I attended a talk on Naturopathy given by a practicing naturopathic doctor from India who was visiting the US. We(myself and my brother-in-law) showed up past the appointed time in the hope the talk wouldnt have started under indian standard time rules. That wasnt the case and by the time we took our seats, the talk was well under way. Five minutes later, my attention to the talk took a nosedive.
He spoke clearly and unhurriedly. He mentioned how the naturopathic system is built on concepts expounded in vedas and uses the five elements(ether, water, fire, sunlight and earth). I was surprised to hear the reference to ether instead of air. Ether reminded me of secondary school classes on early scientific theories that were discredited long back.
As someone who has veered into the science and evolution camp and stayed rooted there, I was dismayed when he followed it up with how God's creations on this earth in the forms of plants and vegetables represent vital tools of naturopathy. Given naturopathy, as described by him, was religiously inspired, it was only to be expected the whole meat section was left out(even if there are murmurs among indian historians that there might have been meat consumption in earlier times among hindus). Modern diet has its food pyramid and I cant understand why meat is left out by naturopaths. The difference is especially glaring when we take into account modern medicine has a system of testing and verification(even if it sometimes fails in the hands of unscrupulous drug companies) while naturopathy has no scientific evidence to back up its claims of cure. The moment I heard him referring to vedas, I couldnt help but remember a quote I read from Nehru's Discovery of india.
"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."
It, to me, accurately captures the tendency on the part of numerous cultures to treat their ancient medical traditions on par with scientific cures without subjecting them to equivalent scrutiny and scepticism.
He also contrasted naturopathy from conventional medicine by pointing out the latter focusses on illness alone and not on the whole well being of the body. To me, it sounded as if he was comparing only the failures in modern medicine to (unsubstantiated and miniscule) benefits of naturopathy. He insisted that lots of ailments people suffer nowadays had to do with the unreasonable expectation of curing everything with a pill. At least on that point, I agree with him. During this phase, he made some sense when he pointed out everyone's propensity to use pills to suppress uncomfortable symptoms instead of treating the root cause. However, the way he phrased it, sounded as an unfair knock on modern medicine given it was only a part of the bigger picture(that included harried parents, spoilt kids, overwrought doctors, greedy insurance companies and so on).
He also pointed out how eating habits nowadays are completely out of line with what the body needs. He insisted that naturopathy was better suited to this specific issue as it places severe restrictions on diet. He mentioned how fasting could be used to provide relief to the body. It seemed like he was taking it too far when he pointed out the efficacy of fasting for a whole host of ailments, major and minor.
He then described how he became a naturopath carrying on the work of his grandfather and father. He mentioned he had cured quite a few ailments when people had given up on conventional medicine. He then threw the floor open for discussion as it looked like most of the listeners were splitting their attention between the talk and the food that was constantly streaming into the hall.
The initial questions were a series of softies that were a combination of testimonials and restatements. I was surprised to see the lack of scepticism among the audience that somehow seemed to be lapping it all in. For my part, I raised the question on the exclusion of meat from the tools of naturopathy(as practiced by the doctor). His answer was wholly unsatisfactory as he insisted that human body would be better off sticking to vegetarianism. To back his claim, he pointed out an experiment conducted by some university on the difference in endurance between deer and tiger. From what I remember, he said tiger was able to run only 2 miles while deer could run 22 miles. By the time, he was finished with his answer, I had so many follow up questions that I didnt know where to start. After the talk, one of the listeners came to me and tried to enlighten me on the similarities in intestines between humans and herbivores(examples he used were buffalo and deer) and pointed it out as one reason(the other was bhagavad gita) eating meat is unhealthy.
The doctor mentioned naturopathy could be used in lieu of modern medicine which elicited a surprised response from the questioner as to its efficacy for curing cancer and AIDS. To consider naturopathy as a replacement for modern medicine sounded, to me, like the height of idiocy. Given the doctor's insistence that he doesnt use diagnostic tools in treating the patient, his observation that , for some reason, cancer patients after biopsy seem to fare worse in his hands than those before sounded very irresponsible.
On the whole, the questions stayed on the supportive side and his answers seemed to play into current preconceived notions of naturopathy among hindus. Given it is portrayed as derived from vedas(making it seem indigenous and sanctioned by hinduism), majority of hindus wouldnt find it too difficult to accept it, dubious credentials be damned. The testimonials were from people you would expect to exercise at least a smidgeon of scepticism. These were medical sales people, biochemists(from their own admission) and medical billing professionals.
I can see some uses for concepts he talked about in the speech. Dietary restrictions and rest and recovery are some, I think, common sense options for a sick person. However, to portray naturopathy as the alternative to modern medicine displays either a profound degree of ignorance or wilful misrepresentation.
To me, the whole evening was an eye opener. This was the first time I attended a talk by a naturopathic doctor and it was all I hoped for and then some more. I am sceptical of cures through ancient traditions for serious ailments like AIDS or cancer. The talk only deepened my scepticism about naturopathy.They can be used if there is no other way out for the patient and even then, only to treat minor sicknesses. I did get to have great food brought in by the audience.
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Inventing democratic india
Indian history textbooks treat Nehru as someone who didnt do any wrong, a status that is accorded equally to Gandhi. That the nehru-gandhi dynasty has had a stranglehold on the government has only helped extend that perception. The image of him as the benevolent leader, striving for the good of his people, has been encouraged through movies as well. Reading his Discovery of india, he comes across as someone very comfortable with the idea of india and its people on an intellectual level but not too much at home on an emotional level. He gets his message across when it comes to the plural nature of indian society and ability of democracy to serve and further it. He is also very convincing when it comes to reasons behind his preference of scientific thinking and attitude over religion in public and private life. I was surprised to see him offer an opinion to the effect that science at some point will encroach on the playing field of religion and be successful at it.
However, his clear thinking becomes muddled when he analyzes international alliances and capabilities and weaknesses of countries. The effects of suffering under colonial rule shows up in most of his views. He showers china with profuse praise that comes across as nothing more than naivete, with very little basis in realism. It might have been idle speculation at that time but his refusal to see china for what it was and not allow asian camaraderie to color his opinion is surprising. He compares america and russia and somehow points to russia as the vanguard of the new age even though he sees dynamism and strength of america as hope for future. He rightly sees european nations as nothing more than feuding economies who were bent on destruction. However, he prefers to gloss over(or worse still, justify some excesses and curtailing of liberties) in soviet union at that time while at the same time, finding fault with communists in india for their rigidity. To my knowledge, there wasnt much difference between the communism followed in russia and india at that time.
Some selected quotes,
On democracy for India
"I was prepared to trust that wide electorate far more than a restricted one, based on a property qualification or even an educational test. The property qualification was anyhow bad; as for education it was obviously desirable and necessary. But I have not discovered any special qualities in a literate or slightly educated person which would entitle his opinion to greater respect than that of a sturdy peasant, illiterate but full of a limited kind of common sense."
On drawbacks of religion
"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural."
"Religion merges into mysticism and metaphysics and philosophy. There have been great mystics, attractive figures, who cannot be easily disposed of as self-deluded fools. Yet mysticism(in the narrower sense of the word) irritates me; it appears to be vague and soft and flabby, not a rigorous discipline of the mind but a surrender of mental faculties and a living in a sea of emotional experience. The experience may lead occasionally to some insight into inner and less obvious processes, but it is also likely to lead to self-delusion."
"But I do not believe in any of these or other theories and assumptions as a matter of religious faith. They are just intellectual speculations in an unknown region about which we know next to nothing. They do not affect my life, and whether they were proved right or wrong subsequently, they would make little difference to me."
"Spiritualism with its seances and its so-called manifestations of spirits and the like has always seemed to me a rather absurd and impertinent way of investigating psychic phenomena and the mysteries of the after-life. Usually it is something worse, and is an exploitation of the emotions of some over-credulous people who seek relief or escape from mental trouble. I do not deny the possibility of some of these psychic phenomena having a basis of truth, but the approach appears to me to be all wrong and the conclusions drawn from scraps and odd bits of evidence to be unjustified."
"Buddhism and Jainism were certainly not Hinduism or even the Vedic dharma. Yet they arose in India and were integral parts of Indian life, culture and philosophy. A buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred per cent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture."
"It has always seemed to me a much more magnificient and impressive thing that a human being should rise to great heights, mentally and spiritually, and should then seek to raise others up, rather than that he should be the mouthpiece of a divine or superior power."
"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."
On benefits of science
"Often, as I look at this world, I have a sense of mysteries, of unknown depths. The urge to understand it, in so far as I can, comes to me; to be in tune with it and to experience it in its fullness. But the way to that understanding seems to me essentially the way of science, the way of objective approach, though I realise that there can be no such thing as true objectiveness. If the subjective element is unavoidable and inevitable, it should be conditioned as far as possible by the scientific method."
"Yet I am convinced that the methods and approach of science have revolutionized human life more than anything else in the long course of history, and have opened doors and avenues of further and even more radical change, leading up to the very portals of what has long been considered the unknown. The technical achievements of science are obvious enough: its capacity to transform an economy of scarcity into one of abundance is evident, its invasion of many problems which have so far been the monopoly of philosophy is becoming more pronounced."
On Soviet Union
"The practical achievements of the Soviet Union were also tremendously impressive. Often I disliked or did not understand some development there and it seemed to me to be too closely concerned with the opportunism of the moment or the power politics of the day. But despite all these developments and possible distortions of the original passion for human betterment, I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid foundations for that new civilization towards which the world could advance. I am too much of an individualist and believer in personal freedom to like overmuch regimentation. Yet it seemed to me obvious that in a complex social structure individual freedom had to be limited, and perhaps the only way to read personal freedom was through some such limitation in the social sphere. The lesser liberties may often need limitation in the interest of the larger freedom."
To me, he comes across as an idealist whose enduring legacy would always be the vision of democratic india that protects its minorities, guarantees free expression, strives to treat all religions equally(in spite of their harmful effects on people) and allows its people to determine who represents them. No less is his success in establishing institutions that are the pillars of democracy. His faults include his foreign policy debacles, his blind trust on goodwill of china and economic choices. I am grateful Nehru became the leader of a free india instead of Gandhi. He comes across as a leader India was lucky to have even though we are still paying for some of his faults.
However, his clear thinking becomes muddled when he analyzes international alliances and capabilities and weaknesses of countries. The effects of suffering under colonial rule shows up in most of his views. He showers china with profuse praise that comes across as nothing more than naivete, with very little basis in realism. It might have been idle speculation at that time but his refusal to see china for what it was and not allow asian camaraderie to color his opinion is surprising. He compares america and russia and somehow points to russia as the vanguard of the new age even though he sees dynamism and strength of america as hope for future. He rightly sees european nations as nothing more than feuding economies who were bent on destruction. However, he prefers to gloss over(or worse still, justify some excesses and curtailing of liberties) in soviet union at that time while at the same time, finding fault with communists in india for their rigidity. To my knowledge, there wasnt much difference between the communism followed in russia and india at that time.
Some selected quotes,
On democracy for India
"I was prepared to trust that wide electorate far more than a restricted one, based on a property qualification or even an educational test. The property qualification was anyhow bad; as for education it was obviously desirable and necessary. But I have not discovered any special qualities in a literate or slightly educated person which would entitle his opinion to greater respect than that of a sturdy peasant, illiterate but full of a limited kind of common sense."
On drawbacks of religion
"Religion, as I saw it practised, and accepted even by thinking minds, whether it was Hinduism or Islam or Buddhism or Christianity, did not attract me. It seemed to be closely associated with superstitious practices and dogmatic beliefs, and behind it lay a method of approach to life's problems which was certainly not that of science. There was an element of magic about it, an uncritical credulousness, a reliance on the supernatural."
"Religion merges into mysticism and metaphysics and philosophy. There have been great mystics, attractive figures, who cannot be easily disposed of as self-deluded fools. Yet mysticism(in the narrower sense of the word) irritates me; it appears to be vague and soft and flabby, not a rigorous discipline of the mind but a surrender of mental faculties and a living in a sea of emotional experience. The experience may lead occasionally to some insight into inner and less obvious processes, but it is also likely to lead to self-delusion."
"But I do not believe in any of these or other theories and assumptions as a matter of religious faith. They are just intellectual speculations in an unknown region about which we know next to nothing. They do not affect my life, and whether they were proved right or wrong subsequently, they would make little difference to me."
"Spiritualism with its seances and its so-called manifestations of spirits and the like has always seemed to me a rather absurd and impertinent way of investigating psychic phenomena and the mysteries of the after-life. Usually it is something worse, and is an exploitation of the emotions of some over-credulous people who seek relief or escape from mental trouble. I do not deny the possibility of some of these psychic phenomena having a basis of truth, but the approach appears to me to be all wrong and the conclusions drawn from scraps and odd bits of evidence to be unjustified."
"Buddhism and Jainism were certainly not Hinduism or even the Vedic dharma. Yet they arose in India and were integral parts of Indian life, culture and philosophy. A buddhist or Jain in India is a hundred per cent product of Indian thought and culture, yet neither is a hindu by faith. It is, therefore, entirely misleading to refer to Indian culture as Hindu culture."
"It has always seemed to me a much more magnificient and impressive thing that a human being should rise to great heights, mentally and spiritually, and should then seek to raise others up, rather than that he should be the mouthpiece of a divine or superior power."
"Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and the mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have a permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now."
On benefits of science
"Often, as I look at this world, I have a sense of mysteries, of unknown depths. The urge to understand it, in so far as I can, comes to me; to be in tune with it and to experience it in its fullness. But the way to that understanding seems to me essentially the way of science, the way of objective approach, though I realise that there can be no such thing as true objectiveness. If the subjective element is unavoidable and inevitable, it should be conditioned as far as possible by the scientific method."
"Yet I am convinced that the methods and approach of science have revolutionized human life more than anything else in the long course of history, and have opened doors and avenues of further and even more radical change, leading up to the very portals of what has long been considered the unknown. The technical achievements of science are obvious enough: its capacity to transform an economy of scarcity into one of abundance is evident, its invasion of many problems which have so far been the monopoly of philosophy is becoming more pronounced."
On Soviet Union
"The practical achievements of the Soviet Union were also tremendously impressive. Often I disliked or did not understand some development there and it seemed to me to be too closely concerned with the opportunism of the moment or the power politics of the day. But despite all these developments and possible distortions of the original passion for human betterment, I had no doubt that the Soviet Revolution had advanced human society by a great leap and had lit a bright flame which could not be smothered, and that it had laid foundations for that new civilization towards which the world could advance. I am too much of an individualist and believer in personal freedom to like overmuch regimentation. Yet it seemed to me obvious that in a complex social structure individual freedom had to be limited, and perhaps the only way to read personal freedom was through some such limitation in the social sphere. The lesser liberties may often need limitation in the interest of the larger freedom."
To me, he comes across as an idealist whose enduring legacy would always be the vision of democratic india that protects its minorities, guarantees free expression, strives to treat all religions equally(in spite of their harmful effects on people) and allows its people to determine who represents them. No less is his success in establishing institutions that are the pillars of democracy. His faults include his foreign policy debacles, his blind trust on goodwill of china and economic choices. I am grateful Nehru became the leader of a free india instead of Gandhi. He comes across as a leader India was lucky to have even though we are still paying for some of his faults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)