Re: 's and Sue's mails + 's comment

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

You say >> How about getting a group together to discuss this further,

perhaps a focused sub-group of the PR group that could >c>ome up with a PR

offensive ( perhaps too fierce a word, but you know what I mean!), to persue

over the next few years >to counter that puely scientific view.

If I understood 's point, he suggests that there isn't yet a valid

scientific view, which may be interpreted as a valid modern understanding of

what we are doing. If there was such a valid scientific view, there wouldn't

be a problem. I would be very wary of making policy on the basis of " what is

not understood is invalid " . Thats a bad and very common mistake and which

is just what the industrialised paradigm says to ours. It may be that the

time isn't yet right, which is intensely frustrating, and although some

people will be chipping away at it, more herbalists are needed in research,

from which the 'chair' you suggested might emerge. Your PR offensive should

be aimed at getting public money to fund herbal research, displacing a

little of current industrial prevalence.

Sue's mail:

<<The approach Ernst represents is a problem because it is changing the

knowledge base of our craft, and if we allow that <<to happen unthinkingly,

uncritically then we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the

bathwater in completely <<underpinning our knowledge with science, rejecting

that which does not have an 'evidence base' and eventually losing <<what is

the most important part of our craft, our ability to synthesise different

sources of knowledge regarding the plan

surely the threat is diminished by having broadly trained herbalists able to

look at both 'sides' in an informed way. My understanding is that that was

the basis of Zeylstra/Mills line, which was, surely a very brave step to

take. But perhaps some see it as a foolhardy step too, because, in a sense,

it seems to have said " OK, we'll beat these tin-pot scientists who deny

empirial truths with...................... " and with what ?? My bete noir

these ten years is that they mistakenly took on armoured plated science with

bows and arrows. And this was bound to result in the appearance of mercenary

factors to crusade against us. That was a serious strategic weakness,

despite a policy that may have been sound, just, true and noble.

Chenery

www.rutlandbio.com

Re: proffered suggestion (caution long email)

>

>

> sue.evans@... wrote:

> Dear ,

>

> Interesting about our relationship with science and scientists.

>

> context reminders:

> From a situation of medical pluralism in the West - ie where there were

> lots of medical systems, including herbal medicine, homeopathy, regular

> medicine, all practiced freely and equally, a situation arose from 150

> years ago, the mid 19th century, where a monopoly developed - biomedicine.

> Anyway fast forward to late 1970s, the increased popularity of herbal

> medicine changed things, dramatically, and it became possible for us to

> come out of our dark moon phase, and dream of becoming an accepted form of

> medicine again. It became not only possible to become legitimate, but

> unavoidable. Because when a system of medicine is only practiced by a few

> eccentrics, it can stay under the radar, be low profile, the government

> can ignore it. However when 50% of the popularion use some form of natural

> medicine (albeit mostly OTC) it becomes big business and it is the job of

> government to regulate. (I don't know the UK figures but it is about 50%

> here). And the few surviving herbalists saw that this

> meant we could possibly come in from the cold, be a part of a more

> mainstream healthcare provision for our societies again.

>

> so

> The thing is, the world in which we have been attempting to regain our

> legitimacy (legitimacy: worthiness to be recognised) from the late 20th

> century is very different to the one in which we lost our legitimacy in

> the mid 19th century. And a major difference of course is that science

> had, by the late 20th century, become the legitimatory discourse of the

> West - that is, science is the way in which an approach needed to be

> framed, 'proved' if you will, in order to be accepted in this highly

> regulated environment. Hein and Simon joined the NIMH in the late 70s or

> whenever and decided to fight science with science. I am not questioning

> the necessity of that move. However difficulties have arisen for us

> because as herbalists we claim that the knowledge base of our craft is

> based in tradition. We know what the herbs do from historical records,

> from the herbals. And, as the French philosopher Lyotard says, science has

> always been in conflict with tradition, and sees its knowledge base as

> really nothing more than fables.

>

> That's the crux of it, from what I see. Some call it a basic

> incommensurability of paradigms, ie that tradition and science are chalk

> and cheese, are completely and fundamentally different, and never the

> twain shall meet. I am not so sure, though vitalism is a problem (basic to

> many herbalists: doesn't exist, according to science). The problem is not

> so much that the perspectives are incompatible, but that while tradition

> accepts science as one form of knowledge among many, science equates

> itself with knowledge. That is what is meand by the term 'scientific

> fundamentalism' - that scientists act like religious fundamentalists when

> they claim that theirs is the only approach to knowledge and truth, just

> as religious fundamentalists claim that theirs is the only god and the

> only way. Those coming from a traditional base have no problem in

> accepting that science one approach, that it makes significant

> contributions to knowledge, but they do not equate science with knowledge,

> rather

> seeing it as one form of knowledge among many. Many scientists, on the

> other hand, make claims about it being the only way to generate knowledge

> and certainly the only appropriate underpinning for medical knowledge.

>

> The approach Ernst represents is a problem because it is changing the

> knowledge base of our craft, and if we allow that to happen unthinkingly,

> uncritically then we are in danger of throwing out the baby with the

> bathwater in completely underpinning our knowledge with science, rejecting

> that which does not have an 'evidence base' and eventually losing what is

> the most important part of our craft, our ability to synthesise different

> sources of knowledge regarding the plants, including knowledge about the

> environment. It also reduces herbal medicine as just another tool of

> biomedicine, and wastes a valuable opportunity to develop a form of

> medicine that is effective, environmentally friendly, empowering to

> patients, cheap - and one which connects us to the environment - which is

> why I loved the discussion about elder and avian flu so much a few months

> ago.

>

> Anyway, writing this has just helped me write the conclusion to my PhD. I

> think that tradition is different to intuition, and that intuition is an

> appropriate adjunct to clincial practice, but problematic as a

> stand-alone. Sorry about the length, thanks to anyone still reading, and I

> would be interested in comments

>

> all the best,

>

> Sue

>

>

>

>

> Sue

> Course Coordinator, BNat

> Lecturer in Herbal Medicine

> Department of Natural and Complementary Medicine

> Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW

>

>

>