a theory as new and as different as Warren and Marshall's had to be challenged and made to prove itself, you can't just roll over and say, gosh how wonderful, to every half-baked post-grad with a smart idea.
But Warren and Marshall were right. And they had the evidence to prove it. In the end, when the weight of evidence gets that heavy, the scientist has to re-evaluate, admit error, and embrace the new truth. The alternative is cognitive dissonance, where evidence is ignored or re-interpreted to allow the retention of a cherished world-view past the point of rational defence.
The gastroenterologists, with greater or lesser degrees of grace, finally accepted the evidence and re-thought their approach. The homoeopaths will never accept the evidence or rethink their approach.
I wish I could figure why.
Rolfe.
. On the other hand, he later gave me an A+, hehehe.
.
