0 Comments
The placebo effect is a wonderful and fascinating effect of our minds. It gives us insight into the complexity of human powers of healing and the effect of our perceptions on our experience. That is not to suggest, however, that the placebo effect has no side effects. Some of the results are nothing if not dire.
Take homeopathy, for example. Besides one much disproved article in the scientific journal Nature[1] there is little credible research supporting the ideas of “like cures like” and water has memory, which are the central tenants of the system. These ideas lead to the practices of diluting something past the dilution limit (so that not even one molecule of the diluted substance remains in the solution) that in normal concentrations would provoke the symptoms the homoeopathist is attempting to cure. Blinded studies into homeopathy have determined that the benefits ascribed to the practice are indistinguishable from the placebo effect[2] (when patients see a benefit to a medicine with being unknowingly given an inert substitute). Homeopathy represents the most well-established brand of “natural” medicines, which purport to come from an earthy knowledge that has somehow been lost in our urban society. In the truest sense of the word pseudoscience, these claims borrow the trappings of science to promote a claim that has no backing in science that can as of yet be proven[3]. However, millions of people around the world turn to homeopathy to sooth their ailments, everything from aches to viruses to genetic disease. Many find relief from the practice, and stories about the miracles of homeopathy are not difficult to find. It is tempting, then, in the face of all this benefit, to write homeopathy off as something that might not be good science, but at least makes people feel better. However, this thinking suggests that there are no consequences to using a system that has no scientific backing. Besides the tendency to stretch the powers of homeopathy past the limits of the placebo effect (a sugar pill might cure a back ache, but it won’t cure sickle-cell anemia), there is a real danger of confusing science with pseudoscience. In a very apropos way for homeopathy, it dilutes the power of real scientific findings, while at the same time promoting a fear of science by billing itself as privy to a secret science is unable to grasp. This together makes people more vulnerable as they view medicine with suspicion and turn their backs on the breakthrough that, though far from perfect in many cases, might provide a solution to their problem. Permeating through our culture, this idea of scientific paranoia can lead to damning consequences such as the current movement towards anti-vaccination [1] Dayenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, Oberbaum M, Robinzon B, Miadonna A, Tedeschit A, Pomeranz B, Fortner P, Belon P, Sainte-Laudy J, Poitevin B, Benveniste J (30 June 1988). "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE"(PDF). Nature. 333 (6176): 816–818. [2] Linde, K; Scholz, M; Ramirez, G; Clausius, N; Melchart, D; Jonas, WB (1999), "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy", Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52 (7): 631–6, [3] Khuda-Bukhsh, AR. (2003). “Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview”. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 253(1-2):339-45. Have you ever felt sad because something is disappearing around you? Know you will miss something before it is gone? Feel pain as your environment is pulled out from under your feet? Glenn Albrecht defines this feeling as Solastalgia. As an environmental philosopher he uses this term to understand the impact of the destruction of nature by focusing on how humans both affect and are affected by the changing natural landscape. His theory can be easily applied to the purely human that each of us live in – culture. The same loss and pain we feel when we lose a natural part of our environment can also be felt as the cultural environment we grew up with fade or change. We may cling to stands of that culture long after they stop being integrated within the broader scene, or we may decide to cling to something new, but that stands in direct opposition to the newest knowledge. In a word, pseudoscience. Of course, it is not that simple. Many factors go into someone’s choice in believing something over something else. However, the seductively simple answers for complex questions of life that pseudoscience provides are suggestive. One historical (now defunct) example of this is the belief in phrenology, which posits that areas of the skull can be used to determine the size of different areas of the brain (such as critical thinking or spite or religiosity). It was primarily created in support of Eugenics, it in itself a way of pushing against the social movements that advocated rights for marginalized groups. While Albrecht used this theory to advocate conservation, in the realm of pseudoscience there is no going back. However, an understanding of while believers cling to these disproved notions allows those on the outside work in reasonable ways to change incorrect perceptions. I am fascinated by interesting beliefs. Everything from a cult that says aliens made this planet last week and we have been living in an illusion ever since to whether Elvis is living in Maine as a McDonalds cashier. Not just the beliefs themselves, either, but the people who hold them. I am interested in what makes a person believe something outside the norm when everything from evidence to societal pressures try to convince them otherwise. Not that I would necessarily like them to give up their beliefs. If you want to believe that god is a blue raccoon, that is really fine by me. But I really do want to hear about what shade of blue she is and her opinions about how humans treat raccoons in our society. That being said there are some beliefs that hurt people. There are beliefs that kill and damage and make life worse for the world. And these are ideas that I cannot accept. Pseudoscience and bad science have repercussions far beyond just the practitioners, and have the ability to hurt both innocent people and society at large. This is not acceptable. We as a community must work to stop these things from happening. First the gap between “science people” and “holistic people” has to be bridged, rather than widened. We must find a dialogue to understand not just why people believe things, but how to communicate with them about their beliefs in a meaningful way. |
AuthorI am a student at the University of New Mexico working on a B.S. in Chemistry and a B.A. in Professional Writing. I am fascinated by why people believe weird things and how that impacts broader society. ArchivesCategories
All
|