replying to Jonathon

[Guest guest]

Hey Jonno

sure scientism, scientific fundamentalism - Habermas notwithstanding - the fact

is that while it may well be 'generally considered a term of abuse' in some

cicles, this perspective on the value of science is also alive and well and part

of the political arena in which we find ourselves. Or where I find myself

anyway.

There is more funding associated with RCTs, however much you may label them as

irrelevant, than there is going to a reassessment of ancient herbals. So for

bright graduates of herbal courses interested in research there is more of a

chance of a future if they get skills in lab techniques and learn how to do

clinical trials than if they go and study the classics or medieval literature -

or even the history and philosophy of science - in order to contribute to such

reassessments. In addition the fact that the institutional localtion of herbal

medicine in the health science departments of universities makes it very

difficult to attract people with the ability to engage with the traditional

material.

You say that the discourse surrounding tradition and science have become

corrupted - corrupted from what? what is 'unadulterated' science and tradition?

Surely the thing about tradition is that it is continually made and remade, a

living tradition is by definition not ossified. Traditions live by being remade,

which means that the whole idea of a 'true' or unadulterated tradition is

problematic. Even silly (smile).

So I don't understand what you mean by 'exorcising BOTH of their currently

corrputed tendencies' , and didn't any more when I re-read the herbal hypothesis

you mentioned. Rather than adulterated/unadulterated, corrupted/uncorrupted, I

prefer to think that herbal medicine has a core of beliefs that are constant,

and a periphery which does reflect the historical/cultural period in which it is

practiced. And a core belief is vitalism. And it is being challenged by the

dominant view within science that vitalism is irrelevant/unnecessary/an

embarassment. The question of whether it can be replaced by more recent views of

complexity theory is also not straightforward and changes the pitch.

I see your idea of 'integrative resolution' as being utopian, given that

knowledge is power and everyone is always fighting over the size of their piece

of the pie. However this does not mean that we have to be one-eyed, just that

individuals will be attracted to particular approaches to whjat counts as

knowledge. And given Ernst's political influence - ie the way his work can be

used by those who are antagonistic to us - no matter how 'epistemologically

absurd' you assess his work to be, he can do us a lot of harm and so we can't

afford to dismiss him, but need to respond.

now time for my own morning coffee

best wishes

Sue

Sue

Course Coordinator, BNat

Lecturer in Herbal Medicine

Department of Natural and Complementary Medicine

Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW