Where do you draw the line at your Scepticism?

Question

It's been my experience that people who take the stance of being the Sceptic believe solely on Allopathic Medicine, and that there are no alternatives. This despite the fact many of the types of AM have been adopted by medicine, and continue to be scientifically evaluated and proven to work.

Every once in a while, I run across someone who may agree with me that, for example that herbal medicine is plausible but that I'm an pseudo-herbalist and holistic nut because I don't fall for medical propaganda, and believe everything I have been told at med school, the news, and by just about anybody who has the same sceptical outlook as me, am I biased, of course not :)

So...my question to you all...is how do YOU decide your level of Scepticism, how can you be certain your scepticism is warranted, and possibly that you may be so sceptical as to reject something that works, and is in fact the truth.

Answer 1

I doubt anything and everything, especially about medicine, until it's proven true, and even then I'm waiting for someone to come along ten minutes later and prove it false.  I do whatever research is necessary, if it affects either my family or myself, and make the best judgement I can based on that research.  I don't take anyone's word on faith.  Past that, at some point you have to make a choice about what kind of medical treatment you are going to use; otherwise doing nothing, if the illness is serious, could be catastrophic.

Answer 2

I tend to go for homeopathic remedies rather than modern medicines, when possible, because homeopathy has usually stood up to the test of time.

I'm not against modern medicine -I've had a few surgeries; nothing major, but I definitely appreciate anaesthesia- but I'd rather go for what has more history behind it.

I tend to rely on other people I trust, who have personal experience with it.

Popularity and truth are not necessarily connected. I'm sure there's someone out there saying that if you only eat a can of Vienna sausage every day, you'll be healthy and fit, and that person would be both unpopular and wrong.

Answer 3

If something has been scientifically evaluated and proven to work ... it's not "alternative" any more, is it.

You clearly don't understand the scientific method.

Answer 4

I remember a while back I talked to the director of project censored, and he made the point that "they should not refer to themselves as alternative media; independent media was much more fitting."  The reasoning behind it was that alternative implied they were fringey and not substantiated or credible and just trying to be contrarians, whereas the actual problem in the media lies in the fact the whole enterprise is bought out by major interests and the only way to get objective factual reporting is through an independent media; hence it makes much more sense to use that title.

I basically ascribe to the philosophy of the Taoist Zhuangzi, who was skeptical about all forms of knowledge and thought it was nearly impossible to be certain of anything.  With that bias, along with a desire to know the truth/understand what's really going on in turns into a rather fun game.  I'm used to people lying continuously, so I tend to put a large emphasis on first hand experience.  Over the years I've also gotten fairly good at noticing trends in the styles of how people who tell the truth or those who lie present themselves (liars use sensationalism and self promotion, along with emotional attacks, slanders and appeals to authority to end debates instead of engaging in them, while truthful people tend to behave like underdogs who have to conform to ridiculous standards to be considered "truthful" in anyway).

I don't really have a vested interest in being right, I just want to be the best possible.  On the surface those two things seem contradictory, but essentially, I have no ego attached to whatever practice I've decided upon.  If something comes along with is dramatically better than an idea I've held onto, or disproves it for a more correct perspective, I'm happy to let go and change my ideology.  When I first started, these occassions were pretty common, but I've sifted a lot of the chaft out of my beliefs, so now it only comes up a few times a month.  On the flip side though, it consistently amazes me how most people want to cling to being right so badly that they just completely handicap themselves.  One of my favorite ones comes up in poker with the bad players.  They won't fold terrible hands because they 'just know' they'll get lucky and flip the right cards for their hand.  When they lose, they whine and complain about bad luck, but then when you try to explain that they actually lost because you "should fold ___" they won't listen to you since preserving their ego is more important than actually winning.  This is by no means unique to gaming, that's simply one of the best examples I know.

So as far as skepticism goes, I'm often the most skeptical person around in the new age groups I ended up encountering (ie. I think the secret is BS), and completely out there (unskeptical) in more conservative parties.  All I really care about is trying to understand how things work, so if something goes against what everyone else thinks, that's fine with me.

I also know with alt med specifically, that nearly every health problem (except for accute trauma) can be solved with (real not TCM) Chinese Medicine, excluding a few weird ones (such as torn ACL), but some conditions require a great deal of work to fix, while others are easy as cake.  My general rule for considering alternative therapies is how much they do, and how much of a hassle they are relative to the methods I know.  (Ie. I don't bother with a lot of the complex naturopathic diets, since the general "don't eat c**p" diet works satisfactorally in most cases, and I think high blood pressure medications are ridiculous since simple Chi Gung gets way better results, with no side effects or long term need to use the pills).

The simple simple rule at the end of the day is "never believe something purely on faith," (and by extension recognize how science often behaves as religion not science).

"If something has been scientifically evaluated and proven to work ... it's not "alternative" any more, is it."

You clearly don't have any real world experience with science.

I can name many instances where scientists conducted research conclusively proving a viewpoint running contrary to the mainstream, and the work was either completely ignored/dismissed (ie. not even debunked, just ignored) or the scientists faced persecution for what they showed and their results were buried.  These most commonly occur either when a theory is proposed which invalidates an idea others are vested in (which can include acknowledging the paranormal) and when corporate interests want the idea suppressed (ie. that something they produce is toxic).

I'd be happy to list plenty of examples for this.

Answer 5

My husband (who sometimes still chuckles at me when I go to the acupuncturist) says that skepticism is "waiting to form an opinion until there is more substantial evidence".

He was a big supporter of allopathic medicine until he met me and I started showing him other alternatives that he hadn't been exposed to, but he hasn't jumped on it like some people. He is a major believer in science, so until a majority of scientists/doctors begin to recognize an AM treatment, he doesn't give it much thought.

That is not to say he thinks negatively about alternative treatment. He doesn't fall for medical propoganda either, but without a lot of substantial evidence he won't form an opinion.

The reason it has been difficult to test and prove that AM teatments work is the fact that a lot of them are specialized for a certain person. In homeopathy for example, you do not take treatments to cure the disease itself, you have to specialize your treatments to the specific symptoms you are having. Someone suffering from depression as a result of a traumatic experience will have different homeopathics than someone suffering from depression and self doubt. In conventional medicine, treatments are usually acceptable for the general population. According to the scientific method, you must be able to replicate your results, and with things such as homeopathy and alternative medicine, that is sometimes hard to do. Since homeopathy (among other treatments) is designed to treat the individual and not the general population, replicating results is difficult.

Answer 6

You know what I do? Because I am so curious and opened minded, and because I NEVER feel like I know enough about any subject to really feel "educated," enough to simply dismiss (or believe in) something until I’ve seen it either work, or else  fail, with my own eyes; I pretty much leave everything open to, “it's possible”, and then I try it out from myself in order to see if it works for me.

So, because I LOVE investigating alternative healing subjects, I will read up on a particular practice and then go check to see if it works.

I've had a reiki treatment, out of curiosities sake, and I found it fascinating. It was really cool.

I've been hypnotized, and I thought that was awesome. It actually cleared an old phobia I had right up.

I've seen an energy healer who works in my town to have my "chakras" balanced.

I used to work at a health food store and I've tried homeopathic remedies (I never had any luck with the little sugar pills though! I think they are placebos, at best. LOL)

I've tried aromatherapy (I wear the oils as perfume because they smell so pretty, but I don’t know if they “do” anything.)

I just like checking things out to see if they are effective, according to MY standards.

I few things I have debunked are: Ear Candles. Flower Essences (Although I met some woman who SWORE by the stupid things) Any homeopathic remedy that has been diluted too much. (There are cool videos about over dilution and homeopathic remedies on Youtube.)

And all sorts of things.

Some of the things I think are cool, based on reading about them and experimenting with them on myself are: Yoga, meditation (it's the best) guided imagery, reiki is neat, some chakra stuff seems to work. . .. . Massage works well. Vitamins are good. Some herbs work wonders. . . .

Things I still have to try: I’d like to try acupuncture, to see if it works. . . .Bioenergetic therapy fascinates me. I’ve always wanted to get a rolfing. . . . .

My advice to you if you are tired of skepticism is to remember the story of the nutritionist at Harvard. A female doctor and professor at Harvard "discovered" that nutrition was important in maintaining general health. She was shot down and mocked for years. She lost all credibility. . . .until. . . . she was proven RIGHT!

So s***w the people who think they know everything and shoot down anything new or different or not measurable according to their tests.

Investigate things and see if they work for you!!

EDIT: Chris L is right on! I too believe that most healing occurs in the mind. However, I was just reading a case against the placebo effect: http://www.chiro.org/nutrition/FULL/Debu... This was an interesting read from me, especially since so many "skeptics" who I have actually just learned are quite often pseudo skeptics: http://skepticalinvestigations.org/New/E... (This is a GREAT READ!) often rely on calling things like acupuncture placebo and nothing more. However, this is an irritating argument because as long as a person returns to good heath, I don't care at all HOW they did it. Even if they did use techniques that were only placebo (if there is such a thing, in light of what I just learned), in my mind, the placebo effect is awesome and it's amazing that a person can heal themselves. . .which is a threat to modern medicine, of course, because they want you too NEED THEM. I’ve even read articles in magazines that suggest you consult a doctor before you choose what shampoo you use. For real, modern medicine encourages dependence because then they can make more money off you.

Plus, how often do you go to the doctor and are actually only made well because you THINK a doctor’s treatment will work?

(on the other hand, if the placebo effect does not exist, such as the article I just read implied, (you should go read that) then that means AM and mainstream medicine are all effective, actually, and there IS no d**n placebo effect.)

I think some of this "skepticism" of AM comes from people having closed minds, and their wanting to maintain the status quo. Some people just do not like their narrow view of reality, and their understandings of the world, to be challenged.  Further more, when it comes to medicine, if you made your living off a certain kind of medicine, wouldn't you want to persuade people to go see you, and not someone else? Most especially not someone who has a cheaper technique then you have, or one  that would not require drugs (gasp!) or medical insurance (gasp again and clutch at your heart)

Most things seem to boil down to one word. And that word is MONEY.

It's not like it hurts anything to go see a person who does reiki or to get an acupuncture treatment. If AM really doesn't do anything, then why would people care if someone went in for a AM treatment? And, if it didn't work at all, then why would anyone keep coming back? Anything that doesn't work at all has a very short shelf life. People will drop it. Why? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK.

AM also should be viewed as harmless as you can easily use it in conjunction with mainstream medical treatment as well.

In fact, you can say anything you want about the dangers of any AM, but then go and look at the number of people killed each year by drugs prescribed to them by doctors. Or the phony research they do for drugs today and then see who you want to trust with your life when it comes to taking pills vs an AM treatment.

Pseudo skeptics NEVER bring up any corruption when it comes to modern medicine, either, which makes me angry. I watched a video where Richard Dawkins went around trashing AM, and praising mainstream medicine, but did he ever bring up ANYTHING bad about mainstream medicine AT ALL? The answer is no. Nothing. Nothing bad was ever said about poor drug research or anything else.

Everything, according to him regarding AM, was placebo unless it could be "proven" based on his standards. He never mentioned placebo in modern medicine, which was a double standard that really made me angry.

In my mind, a lack of side effects and a little placebo to cure can sometimes be  a heck of a lot better then a drug that could kill you!

The hate and rage directed at some AM treatments by pseudo skeptics makes me think they have ulterior motives. Money is a driving factor in some of these people’s minds, whether they realize it or not.

EDIT EDIT: Alex F is right too!

Answer 7

I'm fairly skeptical about everything, especially medical stuff where some person or company has a clear profit motive. Like that native indian pain gunk... it's just aspirin, and aspiring from an aspirin bottle is the same aspirin. But some things are just plain ridiculous, like homeopathy. That is more quack than a hundred ducks.

Answer 8

The state of medicine in America today is truly sad...don't get me wrong, we have the absolute best crisis intervention in the world by far, but what about the other 99.9% of the population?  Questioning the norm always makes one look like an outsider no matter what the subject is (but especially with medicine).  It takes much less thinking to naysay something because the burden of proof then lies on the one who is disagreeing with accepted knowledge.  

There are many Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) branches that have little to know evidence, others that have no more efficacy than placebo.  I believe that many people are searching for the answer, and until they believe they are in the right place for healing to occur their own mind will prevent full recovery.  Sometimes that realization occurs with western medicine, sometimes it is chiropractic, sometimes it is acupuncture, sometimes it is reiki, sometimes it is magnetic therapy, sometimes it is simply meditation and self reflection.  The mind is the most powerful healing instrument known to man and it is sad how often it is neglected by traditional and CAM practitioners.  

It seemed as if you are in med school, and if so I would give you a standing ovation for keeping an open mind and I hope you encourage your classmates to do the same.  Einstein said "We can not solve the problems we have today with the same level of thinking that created them." We have many problems with health care in the US and the world today, and we all must figure out ways to come together and solve them, rather than bicker about what works and what doesn't, because the fact of the matter is that if it helps one patient, it worked, it doesn't need to be a huge RCT or a published case study, clincal experience is still a part of evidence-based medicine.