A few weeks ago, I wrote a blog post attempting to explain my skeptical attitude toward all things supernatural. Most of the post was spent explaining why I don't believe in astrology, crystal healing, auras, and other New Age beliefs. I wasn't trying to focus on religion, but in one paragraph I mentioned that I'm a secular humanist and an agnostic, and therefore not a faithful follower of Christianity or any other traditional religion. Of course, that's the paragraph that got noticed. People wrote to express their concerns about where my soul was heading. I appreciate that concern, even if I don't share their worries. I don't believe in hell, or that I would be sent there for not believing things I see no evidence for. Besides, I think the fear of hell is a pretty pitiful reason to hold a particular belief, or to be good. It strikes me that you should believe things because you have evidence for them, and you should act morally because you think it's the right thing to do. Only the unethical have to be coerced into being good.
Here's what I mean. Let's say Bill walks by a car in an abandoned parking lot, and sees a roll of twenty-dollar bills sitting in the seat. He sees that the car is unlocked. But he doesn't don't take the money, because he thinks it would be immoral to do so. Now Ted walks by, and also sees the money. He don't take it either, but only because he thinks he might get caught and punished if he did. Clearly, even though the outcome is the same, Bill is far more admirable than Ted. Someone who is only good because they fear they will go to hell is like Ted...not really deep-down ethical, just cowed by the threat of punishment.
Luckily, there are a lot of people--both religious and non-religious--who are like Bill. They want to do the right thing, because it's the right thing to do. But why should they think it's the right thing to do? A lot of religious folks think that it's right because God said it is. They have faith in a supreme and good being that has given us rules for living. An ethicist would say they believe in the Divine Command theory of ethics. Many religious people actually find it hard to imagine a reason for ethics in a universe without divine commands. Dostoevsky is often quoted as saying "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted". I've heard religious people echo this sentiment, saying things like "Well, if there were no God, why shouldn't I just rob and cheat my way through life"?
I think there are all sorts of reasons not to rob and steal that don't rely on religion. But, I also think my religious friends have a valid concern. The fact is, plenty of people only act decently because they truly believe in divine rewards and punishments. Take those beliefs away, and lots of them really would start robbing and cheating their way through life. Even among deeply ethical religious believers, many would feel so lost if they stopped believing in divine justice that they wouldn't know what to believe. So, if people are going to stop believing in God-given morality (and many are these days), then they had better have another foundation for acting ethically. Otherwise, they'll decide that anything is indeed permitted, and we'll be headed for Mad Max territory. Turn on the average "reality" show on TV, and that won't seem so far-fetched.
I think there actually are plenty of good secular reasons to act morally. Unfortunately, most people don't know about them. Ethical theory isn't widely taught in schools, and, as I have recently discovered, even good introductory books on ethics are few and far between. So, even though people are widely abandoning traditional foundations of morality, there is nothing resembling a coherent, widely-known body of thought that offers new foundations. Religious people are right to think this is a dangerous situation. It's no wonder so many of them are saying, "See, we need to go back to faith in God and the Ten Commandments".
I disagree. I think traditional religion may have caused as much harm as good (though that's a tough call). I don't think we should believe things based on faith, and I don't think we should accept an ethical command without knowing the reason behind it. And here's the thing: whether you're religious or not, if you want to think seriously about ethics, you're eventually going to have to think about the reasons for ethical rules; reasons that go beyond divine commands.
It turns out that saying "because God said so" actually doesn't get you very far. This argument can be traced back as far as Plato. If you believe "God said murder is bad, therefore murder is bad", then you have two choices. You could decide that God deemed murder to be bad because of the harm it does in the world. If so, then the reason murder is bad is actually independent of God. If this doesn't sit well, you could say that whatever God forbids is bad, and whatever he (or she) approves is good. But if whatever God approves is good, then what if God approved something abhorrent to us...say, the stoning of newborns? If an action is good simply because God says it is, then if God says stoning newborns is good, it must be. But most people can't accept this. If you are thinking "God would never say that's good, because God is good, and stoning newborns is awful", then you're back to the idea that there is some standard of goodness independent of God. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean God is irrelevant to ethics. But it does mean that, whether we believe in God or not, we have to think about the reasons for acting ethically, beyond just "God said so".
What does it mean for something to be good? What does it mean for something to be bad? Why? Why be good? Why not be a sociopath, and take whatever you want? These are big, important questions. They don't come much bigger. And, if the argument is true that the foundations of ethics are independent of God, then we have to look past simple-minded "God said so" thinking to come to real conclusions. If religious people ask me "Where do ethics come from, if not from God?", I can ask them the same question. But their question is still a good one. If I suspect that the universe is amoral and random, you would be right to ask me where I think right and wrong, and good and bad, enter the picture. And I'm going to be honest--like most people, I haven't thought about it nearly as much as I should have. I'm trying to remedy that now. While I have spent a lot of time thinking about how the world is, lately I've realized that it's just as important (if not always as much fun) to think about how it ought to be, and why. If I'm going to make the bold and widely unpopular claim that ethics is possible without traditional religion, then I better put my money where my mouth is and explain why.
Of course, theories about the foundations of ethics are both complex and contentious. So, I see this as the first in a series of intermittent posts about the foundations of ethics. I'll keep reading and thinking on the topic, and when I think I've stretched my head around a particular ethical theory, I'll post about it and ask for feedback.
So, my religious and non-religious friends...any thoughts on the matter?
Monday, January 23, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
|St. John's Wort|
Still, my day job as a reference librarian is the one that pays the bills. One of the things I do in that job is put together guides to good information sources, and put them up on our website. The other day, I was looking up sources on health and medicine, trying to find accurate, unbiased information that could easily be understood by the public. This turned out to be harder than I thought.
As I've mentioned in a previous post, I'm pretty skeptical about complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM, as it's abbreviated nowadays). My instinct is to agree with the comedian Tim Minchin:"You know what they call 'alternative medicine' that’s been proved to work? Medicine." But, as a librarian, I'm supposed to give people access all sides of an issue. This was a dilemma. Should I give alternative medicine equal space with conventional medicine? If so, which strand of alternative medicine? Should chiropractic get the same coverage as acupuncture? What about more fringe practices, like crystal healing? The thing is, librarians are also supposed to help people evaluate information to see if it is reliable. How do you evaluate the quality of something you don't believe in?
I decided to try to find the most balanced book I could on alternative medicine, something that evaluates different treatments empirically and with a fair-mind, and gives the evidence about which ones work...and which ones don't. Unexpectedly, I found a really good one. It's called Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine. One of the authors, Edzard Ernst, is an MD, and a recently retired professor of Complementary Medicine at the University of Exeter (more on his retirement later). The other is Simon Singh, a well-known science journalist with a Ph.D in physics. This struck me as a good, balanced combination. In the book, they try to evaluate alternative medicine based on the only questions that ultimately matter in medicine: Does a particular treatment measurably improve people's health, and does it do so more effectively than other treatments? The book devotes whole chapters to the four most widespread alternative therapies--acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic therapy, and herbal medicine--and gives one-page evaluations of 36 other practices, including chelation therapy, crystal healing, massage therapy, naturopathy, and many others.
After reading the book, I now know that most of the alternative therapies described do, in fact, make people feel better. But...you knew there was going to be a "but", right?...sugar pills also make people feel better. One of the most amazing things I learned from the book is how impressive the placebo effect really is. If people think a treatment will make them feel better, even if that treatment has absolutely no physical or chemical effect on the body, it probably will make them feel better, at least for a while. The placebo effect is, in fact, an effect, and a very powerful one. So, with any kind of treatment, mainstream or alternative, the question is: Does the treatment work better than a placebo?
The way to find out is to do an experiment, also known as a clinical trial. You probably already know what this means, but here's a quick reminder. In the simplest form of a clinical trial, you take a group of people (the more the better) and randomly assign them into two groups. Give one group the treatment, and another a placebo. Obviously, the placebo is as indistinguishable from the treatment as possible, and the patients are not told which one they are getting. In fact, in the best experiments, even the people in the white coats don't know which treatment is which. This is because experimenters tend to unconsciously treat the two groups differently. If they know they are giving someone a placebo, they may talk to them less, avert their eyes, spend less time with them...that sort of thing. Experiments that control for this are said to be double-blind, because both the researcher and the patients are blind to which treatment the patient is getting.
When you look at alternative therapies using randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trials, they start to lose a lot of their luster. Most of them don't work any better than a placebo, and the ones that do have far more limited effectiveness than most of their practitioners claim. Chiropractic seems to truly work for treating lower back pain, but not any of the other ailments chiropractors often claim to heal. Acupuncture may help with pain and nausea, but not much else, and the effect on pain and nausea is not much better than a placebo. Hypnotherapy, massage therapy, meditation, and relaxation therapy can all have very positive effects, but they won't cure any serious physical problems. Homeopathy, crystal therapy, reiki, and the various kinds of detox programs are based on concepts that, from a scientific point of view, make no sense. They are placebos at best, and scams at worst. Chelation therapy, colonic irrigation, and many other fringe treatments can be downright dangerous. Herbal therapy is, of course, a mixed bag, because it uses a variety of different herbs. Chamomile and lavender don't seem to do much of anything besides taste or smell good. Garlic, on the other hand, seems to really help with high cholesterol, while echinacea may help with colds, and St. John's Wort does seem to help with depression. Ma huang, or ephedra, really can help you lose weight. But it will probably damage your heart in the process.
What Are the Dangers?
Wait, what? A herbal treatment can be dangerous? A lot of people figure they may as well try alternative therapies, because, well...what can it hurt? The answer is a lot, depending on the therapy. There are real risks associated with almost all alternative medicines. One is a sort of "risk by neglect". Very often, people with life-threatening diseases seek alternative therapies, and fail to get the mainstream treatment that could really help them. Of course, we've seen that many alternative therapies actually do make people better, at least for a while, because of the placebo effect. But that doesn't mean there aren't real medicines out there that work much better than a placebo. The placebo effect is powerful, but you don't want to rely on it to treat a really serious illness if there's something better. Even if an alternative treatment has a real effect, as St. John's Wort seems to for depression, there may be more effective treatments available.
Besides the negative risks of forgoing effective treatment, many alternative therapies have positive risks: they are actively dangerous. Besieds being really, really gross, a colonic irrigation can leave you with a perforated bowel. Ephedra can give you a heart attack. Chiropractic manipulation of your neck can increase your risk of stroke. People assume that alternative therapies and natural remedies are harmless, but that assumption can be terribly wrong. Take herbal remedies. Many plants produce very potent chemicals, which can be dangerous or downright deadly. Not only that, but quality control and regulation of herbal medicine (and the alternative medicine industry as a whole) is very weak. This means one pill containing St. John's Wort could be much stronger than another, even from the same bottle. Some alternative remedies have been found to have dangerous additives and contaminants. A few have even been found to be laced with effective mainstream medicines, so that they will actually work.
Why is Alternative Medicine So Popular?
While some alternative therapies can be effective, many of them are elaborate placebos based on scientifically dubious or meaningless theories. Some of them, such as ear candles, rely on outright trickery (the wax comes from the candle, not your ear). Some of them can hurt or even kill you, and all but a handful can cost you time and money that would be better spent on lifestyle changes and mainstream treatments. Despite all this, alternative therapies are hugely popular. Why?
There are several possible reasons, of course, and many of them say fascinating things about human psychology. A couple even have very good points to make.
Mainstream medicine can be awful
Possibly the biggest reason, or set of reasons, people choose CAM is revealed by the word "alternative": people want an alternative to mainstream medicine. And it's not hard to see why. We all know that conventional medicine has issues. It can be horrifically expensive, and medical professionals are sometimes rude, rushed, and incompetent. Hospitals and HMO's often put profit well in front of people; over-prescribing tests and drugs, rushing people through appointments, discharging patients too early, and so on. Pharmaceutical companies have an especially bad reputation, and many of them have earned it. They price-gouge, they don't research diseases they won't profit from, they don't study potential cures that aren't patentable, and they can twist and bend their studies in all sorts of ways to make their drugs seem better than they really are. But, despite all these problems, medical and pharmaceutical sciences have made astonishing breakthroughs in the last few decades. Antibiotics, vaccinations, new surgical procedures--all these things have saved millions of lives, far more lives than any alternative.
Alternatives are seen as more natural
|Henri Rousseau, The Dream|
Philosophers have long recognized that it's a fallacy to automatically equate "natural" with "good". This is called the naturalistic fallacy, or the appeal to nature fallacy (there are subtle differences between the two). If you take a close look at the animal world, for example, you will quickly find infanticide, siblicide, and forced sex. Does that mean it's OK for us to do these things? Just because it's natural, doesn't mean its good. (The idea of the harmony and goodness of nature is a fascinating, complex topic that I can't begin to do justice to here. Sounds like a good blog post).
Alternatives may be based on ancient traditions that people find appealing
Traditional medicines like acupuncture and Ayurveda are very old, and come from cultures that have contributed astonishing things to the world. Lots of modern westerners want to be open to non-western traditions. I find this impulse admirable, and I also want to learn from other cultures. However, I also believe that human error is cross-cultural. Just because something is traditional doesn't mean it works, or that it makes sense. Acupuncture may work sometimes, but probably not because of the traditional explanation: that the flow of Ch'i (subtle bodily energy) is being altered. There is no scientific evidence of any such energy flows. As far as I'm concerned, evidence is the bottom line. If a treatment, even one that goes against modern scientific understanding, turns out to be safe and effective, let's use it, and then try to figure out what real, physical mechanism it is based on. It may be that traditional medicine will give us remedies that revolutionize modern medicine. But if so, they will be testable, and they will probably work differently than people in past ages suspected.
Alternatives are seen as progressive or anti-establishment
A lot of people want to rebel against tradition, mainstream culture, and the powers that be, and often for good reason. I'm perfectly sympathetic to this impulse. A bunch of things about my culture (both old and new) strike me as idiotic. I also think it's a good idea not to trust authority figures completely. But how anti-establishment is alternative medicine, really? In popular culture, it's widespread enough to be fairly mainstream. Not only that, but some very powerful people support it. Prince Charles--a representative of old school authority if there ever was one--is a big supporter of CAM, and his office has used some pretty heavy-handed tactics in promoting it. When Edzard Ernst, one of the authors of Trick or Treatment, questioned a report commissioned by the prince, he was accused of violating confidentiality, and saw his funding dry up. He eventually took an early retirement. People who question alternative medicine can be seen as the real rebels. In England, where libel is defined more loosely than the US, they are often sued. Simon Singh, the other author of Trick or Treatment, and Ben Goldacre, another prominent alternative medicine skeptic, have both been sued for libel. They won their cases, but the court costs ran into the hundreds of thousands of pounds, so, for all practical purposes, they were penalized for speaking the truth.
Of course, it's true that the mainstream medical establishment is powerful, and it's also true that they can't always be trusted. However, that doesn't mean it's all a big conspiracy to keep alternative medicine down. When it gets right down to it, it doesn't matter whether a particular treatment is mainstream or alternative. What matters is whether it works, and is safe. The way to find that out is to test it under controlled conditions. For all its imperfections, modern, mainstream medicine is built on this method. Alternative medicine, for the most part, is not.
Alternatives seem more exciting and exotic
Treatments may seem effective even when they aren't
As I've discussed, many CAM therapies are effective, strictly because of the placebo effect. They're just not usually as effective as mainstream treatments. Even without the placebo effect, though, people can easily get the impression that a treatment works, because they were going to get better anyway. It's good to remember that the body has amazing abilities to heal itself. Here's the thing: most people go get medical treatment (alternative or mainstream) when they are feeling their very worst. If you get treatment when you're at your lowest part of a short-term or cyclical ailment, it's all uphill from there, whether you take any medicine or not. Scientists call this effect "regression to the mean", the "mean" being your normal state of health. When people get better after getting an ineffective treatment, they tend to confuse correlation and causation. They think, "I went and got that homeopathic remedy, and now that rash is better". But the remedy probably didn't cause the improvement, any more than putting gas in your car caused you to have that flat tire later in the day. The rash was probably going to get better on its own. The only way to know whether a treatment caused an improvement is to take a bunch of people with the same sort of rash, give some of them the homeopathic remedy, some of them an identical looking placebo, and for good measure, give some of them nothing. My bet is that everyone would get better, although the people in the placebo and the homeopathy group might get better a little faster (since both groups took a placebo). The mind is a powerful thing, even if it does play tricks on us.
It looks like science, if you don't know what science looks like
It's a poor reflection on our education system, but most people have little idea what the scientific view of the world actually is. They may hear about things like energy flows in the body, or footbaths that draw out "toxins", and assume that such things are perfectly in line with science. They are not. To make matters worse, lots of very dubious CAM treatments are dressed up in sciencey sounding language, throwing around words like "metabolism", "energy", "research", "toxins", and so on, but using them in a way that has nothing to do with real science. Which brings us to the next issue.
Some CAM practitioners are dishonest, and others are just gullible
this link will take you to one offered by the well-known company Gaiam. You turn this device on, fill it with salt water, plug it in, and put your feet in it (yeah, it sounds dangerous to me, too). Over the course of the 30-minute treatment the water will turn a rusty brown color. The "D-Tox" in the product's name suggests that the color comes from toxins drawn out of your body through your feet. What's actually happening is that the electricity going to the footbath causes a metal coil to react with the salt, and rust. The water fills up with rust, which people think must be toxins from their body. They are wrong. You could let the thing run without your feet in it, and after thirty minutes it would look exactly the same--full of rusty water. The fact is, this device is a scam. The world has always had more than its share of snake oil salesmen, and unfortunately, that is the only way to describe many purveyors of the wackier sorts of CAM treatments. Probably a far larger percentage of CAM practitioners have fallen for the scams and placebos themselves, and have convinced themselves, honesty but gullibly, that their methods work. Scientifically-literate CAM practitioners, who look at hard evidence critically before using a treatment, are as rare as four-leaf clovers.
As this long-winded post shows, I've done a lot of thinking about whether alternative medicine works or not, and why people believe in it. I haven't pondered the future of alternative medicine as much, but I do have a couple of thoughts about what I would like to see happen. For one thing, I disagree with people who don't think there should be public funding of CAM research. There are those who think the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (part of the National Institutes of Health), should be de-funded. I think an organization like this could be very valuable. For example, the NCCAM website has a lot of good information about the evidence for different CAM treatments. They can also fill in a gap in research. It's true that pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to research a cheap, naturally occurring compound, (unless they think they can improve on it, patent it, and profit from it). Public research into such potential medicines could take up that slack. Also, there is an issue of fairness. Some skeptics say that CAM research should be abandoned, because there's no evidence that it works. If there's been exhaustive research on a treatment, and that treatment has been repeatedly shown not to work, then they are right. However, if the evidence isn't there simply because there's been no research, then there needs to be more research. You can't say, "There's no research to show that this treatment works", and then say, "We shouldn't fund research on that, because it doesn't work". Well, you could, but it wouldn't be very cricket, would it?
Of course, it's true that the majority of research funding should go to the most promising treatments. If a treatment such as crystal healing claims to work based on forces unknown to science (and it does), then we probably shouldn't waste a whole lot of money studying it. But perhaps we should research it a little. If we find out that it doesn't work (and I'm 99.9 percent sure that we would) that is a useful result. It's something that could be shown to people, to try to convince them not to waste their money on it.
Another thing that needs to happen is that CAM should be regulated just as tightly as the healthcare industry. Right now, it's pretty lawless. There needs to be better quality control on alternative pills and potions, so that they deliver standardized doses, and so they aren't contaminated with toxins. Alternative health products should have to go through the same safety testing as mainstream drugs. They should be labeled just as extensively, with warnings about possible side effects, and information on research into their effectiveness (or lack thereof). Practitioners should be regulated just as tightly, too. If the evidence shows that chiropractors can't help with major problems like heart disease, then they shouldn't be allowed to claim that they can. Taking someone's money to treat a major disease with something proven to be ineffective--that's a lowdown, dirty thing to do, and there should be serious penalties for it.
Generally, I think about medicine, alternative or mainstream, the same way I think about any proposal or idea--test it, and see if it stands up to scrutiny. In science and philosophy, I think that we should give all ideas enough consideration to establish whether they make sense or not (this may not take long), and then try poke holes in them. The ones that can stand up to our scrutiny are the ones we should accept as true. The same goes for medical treatments. Test them all, fairly but relentlessly. If they works, keep them. If not, let them go.
Links and Further Reading
Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine / Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh
Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks / Ben Goldacre This is also a fabulous book, and Dr. Goldacre is a brilliantly witty writer. He skewers a lot of alternative medicines, but he also skewers the tactics of the pharmaceutical industry. Call me naive, but I don't think he's on their payroll.
Cochrane Summaries The Cochrane Collaboration is an independent research program that does systematic reviews of the evidence for various medical treatments. By reviewing multiple studies, they strengthen the statistics, allowing a more powerful, comprehensive look at whether a treatment (mainstream or alternative) really works.
National Center for Alternative and Complementary Medicine Funds research into CAM, and has good information on the effectiveness of various treatments.