DWill wrote:

R. LeBeaux wrote:I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures that are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

Where did you find this updated Hippocratic Oath? If it's your work, you should submit it somewhere else as well.

In a brief pbs.org NOVA article on the evolution of the oath, which includes both the classic and modern versions. I said "in part" because I selected only the parts I thought relevant to the discussion. The article is at:

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath ... today.html

Jesus said if you have faith you can move mountains. Paul said salvation is by grace through faith. What these strange ideas really mean is that the right psychological attitude and narrative framework are central to any achievement.

I think the character Jesus was actually talking about moving mountains. Equating that with the placebo effect is clutching at straws Robert. Believing a sugar pill will cure your depression is one thing. Magically moving a mountain is another. Also, the correct psychological attitude may be a necessary component to achievement, but a narrative framework wouldn't be necessary. I can see achievements happening without.

You write hybrid sentences with half good philosophy, half bunk, in your attempts to reconcile science and theology. I guess that's expected as part of religion is the cryptic wording, and any part of the text can be interpreted to apply to your personal opinion of what things 'mean'. If you believe Jesus was speaking of the placebo effect(indirectly even) when talking about moving mountains, I can't say that you're wrong. I would say that I don't share your interpretation.


I do like thinking of the placebo effect as a sort of artifact of faith, however.

LeBeaux wrote:Even if I believe the positive results are due to the placebo effect, I see no reason to attempt to burst their bubble.

If you did burst their bubble, you'd render their medicine impotent in one blow. I respect the placebo effect, as much as I respect the effectiveness of some chemical compounds. In conversations with people who swear by alternative medicine, I engage with them but offer no debate. I even encourage their choice, but in the back of my mind I'm cheering for the placebo effect.

In conversations with people who swear by alternative medicine, I engage with them but offer no debate. I even encourage their choice, but in the back of my mind I'm cheering for the placebo effect.

I agree with this and this is my intention, but I find it sometimes hard not to end up in debate when the alternative medicine is being pushed on me and I am not interested in trying it. Not so much that I am against the idea of an alternative, but I am a minimalist when it comes to any kind of treatment and mostly I believe time will take care of it (75% anyway) along with heathly living.

When someone actually cares about you (or at least, pretends to do so convincingly), there can be a positive emotional response and, as medical researchers now know, such a response can trigger positive physical reactions in brain chemistry, which in turn can lead to enhanced immune-system activity.

I think this works for self-care as well and people who are sold on herbal remedies for every ailment get a good feeling from applying them regardless of any other benefit. I stick with raw veggies as the are considerably cheaper and probably have a greater benefit to my health. I am sure that broccoli can cure just about 75% of whatever ails me, along with a good run down the road.

I agree with this and this is my intention, but I find it sometimes hard not to end up in debate when the alternative medicine is being pushed on me and I am not interested in trying it. Not so much that I am against the idea of an alternative, but I am a minimalist when it comes to any kind of treatment and mostly I believe time will take care of it (75% anyway) along with heathly living.

It's hard in some situations. An acquaintance telling you that you should use some alternative therapy because it's been working great for them, for example. There aren't really any good thought-terminating cliche's that would work well.

My pest control guy was pushing acupuncture on me. I really didn't know enough about it and didn't want to agree or disagree with him due to the agnosis. I told him I'm immune to the placebo effect, and he didn't really know how to respond. Then the conversation moved on to why spiders can get past the bug "barrier" chemicals(they don't groom). It was fluid and thankfully free of any awkward moment. For me at least. I think he's still confused.

Interbane wrote:

Jesus said if you have faith you can move mountains. Paul said salvation is by grace through faith. What these strange ideas really mean is that the right psychological attitude and narrative framework are central to any achievement.

I think the character Jesus was actually talking about moving mountains. Equating that with the placebo effect is clutching at straws Robert. Believing a sugar pill will cure your depression is one thing. Magically moving a mountain is another.

Interbane, this is a classic example of the tendency to argue that Christians believe something absurd, and therefore are stupid. That argument is true regarding some other beliefs, but not this one. The idea of moving mountains is an allegory, an image that stands for something else. No one has ever moved a mountain by faith. What the text really means is that belief is powerful, that people can achieve things through belief that otherwise they cannot, and that without faith people will be stuck in a paralysis of inaction and isolation.

Also, the correct psychological attitude may be a necessary component to achievement, but a narrative framework wouldn't be necessary. I can see achievements happening without.

Your statement here again reflects a weak understanding of the nature of faith. Faith actually is a narrative framework, as the articulation of a mindset or paradigm that explains the nature of reality. A narrative framework embeds a strategic vision of what is good and what is evil, how people should live, and what is true and false. It provides a popular story that gives a prism to explain everything. So, when Paul says we are saved by faith and not by works, he means that our actions have to be motivated by ideas, and that even good actions that are motivated by false ideas 'avail nothing'. It is the ideas (faith) that provide the strategic direction, bringing disparate actions together to support a common goal. I find this a very profound insight, and one that readily lends itself to the rebasing of Christian faith on a scientific framework. Can you nominate any great achievements that have occurred which were not inspired by some one who had complete faith in their own vision?

You write hybrid sentences with half good philosophy, half bunk, in your attempts to reconcile science and theology. I guess that's expected as part of religion is the cryptic wording, and any part of the text can be interpreted to apply to your personal opinion of what things 'mean'. If you believe Jesus was speaking of the placebo effect(indirectly even) when talking about moving mountains, I can't say that you're wrong. I would say that I don't share your interpretation.

My interpretation here is the reasonable one, and your claim that Jesus was literally talking about mountains is silly. No mountains have ever been levitated "hence to yonder place" as the King James Version puts it at Matthew 17. This idea is a parable for the power of faith. There is nothing cryptic about that, except to someone who holds an irrational aversion to faith on principle.

The placebo effect is one instance of the broader phenomenon of faith healing. This magical tradition was central to shamanic practice, as the only recourse in the absence of scientific medicine. The problem now is that the great success of drug treatments has become a new faith, the idea that pills are the key to health. As so often happens, we have moved from one extreme, magic, to the other extreme, science, and find it difficult to see that reason requires a middle path that integrates the best of both.

The purely scientific attitude to medicine undermines the reality that health requires a number of factors where faith is important, especially the strength of social links, which are generally strengthened by shared belief. This is why prayer has such an enduring attraction and power as a way of articulating community views and bringing people together. Even false belief can be adaptive in this context, as a basis for social loyalty and belonging, although false belief inevitably creates undesirable side effects. True belief can be even more powerful, when it recognizes the psychological role that faith plays as a form of social glue and statement of purpose and direction .

Interbane, this is a classic example of the tendency to argue that Christians believe something absurd, and therefore are stupid.

Classic and correct, with a number of acquaintances as living proof. If you hope to rebase your philosophy on the same words, you will be fighting an uphill battle. You can't undo the baggage that's been loaded on board.

Faith actually is a narrative framework, as the articulation of a mindset or paradigm that explains the nature of reality.

If you mean the glue that holds together various philosophies and hypotheses to form a worldview, I wouldn't call that faith. There is too much evidence and reasoning, and it's a matter of confidence. Only after some things are held on faith, but that only means that faith is necessary, not sufficient.

A narrative framework may be a powerful component in achieving something, but I still do not see it as a necessary component. The key is necessity versus sufficiency.

Can you nominate any great achievements that have occurred which were not inspired by some one who had complete faith in their own vision?

Many achievements in mathematics comes immediately to mind as an example of an achievement that can happen without "vision". It could happen simply from people following the numbers.

The purely scientific attitude to medicine undermines the reality that health requires a number of factors where faith is important, especially the strength of social links, which are generally strengthened by shared belief.

What makes you think that the "purely scientific" perspective is ignoring certain factors? I will have to look, but I remember studies into the health benefits of having a comforting/nurturing social life. Also, the meditative state found during prayer can have benefits as well I would think.

True belief can be even more powerful, when it recognizes the psychological role that faith plays as a form of social glue and statement of purpose and direction .

I have to ask. How do you define true belief? Is that believing in the truth (if so, define 'truth'), or truly believing in...what? faith?

The problem now is that the great success of drug treatments has become a new faith, the idea that pills are the key to health.

The drug industry is a billion dollar one which is probably an even bigger reason why we have been convinced that pills are the key to health. I am dismayed when I see just how many people take over-the-counter as well as prescription drugs on a regular basis, truly convinced that these medications are necessary. We're creating a whole nation dependant on drugs and an economy relying on that dependancy.

The drug industry is a billion dollar one which is probably an even bigger reason why we have been convinced that pills are the key to health. I am dismayed when I see just how many people take over-the-counter as well as prescription drugs on a regular basis, truly convinced that these medications are necessary. We're creating a whole nation dependant on drugs and an economy relying on that dependancy.

This is sad. I wonder what the percentages are if you were to classify the effects of the pills. Some would be purely placebo, some would be suppressing symptoms, and some would be curing the underlying issue. Suppressing symptoms would be the money maker. Consumption of goods feeds the beast, which means more and better advertising for similar products. I know there are a large number of actual cures, but I wonder what percentage. I also wonder what motivates some companies to pursue cures rather than symptom suppression. Not that they shouldn't... but I'm curious if there's regulation, or if there corporate mission statements that emphasize cures.

Interbane (and anyone else), I wonder what your thoughts are on the placebo effect. I wrote that it is harnessing the mind to affect physical systems, but now I suspect that might not be on target. Do we really know if the mind can effect specific cures? We do know that directing our thoughts can signal changes in physiology, but that doesn't mean that our thoughts can cure disease.

What the placebo effect may be, instead, is simply an emotional boost that makes the person have better spirits, mostly because she thinks that she's getting effective treatment. There may be no connection between this feeling and the health outcome. If she gets better, she might have anyway, but she has suffered less mentally under the placebo. If she doesn't get better, she still has for a period had less emotional stress adding to the stress of her physical symptoms.

There might not even have to be any placebo for this boost to happen. Think of the person who has had chemo and a return of the cancer and decides not to have any further treatment. He knows he's going to die, but he might develop an attitude toward his death that gives him more peace than if he were to continue to battle for short-term life. The thought that his pain can be managed in the end stages might make him less fearful and might be have a placebo effect in itself.

So without real scientific evidence, I have to be more doubtful that placebo or "faith" can cure anything, although both can be good for the sick person.

I've always thought that many ailments, especially those that are stress-related, are more or less psychosomatic anyway. It would make sense that such ailments could be cured by positive thinking or placebo effect. We go to a faith healer, we feel like we've done something to address the problem, and we begin to feel better.

It wouldn't surprise me that a positive attitude could make us feel better, both physically and emotionally, and induce our body's own healing abilities. The idea that faith moves mountains makes perfect sense to me in that sense. If we believe we can do something, we work harder to make it happen. Even if our faith is based on irrational beliefs, it can have positive benefits.