Originally Posted by LX
I find this guy's position pretty extreme in the way he calls alternative practitioners quacks. I think the Green promotion of them is a little reflexive, and I certainly want to see an emphasis on medicine, but they do get enough results and have positively been blended within health centers. "Quacks" makes it hard for me to get past this guy's bias.
My dog was helped instantly by a chiropractor. I never gave chiropractors any credence before that. The idea of making use of one for a dog went even farther beyond any threshold I was willing to cross. But it worked where veterinary medicine failed. The dog had been urinating every twenty minutes for a week, and then just back to normal. That's not to say there aren't quacks involved. Regulation is needed.
As for their stance on nukes - I don't see how that makes them anti-science. Did I miss something? Has science come up with a means of disposing of nuclear waste, or coming up with the foolproof means of preventing extremely long-term damage through accidents, attacks, or catastrophes? Again - the Green position is reflexive, and as a governing party that is not what I would look for. But as a voice that could move the mainstream in a different direction slightly, I don't find that so problematic.
I'm not a huge fan of the word quack, but there is pretty much no doubt that the alt-med community is full of empirically unverified or flat-out debunked treatments.
To take chiropractic as an example, the key premise of chiropractic (that of subluxations) has been proven false.
When we look at chiropractic as a broad treatment, it repeatedly fails to do better than placebo.
When we look at it as a specific treatment for back injuries, it is on par with the treatment you would get from an RMT, at best. As a simple matter of fact, basically nothing works reliably for back pain.
I do not know enough about your particular case to comment on it directly. What I would say is that you should not put too much weight in the fact that your dogs improvement in health was correlated with the treatment of the chiropractor. Unless you have sufficient controls in place, it is pretty hard to tell whether that correlation is legitimate or not. It could even be as simple as this: whatever was causing the excessive urination naturally clears up in about a week. I'm not saying that is necessarily the explanation; I'm saying that there are many possible explanations and we shouldn't prematurely give one more credence than another, especially when it has a lot of evidence that suggest it is implausible.
Keep in mind that what Moran was decrying was the general lack of what he calls "scientific reasoning." Namely, there is no reason to say "All nuclear facilities should be shut-down" unless there is some sort of evidence strongly in favour of that position. As you say, it is a reflexive position on their part, which is the antithesis of the reasoning Moran is looking for.