The discussion started on a very serious note, one of the matter of life and death. What kind of treatment should my friend's mother, suffering from cancer, should undergo? This is not a question many people I know would ask, but this particular friend has been raised in a household where ayurveda is a real alternative to allopathy (also referred to as western medicine). She is sure she wants to see more evidence of cure and the extent of the disease, different indicators reflected in chemical tests of bodily fluids, images taken at different wavelength, the lot. She is convinced that she doesn't want her mother to be the subject to see to test if ayurvedic medicine can cure cancer.
But then the discussion moved to more general and less serious direction, about people's attitude towards the non-allopathic or non-mainstream medicine: ayurvedic, homeopathic, and yunani medicine. She mentioned that she does not like it that ayurvedic system has been left behind and expressed that she would like to see more testing and experiments to prove/disprove the effectiveness of ayurved and not discard it on the premise: Allopathy works, why bother with Ayurveda?
I am not comfortable with the whole idea of Ayurveda being an alternative since the beginning of the discussion and was relieved that she is convinced of not letting her mother being treated in ayurvedic system. As the discussion moved to general I expressed my opinions. She asked why do I speak with such confidence? Had I studied the subject?
I may have read a few articles on the subject, and was present at a pharmaceutic conference where a paper on ayurvedic medicine was presented. But I had not actually thought about the evidence that I use to discard this as an ineffective or suboptimal method of curing human diseases. Most of my evidence is based on discussions with allopathic doctors' (family members or friends) and their opinions (whether well informed or not).
In case of ayurveda, many practitioners of ayurveda also are associated with astrology (based on stars), palm reading, and such future predicting activities which I have discarded as non-scientific long ago. It maybe that these are the bad fruits of the bunch, but the practitioners cannot be separated form the medicine. Also about religion, spirituality, any group that claims they are separate from science (mainstream science) I remove them from my trust, without any further investigation.
I started this discussion with a confidence that I am a scientific person. I believe in evidence and I do a thorough research before forming opinions.But that confidence is not based in evidence. I have not tested my scientific attitude with scientific methods. Now it seems many of the beliefs I live by in my life (including "I have a scientific temper") are based on hearsay or faith: untested, unrecorded and unchallenged.
But how much time can one person investigate to have accurate views on all or many subjects of life? Wouldn't we all have to depend on news papers, discussions, advertisements, television shows for such insights? Is that being unscietific?
But then the discussion moved to more general and less serious direction, about people's attitude towards the non-allopathic or non-mainstream medicine: ayurvedic, homeopathic, and yunani medicine. She mentioned that she does not like it that ayurvedic system has been left behind and expressed that she would like to see more testing and experiments to prove/disprove the effectiveness of ayurved and not discard it on the premise: Allopathy works, why bother with Ayurveda?
I am not comfortable with the whole idea of Ayurveda being an alternative since the beginning of the discussion and was relieved that she is convinced of not letting her mother being treated in ayurvedic system. As the discussion moved to general I expressed my opinions. She asked why do I speak with such confidence? Had I studied the subject?
I may have read a few articles on the subject, and was present at a pharmaceutic conference where a paper on ayurvedic medicine was presented. But I had not actually thought about the evidence that I use to discard this as an ineffective or suboptimal method of curing human diseases. Most of my evidence is based on discussions with allopathic doctors' (family members or friends) and their opinions (whether well informed or not).
In case of ayurveda, many practitioners of ayurveda also are associated with astrology (based on stars), palm reading, and such future predicting activities which I have discarded as non-scientific long ago. It maybe that these are the bad fruits of the bunch, but the practitioners cannot be separated form the medicine. Also about religion, spirituality, any group that claims they are separate from science (mainstream science) I remove them from my trust, without any further investigation.
I started this discussion with a confidence that I am a scientific person. I believe in evidence and I do a thorough research before forming opinions.But that confidence is not based in evidence. I have not tested my scientific attitude with scientific methods. Now it seems many of the beliefs I live by in my life (including "I have a scientific temper") are based on hearsay or faith: untested, unrecorded and unchallenged.
But how much time can one person investigate to have accurate views on all or many subjects of life? Wouldn't we all have to depend on news papers, discussions, advertisements, television shows for such insights? Is that being unscietific?
No comments:
Post a Comment