Medicine And The 'Dilute-Down' Myth
This article on the International Herald Tribune was published in Today yesterday, with the title of "Business And The 'Trickle-Down' Myth".
It should come as no surprise to you that angry doc liked the pro-labour, anti-globalisation stance of the article. However, that is not the point of this post.
The point I want to make is about alternative medicine.
I was actually planning a post on homeopathy, after Blinkymummy asked me about this mode of therapy. I looked up several sites, dug up the 2005 Lancet article which discredited homeopathy, and the rebuttal from the National Centre of Homeopathy.
Enough material to make a point, I thought.
But the more I thought about it, the more I realised it didn't really matter how much background material I had, or what authority they came from.
The two sides cannot hope to convince each other or convert each other's adherents, because the very bases of their disciplines are not the same.
How can you have a productive debate when you cannot even agree on how a therapy is to be tested?
How can you discuss what is real, when you do not have the same interpretation of 'reality'?
I found it impossible to write an argument that will convince a reader what was 'right' or 'wrong'.
You see, how you decide which side is 'right' will depend on whose paradigm you buy into, and that in turn will probably be decided by what you have already decided about the two modes of therapy, which will in turn probably be determined by your personal experiences with these two modes of therapy.
In other words, one probably decides which way of looking at the world is valid based on subjective experiences, and the outcomes one hopes will realise.
Which pretty much describes angry doc reading the William Pfaff article, really.
He agrees with the author's description of the modern globalised economy, the effects it has on the workforce and populace of the 'home' country, the eventuality of the foreign labour force being dumped when they have out-lived their usefulness, and the prediction that this whole system is not sustainable.
All that is not based on having studied Economics at 'A' Levels or reading The Business Times daily, or on concepts and theories of economics like comparative advantage or 'the invisible hand', but his observations on the economic conditions of his patients, both locals and foreigners, and his limited travels around the region.
Now if you are a supporter of globalisation, you may think that the article is too simplistic and full of inaccuracies, and the author lacks an understanding of how the economy really works, and that angry doc is just choosing to see one side of the story and indulging in wishful thinking.
Some of you may agree with the author, like angry doc does.
Nevertheless, we all live in the same global economy. We all have physical bodies. We all live in the same reality.
We can't both be right now, can we?
Or are we both wrong?
Labels: alternative medicine