A couple of weeks ago, the New York Times posted something of a debate concerning Chinese medicine in its Stone philosophy series. At issue was whether Chinese medicine, with it's references to "qi" and use of acupuncture, can be taken seriously as science. And both columns took the opportunity to discuss the demarcation problem in philosophy, which is concerned with distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. The first was a column by Stephen Asma who offered a rather cautious, neutral take on Chinese medicine. He testified that his experience with acupuncture suggested that it was effective, but he also doubted that a theory based on the force called qi, which no one has observed, could be made into a rigorous scientific theory. Asma ended his essay speculating that many people take a pragmatic approach in health matters, following some methods that seemed to work but where the science was uncertain, and that might not be all bad.
Authors Massimo Pigliucci and Martin Boudry responded to this in their column The Dangers of Pseudoscience. They sharply criticize Asma's relatively balanced take as well as his argument that the demarcation problem is rather murky. They have a good deal to say about the danger of using alternative medicines or sham treatments: "Most importantly, pseudo-medical treatments often do not work, or are even positively harmful. If you take folk herbal “remedies,” for instance, while your body is fighting a serious infection, you may suffer severe, even fatal, consequences."
Unfortunately, Pigliucci and Boudry do not consider the cost of ignoring the possible benefits of alternative methods such as acupuncture might have over more conventional medicines. After all, acupuncture is far cheaper and considerably less likely to result in complications or side effects.
More revealing perhaps is that to make their case that acupuncture has dubious benefits, they cite a recent study that appears to demonstrate that needles applied at random places are just as effective as acupuncture. However, in the study's conclusion, the authors acknowledge "The study is limited by the number of patients lost to follow-up. We also cannot exclude the possibility that a more intensive treatment regimen may be more effective." The fact that the authors needed to include a caveat on their findings suggests that it perhaps is not the strongest piece of evidence to make a good case. On the other hand, a simple google search will reveal meta-studies (such as this one) that demonstrate acupuncture is more effective than sham treatments with statistical significance.
In other words, the evidence suggests that acupuncture as an effective treatment has not been falsified, at least for some areas of treatment such as back pain. This does not prove that there really is a system of meridians carrying qi energy, as Chinese medicine argues. But at the moment it looks like something is happening that our current scientific understanding cannot account for.
In their eagerness to dismiss even the possibility that acupuncture works, Pigliucci and Boudry reveal a bias that's arguably common among many contemporary scientists and philosophers. In the process they overlook the possibility that something outside the more orthodox view seems to be working. What would Karl Popper say to that?
UPDATE: The Economist recently has an article that looks at the replication problem for many fields, especially medical research. The article, Trouble in the Lab, provides important context in the science versus pseudoscience debate. Some of the numbers are genuinely shocking. For example
The essay goes on to give other examples of failures to replicate and discusses some of the reasons why. It's important context to remember whenever someone is throwing around arguments about the rigorous superiority of orthodox Western medicine over the alternatives.
UPDATE: The Economist recently has an article that looks at the replication problem for many fields, especially medical research. The article, Trouble in the Lab, provides important context in the science versus pseudoscience debate. Some of the numbers are genuinely shocking. For example
A few years ago scientists at Amgen, an American drug company, tried to replicate 53 studies that they considered landmarks in the basic science of cancer, often co-operating closely with the original researchers to ensure that their experimental technique matched the one used first time round. According to a piece they wrote last year in Nature, a leading scientific journal, they were able to reproduce the original results in just six. Months earlier Florian Prinz and his colleagues at Bayer HealthCare, a German pharmaceutical giant, reported in Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, a sister journal, that they had successfully reproduced the published results in just a quarter of 67 seminal studies.
The essay goes on to give other examples of failures to replicate and discusses some of the reasons why. It's important context to remember whenever someone is throwing around arguments about the rigorous superiority of orthodox Western medicine over the alternatives.
