subject/objectivity

[Guest guest]

Can't resist picking up this thread..

No, research is not objective. Ever.

It starts with what questions you ask (gigantic area of discussion in which

pharmaceutical companies could be thoroughly blasted if we had the power to

shout them down), moves to which paradigms you decide are valid for answering

them (ditto), how you go about gathering data, analysing it and reporting (or

not reporting) results (ditto some more). Massive amounts of data are generated

and rejected in biomedical research without being evaluated. " experiment didn't

work today " (ie didn't generate expected result), " try again tomorrow " (until

expected result obtained). We have to be just as careful of all of this in our

own research.

Science is an art. What herbalists do that is special is relate to

subjectivity in research and practice, recognising it as subjective and

integrating it into the totality of our knowledge.

I've observed recently that herbalists (and other therapists too) research in

great depth at an individual level - practically a mini-thesis for each patient

compared to the 5min diagnoses by some consultants (though not all, let's not be

mean).

Maybe that's why we don't publish as much research as other professions? We

don't bother generalising when working subjectively/ at an individual level

brings results.

If we want to be taken seriously by the medical profession, want our treatment

to be available to all, want herbal preventive medicine to have a chance before

coronary bypasses are needed, we do need to communicate via published,

peer-reviewed research. Urgently.

We don't, however, need to adopt the thinly supported, towering edifice that

is orthodox medical research. I'd suggest pushing it over... (grins)

Jay x

>

> Reading abstracts is not so good as reading

> the actual research; unfortunately that is time consuming. I've just

> started on the next stage of my OU studies in Psychology and been

> looking at research methods. Objectivity is big in research but

rather cynically perhaps, I ask myself can any research ever be truly

> objective?

I've come to the same question, or rather conclusion that no, it can't

be.

Do herbalists in general see it that way, and if so, what consequences

does

this have on us wanting to be accepted by the orthodox medical

establishment, on us wanting to " join the club " ? If herbal medicine is

to

become orthodox, it will invariably adopt the same power structures,

etc -

anyway, this is another topic altogether...

> Don't we all tend to look at what supports our ideas and ignore that which

> queries it? If I do an internet search I can find science that both

> supports and debunks the Cholesterol Myth. Can't both be right can

they?

---------------------------------

To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo!

Security Centre.