Ecological Enlightenment June 20, 2008
Posted by Graham in : Health, Science and Rationaltiy , trackbackRichard Heinberg has recently written about how our understanding of our place within ecological systems- the ability to see the “big picture” of energy flows and resource constraints on human activity- could be seen as a kind of “enlightenment”- a new vision of the world not necessarily obvious or intuitive but closer to reality than that which our immediate perceptions and experience tell us.
John Michael Greer has also recently written an interesting post discussing the legacy of science and rationality and whether they can or will be saved as we move through energy descent.
The scientific trial, including use of controls and blinding to avoid observer or experimental bias. is a recent human innovation that has revolutionized the way in which we investigate and gain knowledge about the world. The whole point of this process is that it provides a way of checking our own experience and seeing if they are indeed correct. Evidence is collected and carefully verified by independent parties carefully checking the experiments. Over time, with increasing confidence, testable, verifiable data is accumulated and knowledge about the world and the universe and the nature of Nature can be asserted with increasing confidence.
What is becoming increasingly clear to me is that although this rationalist approach has given us much of the modern technology which we depend on and use routinely in our daily lives- including computers, machinery of all kinds, industrial foods and pharmaceuticals- few people have any idea what is involved in a scientific trial and there is a very strong cultural prejudice against the scientific method in general. This ignorance and suspicion towards science extends to teachers, magazine editors, community leaders and many others including many of my friends and colleagues in the environmental community.
I find this tragic because i believe a case could be made that the scientific trial properly applied may be the cherry on the cake of the Oil Age. It may be the true genuine and lasting benefit which modern society has come up with- the ability to see beyond our own prejudices and personal experience and uncover at least some remarkable but hitherto hidden mysteries of the Universe. The most prominent examples of this would be Quantum Theory and ecological systems theory- a kind of Enlightenment of the human mind.
It is extraordinary however how nearly everyone I have discussed this with recently refuse to accept the validity of scientific testing because of the “observer effect” which they believe has been proved by Quantum theory to invalidate any observations of any kind! This is sheer Quantum Quackery and muddled thinking in the extreme- it is only ever applied to the testing of paranormal phenomena and never to anything else.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this is to be found in the area of “alternative” or “holistic” medicine and therapies.
Anyone interested in whether or not therapies such as Reiki, Homeopathy, Herbal Medicine or any of 40 other unregulated therapies are actually effective in treating the conditions they claim to be able to treat, and how we know, should read the new book by Professor Edzard Ernst and Dr Simon Singh, Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial
The book is written in clear layman’s language and tells the story of how these therapies emerged, often- as with the case with homeopathy for example- prior to clinical trials becoming the norm in assessing medicines- and a thorough review of all the scientific data available to date. The process of a clinical trial is clearly explained and some of its maverick heroes- Florence Nightingale for example- come to the fore as pioneers who went against the wisdom of the day to insist on statistical analysis and verifiable trails to save lives.
It is clear that alternative medicine is riddled with fraud and misinformation and most importantly for the most part has no internal regulation of any kind. Many alternative practitioners and their organisations- chiropractic therapy for example- make quite spurious claims for the conditions they can treat. Homeopathy is just an expensive placebo- there is generally no active ingredient in the remedies: they are just sugar pills.
There are many dangers in this -even placebos as they may dissuade people from using cheaper conventional therapies which are as more effective or more so. The insanity of this becomes clear when you realize that there are homeopaths who claim to be able to protect you against malaria with sugar pills- and earn their living by doing so.
Perhaps a weakness of the book is that is fails to address in detail the downfalls of conventional medicine and how it is also manipulated by big business. However, the authors are clearly aware that this can happen and call for more rigor and openness in all medical research.
Most interestingly, the authors themseleves have both been involved with practicing alternative therapies but never took it for granted that they worked, instead repeatedly checking the evidence and looking for further tests.
On the other hand, there is no discussion of the future of medicine in an oil-hungry world. Most of modern pharmaceuticals have a very high energy and oil content. In the future we may all become much more dependent on whatever folk knowledge happens to be around to help us get well and stay well; but we would still do well to keep the knowledge of the clinical trial and the deeper understanding of our world and ourselves that this has given us, lest the future be a return to the dark ages of leeching and snake oil.
Comments»
I know “alternative medicine,” at least some of it, works, because it had brought me back from being “down the rabbit hole” with “environmental illness” –extreme sesitivity to chemicals, mold, inability to digest food, 24/7 systemic distress, inability to sleep much, complete inability to have a bowel movement without inducement, extreme depression, agitated exhaustion –basically can’t eat, can’t sleep, and cant shit –and that ain’t good. Regular doctors said they had real sick people. So I learned, empirically, what worked for me. I had my high levels of lead and mercury (from occupational exposures in the printing and old house renovation industries) removed with chelation methods that are not patented and thus not known by mainstream doctors. I used nutritional supplements and herbs judiciously that were right for me, and kept me able to keep on the road to recovering my health. My liver healed. I learned that only I could be my own best doctor, because no one really knows that much about how to heal the body –it’s like the three men and the elephant. Humankind has never been exposed to the chemical soup that is in daily industrial life. But you learn to use what you experience through trial and error, to learn how to care for yourself with coffee enemas, careful diets, fasting, sleeping outside if necessary, whenever
possible comparing notes with other sick people who have also had experience with what has worked for them. It’s a frontier of really wholistic knowledge being discovered out there. The body is an ecosystem within an ecosystem. You can help it detoxify. You can give it supernutrition. You can relieve it of stress. You can prod it in certain directions with herbs, which are very powerful and useful and not all that hard to learn. And you can grow herbs. This is grassroots science. It is helped along by natureopaths, herbalists, energy healers like acupuncturists and by yoga and pilates instructors too. This stuff is real and does work. You have to sort out the people who have real help to offer from those who are just playing games. But when you have to, you learn to do that. You learn a lot.
Many people will claim that they “know” that various alternatives work because they have healed various ailments, but they may be making false associations: you are sick; you take something; you get better.
How do you know you wouldnt have gotten better in any case?
The answer is, there is really no way of knowing this unless controlled, blinded trials have been done on sufficiently large numbers, and replicated by subsequent studies. Otherwise we really are the three blind men and the elephant. So that is not to say that what you took did not heal you- just that you really cant be sure what did what unless a trial is performed.
In your case it sounds like you had severe and complex conditions as a result of industrial poisoning and tried a variety of things before recovering (Im delighted that you have recovered!). So this would be quite complex to draw firm conclusions about what exactly had what effect.
We are all swayed strongly bu our own personal experiences but these are definitely not empirical. Your story may be a powerful and inspiring one for recovery; we may not hear many other stories of people who have failed to cure themselves with similar methods.
Many alternatives can help but they tend to make false and unsubstantiated claims. Yoga comes out quite well in the book for example; St. John’s Wort, Echinacea, garlic appear to work for some conditions- they are no longer “alternative”;
much alternative medicine masquerades as “proven” and “scientific” when they are in fact ideologically based, coming from out-dated 19th century or earlier conceptions of health, sometimes (in the case of chiropractory) dreamed up by a guru type figure who is assumed without any evidence at all to be infallible in their pronouncements. This is junk science and therefore fraudulent.
It is of course true that there are many things wrong with modern medicine and there are many conditions for which it has no cure- that is one of the reasons people seek out alternatives, but when they do this they expose themseleves to false claims which the practitioners cannot possibly know is true.
Modern science cannot guarantee a cure for cancer but it does not claim to be able to and it can give a reasonably accurate recovery rate for different types of conditions and treatments which is constantly updated based on the evidence. Alternative therapies are quite uncontrolled in the claims they make; even when there is evidence the therapy can help certain conditions- some herbs for example- the practitioners frequently make quite unsubstantiated claims about what else the therapy can cure.
Homeopathy is worst offender- it is pure bunkum and should be exposed as such.
I really recommend Ernst and Singh’s book- it gives some great and inspiring stories about the development of modern medicine and the powerful use of the clinical trial which proved for example the germ theory (which many alternative therapies apparently have not yet cottoned onto).
The tragedy is in this dumbed-down culture, all too many people simply are not interested even in finding out about science, preferring to remain ignorant as they believe their own experiences as the one true harbinger of truth.
Yes, many people have failed to cure themselves with similar methods because they don’t do the protocols correctly, or do not get proper alternative testing to assess their problems. There is a whole system of laboratories doing specialty testing for things like heavy metals, nutritional status, gut ecology, or Lyme disease, to name just the ones that helped me the most. These labs are not woo-woo. But regular doctors do not use them. Yes, regular docs can often cure cancers with dire treatments; but they do nothing to prevent it. This is gross negligence on the part of the medical system. Most things mainstream medicine treats, but rarely fully cures (doesn’t really want to cure since they profit off illness) are preventable problems: accidents, cancer, heart disease, dibetes, arthritis, and the like. I’ve read in The New Yorker about the corrupt double-blind clinical trials run by Big Pharma using destitute subjects. I have come to believe that science can and does come up with whatever results they want to show. It depends on how you design the experiment. The word, experiment, refers to experience. So does the word empiricism. Copernicus gave us a great gift when he debunked the Church’s dictated version of reality by proving something by his own independent, duplicatable, verifiable experience. There are such things as common sense and integrity. People with these qualities recognize each other and can work together to find solutions. This is happening in “alternative medicine” working with the internal bioterrain just as it’s happening in permaculture with the outer bioterrain.Most alternative docs assume germ theory. Anything that does not must be wild stuff indeed.
I trust my own experience and good sense far more than I do any doctor or praticianer of any type setting themselves up as an expert. I think of them as consultants, with myself as their employer. I am no passive consumer of anybody else’s trip.
I’m truly with Graham in deploring charlatans, power-trippers and the many people who are simply lost in fantasy and illusion. Ultimately they won’t succeed very well as they are not in harmony with wider wholes which are real and eventually will provide negative feeback.
Ernst and Singh give examples where the conventional medical practitioner gives much better and “more holistic” advice that the alternatives- eg advising how to avoid insect bites, which a homeopath failed to do. It cuts both ways- “alternative practitioners” are also “making a living from sickness”- maybe not so much, but substantial nevertheless.
I dont think it will ever be enough just to rely on our own personal experience. You could justify anything with that approach. To me, it looks like the sun travels round the earth- I have no direct experience of the earth going round the sun. In the 19th century had you asked the doctors who practiced leeching, they would surely have said, yes, they know it works from their own experience.
Many people tell me they “know” homeopathy works from their own experience- an arrogance that should not be passed over. We know that this is wrong from clinical trials. Our judgments and opinions, feelings and so on can be wrong- we should all be humble enough to acknowledge this. Many people do have truly wacky beliefs and the incidence of this seems to be increasing- they will all use “personal experience” to justify their lack of rationality.
So we have scientific testing as the best method to check. We have the collective experience of humanity, scientists and the weight of evidence to consider- not just our personal experience. The fact that the NY Times ran a story exposing medical fraud is a vindication for scientific testing and committed, responsible investigative journalism. This whole system of balances and checks, transparency in evidence and the democratic involvement of all stakeholders is being seriously eroded by the tolerance of delusion and deceit- we need more science and rationality, not less. Otherwise we are likely to slip back into an endarkenment:
http://dcscience.net/?p=187
Thanks for the link to David Colquhoun. I too am appalled by pseudo-science being awarded credibility by “respectable” universities. Any degradation of our commitment to verifiable, reproducible, evidence-based truth-finding erodes the basis of honesty and leads consensus reality towards chaos.
Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” is highly apposite to this discussion. It’s a brillient commentary on how science itself evolves within evolving consensus reality. It shows how all this is mutable while never disparaging science as a discipline.
I’m sure no one would argue that touching a hot stove cannot be proven to burn you because no double blind studies have been done on the subject. There is a human scale of what is accessible and verifiable as true by individual experience versus what can only be verified by shared experience. Rationality has a close relationship with honesty. People are often eager to fool themselves and others; yet innovation can only come from those who are willing to look beyond consensus reality and trust their own experience.