Growth of Pseudoscience Harming Australian Universities

wired_parrot writes "The international credibility of Australia's universities is being undermined by the increase in the 'pseudoscientific' health courses they offer, two academics write in a recent article decrying that a third of Australian universities now offer courses in such subjects as homeopathy and traditional Chinese medicine, which undermines science-based medicine. 'As the number of alternative practitioners graduating from tertiary education institutions increases, further health-care resources are wasted, while the potential for harm increases.'"

Comments

Re:Fundamentalists

[IceCreamGuy]

I think you're missing a piece - the measurement of the health of a human is well within the realm of human perception and instrumentation. The goals of standard medicine and alternative medicine are the same: improve the health of a human. If standard medicine works and alternative medicine doesn't, well, you should be able to figure the rest out from there.

Re:Fundamentalists

[pe1rxq]

Human perception has proven itself to be pretty much useless many times..... But I guess you missed that lesson as you seem to have a pretty screwed up notion off science.

If it works it will be measureable and you can call it 'medicine', if you can't measure even a single thing different when using the stuff it is not medicine.
You can try and label it 'alternative' but it won't change the facts: its junk.

This is the danger...

[JustShootMe]

... of worshipping science to the extent of all else.

Some "traditional medicines" are bupkus. Some are not. Just because science has not discovered something does not mean it doesn't exist. To think otherwise is arrogant. I can think of quite a few things in my life that science cannot (or at least does not at present) explain.

There are things about the human body and mind that science does not understand yet. And as long as their mindset continues to be "if I can't see it, smell it, touch it, taste it, or hear it, it doesn't exist" that will continue to be the case.

Re:This is the danger...

[serviscope_minor]

Some "traditional medicines" are bupkus. Some are not.

OK... some herbs can have active compounds in them, etc..

Just because science has not discovered something does not mean it doesn't exist. To think otherwise is arrogant. I can think of quite a few things in my life that science cannot (or at least does not at present) explain.

The trouble is that you are basically jumping from "science can't explain everything" to "maybe one of these wooly theories is correct". Yes, it is certainly true that not everything is explained. That doesn't make some random wooly theory likely to be correct.

And really, "well, science can't explain everything" is not a piece of evidence in favour of something being correct.

There are things about the human body and mind that science does not understand yet.

Certainly true.

And as long as their mindset continues to be "if I can't see it, smell it, touch it, taste it, or hear it, it doesn't exist" that will continue to be the case.

And what precisely do you propose as the alternative? Over the years, people have conjectured many fanciful theories. Despite science being incomplete, they have generally been found to be junk.

And when it comes to medicine, it is generally very easy to measure: do people get better or not.

Re:Homie Opethie

[Baloroth]

The same way a course in "Star Trek" makes its way into Georgetown University. Or "Art History" or "Golf Management" or dozens of other courses at dozens of other universities. Because higher education stopped being about actual education and more about a) making money and b) making the students feel good about themselves.

Probably started around the time Philosophy classes stopped reading and teaching Neitzsche, Bacon, Aristotle, and Kant, and started being about... well, slacking off, wondering randomly about whatever, and getting high. Biggest contributing factor, IMO, was when people started to feel they need college degrees, but weren't smart enough or dedicated enough to actually study seriously. So, colleges started making up stupid courses people could take, without requiring them to actually do any work. This allows everyone to get a degree, but makes half of them worthless. But hey, now most people at least have a college degree, right?

And string theorists too!

[popo]

If we're going to start acknowledging the horrifying growth of pseudo-science in our midst, can we include the no-proof-required branches of physics?

This is why we need to improve science education

[betterunixthanunix]

Nobody claimed that alternative therapies are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry; there have even been some studies on the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicine (part of traditional Chinese medicine). The problem is that these alternative therapies are being practiced and taught without first being subjected to scientific evaluation -- it is anyone's guess as to whether or not these treatments are actually effective. Here is an example, from TFA, of the sort of claims that are being made:

some chiropractors now extended their manipulation of the spine to children, and claimed that this could cure asthma, allergies, bedwetting, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, colic, fever and numerous other problems, and could serve as a substitute for vaccination.

Evidence? Studies? Clinical trials? Nothing has been presented to support the claim that chiropractors can cure asthma or bedwetting, let alone the really bizarre claims (a substitute for vaccination?).

There is no conspiracy or closed-mindedness. When evidence that herbal medicines do work, scientists embrace them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana

You see that long and extensive list of studies? Did you notice that the scientific criticisms were almost entirely focused on smoking as a method of ingestion? Did you notice that the non-scientific criticisms were political, driven by America's far-right government agenda that has been pushed for decades now?

These scientists are objecting to the teaching of treatments that have no evidence to support their use, which have not been the subject of any studies, and for which no statement of efficacy can be made (how do we know these treatments do not cause more harm than good? how do we know that these treatments are not just a waste of time?).

Re:Fundamentalists

[betterunixthanunix]

That includes many things that we take advantage of daily -- even before we start on the stuff which is ridiculed by people like you

[citation needed]

Are scientists representatives of God?

No, scientists are just people who back up their claims with evidence, collected and analyzed according to careful procedures. Representatives of deities are the people who demand that we believe their claims regardless of the available evidence, because we are supposed to place value on "faith."

Do they really know EVERYTHING?

Did someone claim that scientists know everything? Scientists conclude their publications with lists of unanswered questions, which is what motivates scientific investigations in the first place. Scientists are not claiming that treatments which have not been investigated do not work -- they are claiming that there is no way to know, until those treatments are investigated.

I think a better question is this: do you think that you know everything? If you do not demand evidence, then how do you determine what is or is not true (or which treatments are or are not effective)?

Re:Fundamentalists

[serviscope_minor]

There are lots of things that work without the benefit of science,

Er, not sure what that means. Things work or not because of the underlying physics of the universe. Science does not make things work or not.

Science explains things. It gives understanding. That may help devise other things that work by using the modelling powers of science.

lots of things that science is not yet able to measure,

Is there something specifically you have in mind?

and lots of things that science does not yet understand. That includes many things that we take advantage of daily --

Sure. Heck, science doesn't even understand gravity really.

even before we start on the stuff which is ridiculed by people like you.

And here we go. There's your leap. What things are these things that are taken advantage of on a daily basis and are ridiculed by the likes of me?

Do you really believe that Science explains everything? No

No scientist would every claim that - we'd be out of a job for a start. You're setting up a straw man.

Then why can't you accept that some real things may exist outside of the bounds of current scientific dogma.

You're angling to leap from "not everything is explained by science" to "my whacky theories of the world are true".

Just because science is not complete doesn't mean (e.g.) homeopathy works.

fundamentalists... fundamentalists... fundamentalists...

Inigo Montoya would like a word with you.

Re:Fundamentalists

[serviscope_minor]

the problem with your argument is the definition of "better".

I was simplifying for the OP who clearly didn't understand science.

but if you're talking about reducing pain, then it gets complicated.

Yes certainly.

objectively, you can see that a proposed treatment has the same result that a placebo does. does this mean that the treatment is worthless?

Well, ethics aside, placebos aren't worthless treatments. But alternative-medicine placebos aren't any better than regular placebos.

but what do we do in the case of conditions where a "placebo" works very well for a significant fraction of people? shouldn't we fund some research into why the placebo works?

Certainly. The placebo effect is amazing and well worthy of scientific research.

Homeopathy for instance isn't. The science is done and it has been shown to be a simple instance of the placebo effect.

Fun fact: the placebo effect works even if people know they are taking placebos!

Re:Fundamentalists

[berashith]

Tim Minchin knocks this out of the park ... alternative medicine, by its definition, has either been not proven to work , or proven not to work. Alternative medicine that has been proven to work is called ... medicine..

Re:Homie Opethie

[MysteriousPreacher]

I don't mind the fluff being taught. What I object to is the teaching of outright falsehoods. Teaching homeopathy as medicine is akin to teaching a history course in which France was founded by Kiss after they'd defeated the Samoans by destroying their Deathstar.

Courses must be rigorous to be accredited - not three years spent wankibg for course credits.

Re:Fundamentalists

[Anonymous Coward]

"Alternative medicine" that works is just called "medicine".

Lots of mainstream medical theory originated with folk remedies. Among the examples of alternative medicine that was studied and proven to have benefits are:

Willow bark tea (now called aspirin)
Exposure to Cow Pox to prevent Smallpox (origins of the vaccine)
Manual re-alignment of joints to aid in healing after an injury (now called physical therapy).

Now, the problem is that for every one remedy that works there are a bunch more that "only work if you believe" (placebo effect), or "work but can't be measured" (don't really work at all). Furthermore over time the ones that do work become accepted as legitimate medicine, so increasingly "alternative" medicines just the collection of crap that people believe because the guy who sold it to them had a "trustworthy face".

If a remedy actually works you can trivially prove it by conducting a double blind study (the control group will recover more slowly to a statistically significant degree than the experimental group). If your alternative medicine of choice can't live up to this than that means (with mathematical certainty) that any healing effects you feel are purely coincidental. Believing otherwise is roughly as intelligent as insisting that when your computer got a virus, and I performed a chant and reformatted the hard drive, it was the chant that got rid of the virus, and if you had believed a little more maybe you wouldn't have also lost all your files.

Re:Homeopathic

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

This is how Bush v. Gore should have been decided.

Re:Homie Opethie

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, no kidding. No, art history doesn't offer you a direct career path, but neither does Philosophy, and that's been a pretty important component of university curriculum for a long time, as have many other liberal arts fields like anthropology, sociology, etc.

Science-Based?

[trongey]

I'd like to hear more about this "science-based" medicine. It seems like a great concept. Unfortunately, the only resemblance conventional medicine has with science is that doctors experiment with various drugs to see if some random combination might have a positive effect.
How many commercials have you seen lately where the voice-over says, "We think this drug works by..."?

Re:This is why we need to improve science educatio

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

There are thousands of years of observation behind Chinese herbal medicine. There is a plausible mechanism of action.

That makes it, not "pseudoscience", but protoscience. To the best of my knowledge, Chinese doctors hadn't discovered double-blind statistically valid clinical trials. That makes their observations subject to improved scrutiny, but not necessarily wrong.

Pre-scientific medicine made some valid discoveries. Indian doctors had figured out that you should boil water before drinking it, and locate the privy downhill from the well. The Chinese figured out that motion was a necessity for health before we discovered anything about lymph circulation. The Greeks knew that being fat was bad for you.

Nor is Western medicine necessarily scientific. The "evidence-based medicine" movement is constantly finding that standard treatments are not justified scientifically.

The sound argument to be made here is that a university should be testing Chinese herbal medicine rather than teaching it.

Comment on the article calls for a citation

[lamber45]

Interesting comment on the article:

"Dear Professors,

"Please supply citations for the quantitative data and analysis that led to your claim that; "pseudoscientific" health courses are undermining the international credibility of Australia’s universities.

"Your article's references in the Medical Journal of Australia neither support nor contradict your claim, they indicate no causal link between the international credibility of Australian universities and the offering or otherwise of alternative health courses."

Re:Some of it works, including the placebos

[Tom]

others are placebos so advanced that modern medicine may take decades to catch up

The combination of "placebos" and "advanced" scrambles my head. Are you sure you know what the placebo effect actually is ?

Re:Perhaps study these treatments scientifically?

[LordLucless]

Actually, science has demonstrated that some alternative medicines, for some treatments, are significantly more effective than placebo. To wit, chiropractcy and acupuncture both proved effective, under scientific scrutiny, for headaches and upper back pain.

The reason they're alternative is because science doesn't understand the reason they work - as the explanations given by the practitioners are usually bunk (as is the wide list of ailments they claim to be able to correct). But there are nuggets of useful medicine buried in the dross.