Many complementary and alternative medicines defy reason, argues arch skeptic Paul O'Donoghue
Science is an exhilarating, stimulating and often difficult pursuit. It is by far the best tool we have for understanding and influencing the natural world. The thrill of science lies in the everchanging wealth of insight and beauty it reveals to those who pay it even a little focused attention. However, its revelations often run counter to what we might expect and it has been said quite accurately that science describes the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be.
Cosmologists inform us that the universe is about 14 billion years old.
Biologists tell us that all species have evolved from common ancestors.
Astronomers teach us that because light travels at a finite speed, when we look into the night sky we are literally looking into the past.
For example. the great Andromeda galaxy, visible to the naked eye as a blurry object, is two million light years distant. This means we observe it as it was two million years ago. Should a catastrophic event occur there tonight we would not know of it for two million years.
In contrast to astronomy and cosmology, in atomic physics we can obtain accurate information about the incredibly small. We understand the properties of particles vastly smaller than atoms. We understand the nuclear processes that power the atomic bomb and those that power the sun, the ultimate energy source of all life on earth. We understand our genetic system in great detail and in psychology we are beginning to come to terms with the complexities of human consciousness. This list could go on and on.
Despite its huge contributions to our knowledge and welfare, science has come in for significant criticism in more recent times. It is sometimes viewed with suspicion and occasionally fear.
It may be seen as cold, calculating and impersonal and unfortunately this view has spilled over to include scientists themselves and those who rely on science for an accurate account of the material world.
Science is indeed impersonal in that it deals with objective, measurable aspects of the world. However, the delivery of its fruits may occur in the most intimate, caring and warm manner as in the case of best practice in modern medicine.
Taking part in the scientific endeavour, whether as a researcher or an avid reader of popular science does not result in a loss of ones humanity.
Indeed the thorough understanding that science provides, more often has the opposite effect. A realisation of the complexity of the world about us and the relatively short life we have in which to appreciate it can propel us into a level of engagement with the world and our fellow humans like no other endeavour.
It is hard to be a cynic in science. There is always more to discover, more to understand, more to challenge.
Scepticism, on the other hand is an essential component of the scientific approach. This means always asking questions. Always looking for the evidence behind claims. It is important for the scientific sceptic to retain an open mind, but as has been stated by others, not so open that your brains fall out.
No matter how beautiful a theory in science may appear; no matter how brilliant the theoretician; the final arbiter as to whether the theory stands or falls is the data.
Theories are tested against observations and stand or fall on the results.
A related essential component of science is the realisation that all scientific knowledge is tentative. What is accepted today may be abandoned or modified tomorrow depending on what the data tell us.
In contrast to the scientific approach, there are a plethora of other systems that claim to tell us truths about the world we live in. Opposed to the science of astronomy for example we see the pseudoscience of astrology. While the data support astronomy, they do not support astrology. There is no evidence to indicate that your personality is affected by the positions of stars, planets or constellations at the time of your birth.
The claims of astrology have been examined in detail and found always to be wanting.
Modern medicine has developed at a staggering pace on the back of scientific and technological advances. Yet we find ourselves currently swamped in a plethora of systems under the rubric of complementary and alternative medicine that defy reason and rest on premises that are totally at odds with science and its findings.
Most of these approaches claim great antiquity as though this is an inherently good characteristic. They label themselves as "natural" and "holistic" concerned with the whole person as though this is not possible in the arena of modern medicine.
They eschew the scientific view of the world, although often at the same time using scientific terminology in an attempt to add kudos to what are often highly questionable practices that are most certainly not scientific.
In future columns I will examine a range of alternative systems from a scientific perspective and will explore the tensions between these two views of the world.
Paul O'Donoghue is a clinical psychologist and founder member of the Irish Skeptics Society, www.irishskeptics.net