Changing science is a strength

Proponents of alternative medicine like to claim victory out of any failing of modern medicine, especially of drugs. So if Vioxx is shown lead to heart problems, they say that proves drugs are bad. If research suggests we were wrong about something, it shows the errors of modern medicine. Every time medicine was wrong is trotted out as proof of the problems with modern medicine.

But in every one of these cases, who was it that found the problems? It was scientists. In every case, how did the medical establishment react? They changed in response to the new evidence. Mainstream medicine isn't some specific set of drugs and procedures, it is simply an approach to health--an approach based on evidence. We use that which the best evidence supports and reject that which it doesn't support. And we know those things might change.

The real irony is seeing how they respond to evidence against alternative medicine. When a study comes out saying that aroma therapy doesn't work, do they change their ways? Of course not. When a study goes their way or against modern medicine, then the study is reliable and science is behind it. If a study doesn't go there way then they complain about how closed minded science is and how there are other ways of knowing.

Cases like Vioxx are reasons to accept medicine, not reject it. How would people feel if doctors continued to prescribe drugs like Vioxx after it was shown to have problems? They would have good reason not to trust them at all. Then we have good reason not to trust alternative medicine at all.

There are several similarities here between alternative medicine and creationism. In both, they search for any evidence that the mainstream is wrong and promote it. They always see those studies as good science. In both, they ignore the consensus against them and imply science can't be trusted. In both, it is the practitioners of medicine or evolution that find the problems in the first place, not the opponents. The biggest similarity is that in both, they just can't seem to understand that we change our mind. Science isn't etched in stone. We get things wrong sometimes, and when we do, we change. Science isn't absolutely correct. They see each change as a sign of weakness, when in fact the ability to change is science's greatest strength. They seem to think science must consist of absolutely certain knowledge. Science is not the truth, it just approaches the truth. In both cases, they seem to have a hard time understanding degrees of certainty, as opposed to right or wrong. In fact, a lack of appreciation of degrees of certainty is behind much misunderstanding of science, from global warming to evolution.