The Supernatural vs the Theoretical

The blog Starts With A Bang has an interesting post about some of the theorised potential of black holes. It is nifty.

More than just nifty, this presents me with an excellent opportunity to highlight the difference between trusting science and believing in the supernatural -aside from the obvious (ie: medicine works, homeopathy doesn't :P And no, I haven't forgotten about WHA?? Week, but crap it's draining to write about that garbage).

Some critics of scientific thinking put forward that trusting in information such as the above blog presents is akin to believing in god. They assume this makes science-minded folk just big hypocrites who have a vendetta against religion (I'm sticking with religion as a comparison, as it's more often where this argument comes from. Feel free to substitute ghost-chasers or psychics).

The difference is glaring once you're aware of it: when theories like the one mentioned in Starts With A Bang are presented, they are taken with a grain of salt (to use a phrase that is completely incomprehensible to me). They are nifty thought-experiments that mathematicians put together using formulae that test out, even while the actual physical testing remains an impossibility. They remain an intellectual curiosity until the day that they are refuted by further mathematical proofs or verified by actual testing. On that day reasoned, informed people change their minds.

Religion, meanwhile, maintains a strict dogma, budging as little as it can afford to while still remaining an influential power in society. For fucks sake, there are people who still believe the earth is less than 6000 years old! There are demonologists working for the vatican! Exorcists! Faith-Healers! These people refuse to let scientific evidence influence their beliefs, instead holding to outmoded codes of self- and other-repression.

What it boils down to is that science admits its mistakes, even if not all scientists do. Religion and the supernatural turn a blind eye to any evidence that does not support their view.

Excuses

With moving being my top priority this week, and general existence getting in the way of any posts since March, the ol' attempt at blogging is pretty much falling into last place. I'm still not giving up entirely on this, though.

Next week is going to present problems of its own which will likely continue into the end of May. I'll be starting anaesthesia courses for work, and given that the only available online course before September is May 01, and it's an advance course, I have a bit of cramming to do before then.The material isn't overly difficult, plus it's interesting and (key point) short. A short course means that, in theory, it will end before I lose interest.

So a moving date is set for Saturday. I have a fair amount of packing to do before then -around my work schedule- which you'll note I am not currently doing. Sunday I will be reassembling my life in a new apartment, and likely cleaning cat vomit as Wicker freaks the hell out. Monday I will be back at work and free time from that point will likely revolve around learning how to properly administer anaesthesia to small animals without having them croak.

Note of interest: Dogs, along with most small mammals, have open "C" ring tracheae, like us. This is why people can be choked so easily. Because of these open rings of cartilage it is generally best to use an endo-tracheal tube that has an inflatable cuff. The cuff both holds the tube in place as well as prevents the escape of gas that should be going into the patient's lungs. Cats, birds and ferrets, meanwhile, have closed ring tracheae. Their tracheae are much stronger and this allows us to safely hold them around the neck without risk of choking them. Unfortunately, it also means that using inflatable E-T tubes risks damaging the sensitive tissue of the trachea, meaning we cannot use the inflatable tubes, and must rely on near-perfect sizing of the tube, and a general less-effective anaesthesia. Except that we still use the inflatable cuff in cats. No, I don't know why.

Western Medicine

Not long ago on Reptiles Canada, one of the members posted a piece about the wonders of fruit and the dangers (yes, dangers) of eating it AFTER MEALS (cue scary-voice)! It seems that the wundercure that is fruit turns nefarious if eaten on a full stomach. Also: drinking cold water after a meal causes cancer. Needless to say, I was not impressed. I replied that the piece lacked any sort of evidence and was simply making dramatic claims, and that I was sceptical. The piece also brought out some of the less informed among the board, who began extolling the wonders of organic and chemical free diets, as well as the evils of the food and drug industries. Of course, their primary complaint was "Western Medicine". My reply was perhaps more antagonistic than necessary, but thankfully several other members of the forum were able to state the case in more reasoned manners. The thread quietly died, and I won an argument on the interwebs. Obviously a huge life accomplishment.

Unfortunately the believers in food-magic couldn't leave it there, and a few days ago the discussion was kicked up again. Back into the ring they threw their despicable terminology, and we once more are rallied to the defence of science. 

All of the above is, of course, my long winded way of stating that I'm going to talk about the term Western Medicine, and why I hate it so much.

These proponents of Chinese/Herbal/Natural/Woo (CHNWoo) medicine would have us believe that this is a simple issue. There are those who trust the evil Western Medicine, which is a money-hungry industry, and those who put faith in the planet, chakras, xi, and magic plants. This, of course, is just another aspect of fanaticism being filtered through a persecution complex. They want to believe in the simplistic quick-fix of food-magic so badly that they invent an entire industry of greedy doctors who want nothing so much as to make money and indirectly kill babies.

Western Medicine is either a misunderstood concept or downright made up, depending on how extreme the opposition is feeling. It is supposed to be based around treating only the symptoms of illness, being corrupted by greedy corporations who are jealous of CHNWoo's true ability to heal. All of which is bollocks. Evidence based medicine is what CHNWoo supporters label as WM, and it has nothing in common with the latter. Evidence based medicine is a scientific process based around testing theories and applying them to practical applications in managing and curing human ailments. At times it treats symptoms, but the true focus is the eradication of illness through understanding its processes. Nor does evidence based medicine discriminate against natural remedies. If a substance in nature can be co-opted for healing the body, and can be shown to do so with empirical evidence, it becomes medicine. The reason that CHNWoo is not accepted by evidence based medicine is that... it's not medicine. Studies done on the majority of herbal remedies, acupuncture, chiropractic therapies, and -gag- homeopathy, consistently show that there is little to no effect. In the case of the more extreme CHNWoo such as homeopathy and water therapy (sorry... hydrotherapy) not only is there no measurable effect, but there is no scientific basis for the "remedies" themselves. If these absurdities were to actually be viable scientific therapies they would pass into the realm of real, evidence based medicine, and cease to be woo.

Hopefully this is more an informative piece than an outright rant. My ability to explain is far behind my ability to understand at this point, but hey, that's why I'm wasting my time here :P