Skepticism vs. Faith in Medicine: Where the Line is Drawn
Skepticism is the scrutiny of what is presented; an assumption that what is given to us might be faulty or misrepresented. Faith is the belief in what is presented to us; an assumption that what is given to us is true regardless of how faulty or incomplete it seems on the surface. Both represent different attitudes of examining, processing, and taking in information. Both approaches are needed to navigate in a world full of sources of information that are may be fully reliable or fully unreliable. Both stances can be misused or abused and result in misnavigation- the skeptic, fixated on disproving everything that he encounters, fails to really take in information fully, or the person who fails to scrutinize the validity of information based on blind faith of the source. Within each person might exist a tendency towards one end of the skepticism/faith continuum, and awareness of this dynamic must be necessary in order for the person to take in information (sensory, extrasensory) in the most efficient, sincere manner.
There seems to be a second continuum, perhaps called open vs. closed mindedness, which is intrinsically related to the individual's ability to navigate the first continuum efficiently and sincerely. In an open minded state, the individual can discern situations when healthy skepticism is warranted due to potentially unreliable sources, and when faith in a phenomenon or idea might be valuable even when full mechanisms or explanations aren't available. On the other hand, in the closed minded state, one might fall prey to extremism and imbalance; perhaps sticking dogmatically to one end of the skepticism / faith axis or letting one's emotions bias one's decision making capability in terms of which stance to use in a given situation.
Examining naturopathy from within, while also considering naturopathy's ardent skeptics, made me want to consider this balance for naturopathy as a profession. Are naturopaths really as dogmatic, close-minded, and ill-informed as the internet skeptics claim them to be? Are we as open-minded as we claim to be? Do the internet skeptics have any capacity for faith, any true acceptance of phenomenon they might not be able to explain? Is there any validity to the myths being circulated on the internet, and should naturopaths address these? Ultimately, as a future naturopath who seeks to contribute to the profession, my main question is: does naturopathy have the inner awareness which allows it to navigate its own axis of skepticism and faith that will allow it to mature?
I brainstormed this project with Derek Andre, ND1 partner in crime, partly inspired by our own experiences with skepticism and religion. My own personal journey through the extremes of these continuum, from a young skeptic who questioned everything, including my own existence, to a several years long immersion in a religious cult, in which I threw all my rational impulses willingly upon the altar of faith, has taught me the values and pitfalls of both extremes. On the one hand, engaging in skepticism taught me to search beyond the surface of things, to not take things for granted, and to forge a worldview that was uniquely my own. On the other hand, plunging into religion taught me the value of faith both in discerning intuitive, extrasensory information as well as in cultivating a state of body/mind/spirit that seeks the greater unknown.
For this project, Derek and I are collaborating with some of the most vocal internet critics of naturopathy to assemble arguments and perspectives that "debunk" and criticize naturopathy- websites like naturowatch.org and the skeptic's dictionary. We'll be parsing their information, summarizing their arguments for them, double-checking these summaries with them, and coming up with a master list of the main criticisms of naturopathy. The next step is an interview project in which NCNM professors, administrators, and students will be videotaped while answering questions related to their journey in and passion for natural medicine. During the interviews of the professors, we will present the arguments collected from the skeptics and record their responses, which will then be presented on a separate website or blog that will serve as a forum for the skeptics and naturopaths.
My hope with this project is to bridge the gap between the two parties; to show the skeptics that there are people within naturopathy, like myself, who are interested in the truth and who love questioning things as much as they do. Also, I hope to present the manifold arguments of the skeptics to ND's in a non-inflammatory and organized way. Ultimately, I hope to open a dialogue between the two groups so that each might learn from the other.
Stay tuned for more updates and email me with any questions!
I know very little about the matter, but the project sounds fascinating--I think we can all agree that effective medicine has to be scientific (it has to work, again and again, after all), and also that studies on how much of an effect the patient's belief in his/her capacity to heal do point us to wonder about the role of 'faith' in medicine. I imagine one can only address these questions effectively with honest, scientific research. On the note of science, I think you'll find this transcript of a brief speech by Richard Feynman very helpful: http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf
ReplyDeleteGood luck with the project!