本文探讨了理性思维与实践经验之间的关系，以整骨疗法和佛教冥想为例。作者指出，即使一些理论基础存在争议或缺乏科学依据，其实践方法也可能产生积极效果。例如，整骨疗法虽然起源于19世纪的磁疗，但其部分治疗方法可能有效，即使其理论基础不被认可。类似地，佛教冥想虽然涉及一些超自然概念，但其对个人身心发展带来的益处是值得肯定的。作者强调，我们不应仅仅因为理论的合理性或科学性而拒绝尝试一些实践方法，而是应该保持开放的心态，用实践检验其有效性。

🤔 **整骨疗法：起源与争议**：整骨疗法起源于19世纪的磁疗，其理论基础缺乏科学依据，并曾因其“江湖医生”的性质遭到美国医学协会的反对。但整骨疗法也通过诉讼获得了‘医生’的头衔，并被纳入保险体系。

🧘 **佛教冥想：实践与信仰**：作者以佛教冥想为例，指出即使其理论基础涉及轮回、树灵等超自然概念，但其对个人身心发展带来的益处是值得肯定的。冥想带来的身心益处与佛教的宗教信仰本身是相互独立的。

💡 **理性与实践的平衡**：作者借鉴费曼的观点，指出即使一些理论基础不科学，其实践方法也可能有效。我们不应盲目排斥任何实践方法，而应保持开放的心态，用实践检验其有效性。

🚫 **谨慎评估与筛选**：作者强调，我们不应被任何理论或实践方法所左右，而应保持理性的判断力，根据自身情况和经验去筛选和评估实践方法的有效性。例如，针灸可能缓解肌肉疼痛，但整骨疗法几乎不可能治愈癌症。

👪 **亲情与理解**：作者以自身与父母关于整骨疗法的讨论为例，展现了理性思维与个人情感之间的冲突。作者的父母因整骨疗法受益，但作者却对其理论基础提出质疑，这反映了在面对实践经验与理论认知冲突时，我们需要保持理解和包容。

Published on November 19, 2024 12:44 AM GMT

Disclaimer: this is my first post and so is extra moderated. For the intended reading experience, kindly skip the next 2 sentences. I am trying to convey: ideas based on broken epistemology can be useful and have working components, and you should not reject them automatically. Similarly, when ideas do work, it doesn't prove the supporting theory correct.

Have you heard the truth about chiropractics? If not, sit down.

They're quacks. Their entire field was created in nineteenth century America by a magnetic healer with no medical training.

I made the mistake then of sharing this with my parents at thanksgiving; their responses were predictable:^[1]

"But chiropractics are covered by our insurance." - Well yes, but only because they sued the American Medical Association for anti-trust violations.

"Who is this American Medical Association? Surely the state of the science has advanced since this lawsuit took place." 

 -The AMA is exactly what it sounds like: a professional association of physicians in the United States of America. Also this lawsuit was settled in the 1990's; chiropractic was developed in the 1890's.

"Chiropractics are doctors, I'm sure they know more than you do" 

- Ok first - weird ad hominem - of course chiropractors know more about chiropractic than I do, just as clerics know more scripture than you do; this isn't good evidence. Besides, my appeal to authority trumps yours. Yes, they successfully lobbied the American legal system for the title of doctor - arguably this degrades the meaning of the word. Do you take physicians or the American legal system to be the higher authority on matters of health? The physicians aren't convinced.

"I can't believe you would say such a thing. My chiropractor helps me." - And that's where I didn't have a good answer.

Because they were right of course. Going to a chiropractic had helped them. Arguably chiropractic "helps" most as a very clear signal that you are being cared for by your tribe. And perhaps the title of doctor and it's presentation alongside more rigorous practices (ie. physiotherapy or speech therapy) simply makes it a strong placebo. Or just maybe, after years of practice, they have a treatment that sometimes works. Nonetheless it does seem to make people feel better, even if the treatment itself is an offshoot of nineteenth century magnetic healing.^[2][3]

Recently I went to a buddhist retreat to learn a little more about the religion. Part of the retreat was spent with a lay buddhist and we got to hear their perspective on the religion. I couldn't help but wonder how someone comes to believe so much spirituality as written. They would talk on how meditation helped them grow as a person and lead to their conversion, but in-between they would mention the karmic cycle or tree spirits as literal facts of reality. I saw some people shift their weight when he mentioned it but no-one asked about it (we were sworn to silence on the temple grounds). When people had many questions about reincarnation, I held my tongue. Whether meditation and mindfulness can help you find inner peace is orthogonal to the karmic cycle.

Don't let your identification as a rationalist stop you from trying things on merely epistemic grounds. Even if the theory is wrong, often these practices may still work. You do not need to accept another's ontology uncritically to accept that their methods work. 

As Feynman said

The witch doctor has a theory that a disease like malaria is caused by a spirit which comes into the air; it is not cured by shaking a snake over it, but quinine does help malaria. So, if you are sick, I would advise that you go to the witch doctor because he is the man in the tribe who knows the most about the disease; on the other hand, his knowledge is not science.

 

1. ^{^}

   I could be kinder to my parents. These are largely my responses and lines of inquiry. But that makes for a weaker framing sequence.

2. ^{^}

   This is also not meant as a vindication of chiropractics. Their presentation as anything but alternative medicine is deceptive, as is their use of the title "doctor". I am not arguing whether or not their methods work, but rather, I'm arguing it is reasonable to expect that some of their methods may be beneficial even though chiropractic theory is not supported scientifically.

3. ^{^}

   I am not claiming you are obligated to try everything. Please continue to use your own ontology to sanity check claims. Can acupuncture relieve muscle pain? It seems plausible. Can chiropractic cure cancer? Almost certainly not.

Discuss