So...

Through my job I get to know the basic science behind weapons. It's not directly related to my job, but sometimes I come across. And I get really odd looks if someone is talking about guns and I suddenly make a bit of a complicated statement about them. It's not the same odd look as when I start talking about human relationships in terms of probability densities.

Also, if I never have kids, I don't really mind too much. Not so much a failure of me as a failure of the mutual effort my genes, which are the ones who are really trying to procreate.

I have been reading a book on homeopathy & alternative medicines, Snake Oil and other preoccupations, by John Diamond (or the first 6 chapters of a book, the author died before he could write any more, which gave me a very strange sense of loss at the end of the 6th chapter). And there's a statement by a kinesiology practicioner. The statement was after a medical test of kinesiology, and he says 'You see, this is why we never do double-blind testing any more. It never works!', and a statement by Hyman (the author of the quote); "Since he 'knew' that applied kinesiology works, and the best scientific method shows it does not, then - in his mind - there must be something wrong with the scientific method."

And that seemed to relate with me to a certain extent to how religious people deal with logic, or statistics, that contradict with their belief systems. There must be something wrong with the logic or stats, some other variable that has not been taken into account, that is wrong. And actually, this is a fair enough response, for a similar reason why the author of Johnny D stopped debating alternative medicine practicioners.

"But in asking him to consider the arguments against homeopathy I was asking him to consider that which he possibly couldn't consider. I was asking him to say... 'Everything I've devoted my professional life to for past eighteen years was based on a series of false premises and fallacies.'"

This isn't that deep or new - the people have vested interests in the knowledge they hold, and attacking the very validity of that knowledge, especially in terms that work, is asking them to choose between their vested interests and a series of coherant arguements, what's going to win? Vested interests, in the short term, everytime.

Also, the author had a very interesting idea, that I've not heard before. And although I'm not sure I agree with it, it is an interesting one; The early sucesses in modern medicine, like wiping out smallpox, nigh-on wiping out TB, making us live hugely longer, gave a huge sense of optimism. That we would be able to, at some point, wipe out all ailments that harm humanity - pills not just for our physical complaints, but also pills for happiness, drive and enthusiasm, in a similar way that modern politics has more or less removed the risk of homelessness and poverty for those of us living in the western world.

But it hasn't happened, and actually, only 50% of people are cured of cancer in the western world, up 30% from the 20% it was previously, which is fantastic, but there is an expectation that it should be beaten. And, as the argument goes, that into the vacuum of percieved failure, alternative medicine arises to offer to forefil the promises othodox medicine has not yet.

I don't think I agree - I'd suspect it's more of a combination of wealth + lack of cynicism = people willing to spend money on empty hope, but then I might be a little bit cynical, and I like an interesting idea :)

One of the the things that has stuck me most in recent times about alternative medicine is a little complicated to explain, so I'll tell the story. I was listening to the Radio 2 lunchtime "debate"*, and a herbalist comes on. They were discussing a herbal treatment, but there was one herb that the herbalist was very against. And after a while of listening, as far as I could tell, it was because there was an active, measureable ingredient (oestrogen, or something close, as it turned out). So it seemed that the entire thing had turned on it's head - from the main criticism of these alternative medicines, that they don't actually do anything, seems to have become the way they define themselves - if a medicine has an active ingredient that causes a measureable effect, then it isn't appropriate for herbalist use.

So extremism in alternative medicines? Something like that. Anyways, it seemed like a profoundly odd developement.

*for as long as I can. The "debate" listeners phone in with their opinions, and while some of them are thoughtful and considered, a lot of them are just inane and reactionary, and I get really wound up by the lack of thought these people engage in before joining in the discussion, so I switch over to Radio 1 which is at least honestly inane, which is fine, I can enjoy that :P