OFF TOPIC: SCIENCE/MEDICINE ETC
It's an interesting discussion, but we almost need another
thread for it. If so, that's easy to do, if people want to discuss it.
At the risk of "polluting" the thread more, here's my 2 cents worth....
Of course any intelligent discussion would have to start with some agreed definitions, such as what EXACTLY distinguishes science from any other body of knowledge. Is it actually the concept of a CONTROL, presumably in conjunction with a series of disciplines, relative to methodologies used? And, of course, there is the not so trivial matter of the definition of the investigation itself. Any fool knows that if you define a task stupidly, the result you get will (even if good methods used) produce stupid results.
Still staying on science, there is the matter of the series of assumptions that are implicit in any investigation. What are the observer's assumptions that go into the definition of the task? Very often these are based on the presumption of "living, intelligent observer" and "separate, disconnected object" to be observed.
Modern Physics from Einstein on suggests that NOTHING is as it seems, and ultimately EVERYTHING is an appearance in an
asymmetrical plastic of sub-nuclear particles, moving in mysterious and not understood ways, with major elements of
UNPREDICTABILITY, within the framework of even yet less understood SPACE. Not to mention the continually shifting definitions of GRAVITY.
In this context, the observer profoundly (and in not understood ways) AFFECTS the observed. If so, how does this relate to scientific methodologies altogether?
Shifting the scene altogether to "Medicine", we have the same set of questions about definitions, and so on. However, even the most rudimentary examination of the history of Medicine reveals its antecedents in shamans, medicine men, priests, healers of various stripes, and so on. It seems to me that modern medicine has simply elected to employ scientific methodologies to justify and make more legitimate its role (while seeking to become more effective).
But what is that role? A big question these days. Without getting into that debate, at least many people would agree that HEALING the sick forms some part of that, at least.
If so, what does it take to be a great healer? Access to scientific tools? Maybe, to some degree. Deep understanding of the malady that requires healing? Probably. Deep empathy with the patient's fear, discomfort, malaise, etc. Very likely. And what else? Just access to the right drugs? I don't think so.
How does one explain psychic healing? How does one explain
healers who seem to be able to operate remotely, without even being in the physical presence of the client? What is it that they do? How does that work?
If healing is a major part of medicine, and yet non medical people CAN heal others (and they can), is the empowering part of medicine SCIENCE or something else?
My own personal feeling is that the best Physicians are:
-- artists, operating significantly at the intuitive level
-- highly creative
-- possessed with a deep reverence for, and devotion to, THE LIFE FORCE
-- deeply empathetic with their clients
-- personally MAGNETIC and confidence inspiring
-- possessed with a full repetoire of technical skills
-- able to draw on those skills effortlessly, creatively, intuitively
-- operating to SOME degree within a framework of a scientifically-buttressed belief system relative to their craft
I appreciate that many people would not agree with this definition, and would describe physicians more as technicians, employing various tools and techniques in highly orderly ways. That sort of definition turns physicians into wreckers, excavators, carpenters, plumbers, electricians. It even leaves the matter of architecture to somebody else. Physicians are (among other things) carpenters, plumbers, electricians etc. But those are just skillsets, not the core functionality.
I will stop here, since I sense I have said enough to enrage both the scientists and the medical folks. Just to be clear, my background is in neither camp!
Namaste!
Jim |
