Why do people believe in things when the body of scientific evidence shows otherwise

[technodad]

This is not intended to be an attack on any denomination of belief. The aim of this thread is to try to understand why people choose to believe things, when there are far more likely explanations and why people choose to not trust the scientific opinion.

I am not particularly thinking about a discussion about religion because clearly "faith", some old books and preaching make a difference there (although, please discuss religion if it is relevant). I am thinking more about things like:

• People don't believe global is happening when the vast majority of the scientific community can provide evidence that it is.

• People believe in ghosts when their existance violates all the laws of physics and pretty much all "ghost events" (if not absolutely all) can be explained without mystery.

• People don't get their kids vaccinated (e.g. MMR), when it is clear that not vaccinating is orders of magnitude more dangerous than vaccinating.

• People think that palm reading, tea leaf reading, etc actually works...

• People believe in "alternative" medicines work, when every "alternative" medicine that actually works is now simple called "medicine"!

The rules are as follows:

1. You can say what ever you like, and I don't care if you insult me.

2. If you post something, you may have someone say something that challenges your deeply held beliefs, so please only post if this is acceptable to you.

3. No one is allowed to complain about anyone being horrible, or arrogant, based upon the fact that people will only post here if they are up for a debate (see 2).

4. There is no 4.

People believe in "alternative" medicines work, when every "alternative" medicine that actually works is now simple called "medicine"!

That's from the OP.
Actually I would love that to happen. That CAM that have been proven to work should be then accepted as medicine.
However, herbal medicine is still widely seen as 'witch craft', even though western herbalists have a very strong training in biomedicine for example. How many of you know someone who is going to see a herbalist? But many more do use herbal supplements on a regular basis, relying on the 'knowledge' of the shop assistant at Holland and Barrats.

So still lots of misconceptions around.

We need God because he is more powerful than the state.
(Karl Marx)

That CAM that have been proven to work should be then accepted as medicine.

yes - but on the same basis as other medicines ie go through the regulatory approval steps.

I guess one of the 'beliefs' pertaining to herbal medicines by too many people is that they're 'natural' and therefore 'safe' and don't check the science. I don't mean the herbalists, I mean the naïve OTC buyers.

I think generally herbal medicine is different from complementary. I don't know if either have completely accepted definitions, but whenever anyone says complementary they seem to mean things that have been proven not to work, but which are nevertheless quite profitable.

Homeopathy is my favorite. I mean you couldn't make it up could you :)

Errol yes you are right.
But then the government has also been known to refuse to regulate some profession as they think it's so safe that there is no point doing it.
Acupuncturist for example would love to be regulated. But they have been told a big fat 'NO'.

I believe that western and Chinese herbalists are regulated already.

whenever anyone says complementary they seem to mean things that have been proven not to work, but which are nevertheless quite profitable.

In your world Black.
In mine complementary means able to work with (or along side) conventional medicine (which isn't the case for homeopathy btw).
And few of CAM practitioners I know are actually making a lot of money. Maybe some of the ones you find of Harley Street in London but after that.... Most CAM practitioners I know just make a living, but aren't making buckets unlike some of these 'cures' you can find on FB re slimming etc...

You reject homeopathy then?

'Complementary' is, as Feeling said, therapy that can be given alongside conventional medicine e.g many cancer hospitals provide a range of therapies for patients and carers.
'Alternative' is instead of conventional medicine. Which may be fine if there's nothing seriously wrong, or the person concerned isn't taking any existing medicines - the important thing is seeing a practitioner who understands red flags and when to refer people back to their GPs.

I'm not sure why the government is so hostile to regulating complementary therapies, osteopathy was meant to be the first, followed by herbalism and acupuncture and others but both the last and current govts. have avoided taking any responsibility. Maybe they don't want the hassle, or think regulation would provide a badge of respectability that they are reluctant to provide, or something?

Last I heard herbal practitioners were very concerned about an EU directive that would have outlawed the practice of herbal medicine in this country (because we are the only country, apparently, that doesn't keep a register of herbal practitioners). Don't know how that has gone in the last couple of years.

I'd heard that herbalists were worried about products being regulated because of the costs.

Ok I see what you mean about the difference.

And I'd be all for a system that sorted out the people selling willow bark for headaches from the people selling water to cure cancer.

The EU regulation is about herbal products. So any herbal products (not the herbs themselves) have to be approved by the EU. Very lengthy process and very costly. It's meant to be to protect the consumers from getting dangerous products but in fact it has stopped the consumers from being able to get very good and safe products because the supplier do not have the money for it :(

I am not sure for western herbalists. For Chinese herbalists, it means that some lotions etc... aren't available anymore (even though no negative side effects have ever been recorded) as well as more herbal mix. They can still prescribe them but need to prepare them themselves or have them done by a registered company (what was the point. I am not sure).

There is an issue with the herbal practitioners register too. Which is a bit of a pain tbh because all the herbalists I now are registered with some professional organisation anyway and are insured for their practice.... but you go back to the fact there are very few herbalists in the UK and it cost money to put a register together. Why bother when it will affect only 2000 people ....

I think regulation in herbal medicine is a good thing. Herbs despite being from natural sources often contain powerful substances which can be toxic or cause side effects. They are often prepared to poor standards, contain contaminents or decomposition products which could also poetentially cause harm.

Back I don't reject homeopathy. If it works for someone it works. I don't care if it's just placebo effect or not. After all what sort of damage can a sugary pill do? None apart from making a difference for that person.

I do have a big issue with homeopaths that will tell their patients not to go and see their GP or get antibiotics for a severe chest infection for example. Or for any other big red flags such as breathing problems at night.
But then the onus is on the patient to do so. If the patient decides not to go and see their GP and go the complementary route only, who am I to judge that they are wrong?

We have a homeopathy clinic within our local NHS medical centre. The homeopath is also a GP, but now works full toime running the homeopathy clinic. The clinic is wholly funded by the NHS. Gps in our area are very supportive of the clinic, particularly for stubborn chronic conditions such as childhood eczema. Our local authority has saved money in prescribing steroids to childern as a result of the clinic.

I think all these practices need regulating. Not just the products sold or prescribed but the individuals practicing. Until this happens no insurance company or governing will go near them. Leaving consumers open to wrong doing, without any cover.

That's not quite true sprinkled.
Most CAM practitioners are both not regulated and fully insured.

But the fact there is no regulation means you have no idea of the training they've had, no idea if they are insured unless you ask them and have an idea of what sort of training is Ok or not. Which of course you don't as a patient.

Just one word again on 'complementary medicine'. It is about being able to work along side conventional medicine. But very importantly also about not saying one is better than the other (so acupuncture or osteopathy is not a lesser practice than conventional medicine). And that they can also stand on their own two feet. Chinese Medicine for example can be used (and has been doing so for about 2000 years) as a stand alone medicine.
The issue for me is for the practitioner to know the limits of its own practice so they can refer when it is necessary.

I think it is too simplistic to suggest that all complimentary therapies should be treated in the same way. Many are actually used within the health service too, I have had accupuncture on the NHS. Many NHS cancer centres also use a range of complimantary therapies to support patients. Our local teaching hospital welcomes a homeopath into SCBU to treat infants.
Many complimentary therapies have little chance of actually causing harm.
I would include the almost risk free therapies things like homeopathy or Reiki, up to those that have real risk of doing harm such as chiropractic, colonic irrigation or herbal medicine.
To say we need to licence all practitioners wouldn't be workable. Unless we carry our risk assessements on each therapy.

"We have a homeopathy clinic within our local NHS medical centre. The homeopath is also a GP, but now works full toime running the homeopathy clinic"
I so object to the money I pay in taxes being used for this sort of thing. How dare they!

"Many complimentary therapies have little chance of actually causing harm."

Well, that's all right then. The fact that they are completely ineffective doesn't matter. Just so long as they don't do any harm......

But very importantly also about not saying one is better than the other

why can't you say that though? I wouldn't say that all conventional medical treatments were equal, I certainly don't think that you can say that they're all as good as each other.

"I so object to the money I pay in taxes being used for this sort of thing. How dare they!"
Funding for our local homeopathy clinic is always a hot debate. The many GPs in our area though fight to keep it running because it has saved thousands from their prescribing budget.

"Well, that's all right then. The fact that they are completely ineffective doesn't matter. Just so long as they don't do any harm......"

I am not arrogant enough to dismiss all complimentary therapies. I have an honours degree in chemistry, have worked within the pharmaceutical industry and scientific research for many years.

I know enough about science to realise that we don't have all the answers. Science is a system of models but by its very nature is always open to considering new rationals or schema.

You dismiss all complimentary therapies. You must be a priviledged place of superior knowledge. I salute you.

curlew - most of the 'ineffective' complementary therapies could be viewed a means of delivering placebo plus 'talking therapy'. (And hopefully conventional medicine always prescribed where required in this case!)

Personally I'm not convinced that this is ethical, because its based on claiming that homeopathy etc work (beyond placebo), but it may be cost-effective.

ok let me get this straight. We'll give the patients water and tell them it's medicine because that saves money and "hey! maybe the placebo effect will help them anyway - who knows?"

Because let's be clear. homeopathy is proven to be fake. It might show some effect for psychological reasons, but the treatment itself has no effect whatsoever.

And where are the getting the special homeopathic water? not from the tap I assume but from homeopathy suppliers?

BOB - yup, you've got it straight.

Backonlybriefly it was you who brought up the financial apects of delivering homeopathic treatment, not me. I was simply responding to your point about money being wasted and pointing out that in our area Gps fibd it cost effective.
That's not the main reason of course, our local GPs find it a very effective treatment for certain types of complaints.