Opinion: Are modern scientific explanations of disease essential?
I read in a book today that modern scientific explanations of disease are essential for healing.
That made me think for a moment. Here is what I came up with:
I read in a book today that modern scientific explanations of disease are essential for healing.
That made me think for a moment. Here is what I came up with:
Nature 436, 29 (7 July 2005) | doi: 10.1038/436029a | pdf
My elevated intraocular pressure in the evening seems to decrease when I lie down and read. However this could be due to other factors such as the eye drops kicking in. How would I go about testing this further?
The following post is adapted from "A Deluge of Data Shapes a New Era in Computing" By JOHN MARKOFF, published: December 14, 2009 in The New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/science/15books.html?_r=1&pagewanted=p...
Millions of people around the world should be monitoring their eye pressure (intraocular pressure) at home, according to health organizations (such as International Society for Self-Tonometry (ISST)) that are issuing recommendations on what to do and how to do it. Many experts, such as Dr.
There is a New York Times article entitled "Lactic Acid Is Not Muscles' Foe, It's Fuel" By GINA KOLATA published on May 16, 2006. I just read it today. The article is about recent discoveries in exercise physiology. It turns out that the accepted scientific understanding of a fundamental aspect of exercise was wrong for more than 80 years. It ends with a quote by Dr. Brooks: "The scientists were stuck in 1920." He's talking about the entire field of exercise physiology!
Even when the mistake was shown by good research, the entire field continued to fight against Dr. Brooks's discoveries for decades. In some ways it reminds me of the fight against new tonometers such as the Ocular Response Analyzer and the Pascal Dynamic Contour tonometer that we see in ophthalmology now.
In my experience, science (as typically practiced) is wrong so much that I think people who maintain a predominantly scientific (i.e., materialistic) world view are disadvantaged. For example, the article says, "Coaches have understood things the scientists didn't." That is almost always the case in almost every field at all times.
The people who are "in the trenches" understand things scientists don't. Now this isn't to say that the scientific method is bad or that data-driven methodology should be discarded. Good coaches rely on a ton of data and they have excellent observation skills. They do have a scientific approach. The difference is they are not limited by a dogmatic scientific materialism.
Furthermore, the practice of science in today's world is so wrapped up with ego, power, career advancement and money that the altruistic aims of science get pushed aside. And new discoveries get trampled by established scientists who want to hold on to their positions of power and prestige.
I was very disappointed to see a reference to [homeopathic ophthalmology] in FitEyes.com. The worst view of homeopathy is that it is quackery; the less scathing one is that it is not "evidence based medicine".
What next? Will we see links to astrologers and aromatherapists who lay claim to curing eye diseases?
NOTE: http://fiteyes.com/forum/homeopathy-and-astrology-558#comment-937 (requires free registration)
Please read this comment for the FitEyes perspective:By Barbara Bradley Hagerty