Pasternak: homeopathy and psychoanalysis are false sciences – 07/31/2023 – Science

It is easy, for those living in a progressive bubble, to criticize former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) for his unscientific insistence on the use of ivermectin and chloroquine against Covid-19. It is much more difficult to criticize, also as unscientific, practices such as homeopathy, astrology, acupuncture and –be careful— psychoanalysis.

Well, that’s what microbiologist Natalia Pasternak and journalist Carlos Orsi do in the recently released “What Nonsense! Pseudosciences and Other Absurdities That Don’t Deserve to Be Taken Seriously” (ed. Context).

“We knew the title would be uncomfortable”, says Pasternak, who is a professor of science and public policy at the University of Columbia (USA) and president of the Instituto Questão de Ciência (IQC).

“But if it doesn’t bother you, it doesn’t take anyone out of their comfort zone. And if it doesn’t take anyone out of their comfort zone, it doesn’t bring it up for public debate and doesn’t cause changes in society,” he says.

Orsi, director of the IQC, jokes that an alternative title would be “Unjustified Epistemic Beliefs”, which would hardly arouse curiosity in the general public.

Deep down, this is exactly what the book is about: fields of knowledge that seek to enjoy the credibility and prestige typical of science, but which, according to the authors, are nothing more than falsification or imposture.

“Pseudosciences are not innocuous. They are harmful to society”, says Pasternak. “We took care not to offend people. We discuss themes, subjects. But people die for believing in nonsense”, he says.

The duo brings together several types of existing academic studies and presents historical context (for example, the fact that traditional Chinese medicine is not even that traditional), empirical evidence and laboratory tests to support the argument.

The result is divided into 12 chapters. In addition to the four practices already mentioned, topics such as flying saucers, astronaut gods, family constellations, paranormality, energy cures and diet fads, among other non-religious subjects, are addressed.

“It’s my personal stance. I think religious beliefs need to be respected,” says Pasternak.

With that caveat in mind, topics that the authors classify as popular pseudosciences in Brazil, many of which are offered in the SUS, were included. If it were a work aimed at the US audience, where they reside, the list would be different. Homeopathy and psychoanalysis would be left out, for example, but chiropractic would be included.

Homeopathy and psychoanalysis, by the way, have been responsible for most of the controversies related to the book. Regarding the first, Pasternak and Orsi claim that it has already been exhaustively tested and that it doesn’t work; about the second, they write that Freud’s research is all based on fraud and distortions.

Several medical entities published manifestos in favor of homeopathy, including the CFM (Conselho Federal de Medicina), after its first vice-president, Jeancarlo Cavalcante, told the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo that the recognition of the specialty could be reviewed.

Psychoanalysts, in turn, defended the practice created by Freud. Ana Cláudia Zuanella, director of Febrapsi (Brazilian Federation of Psychoanalysis), told Sheet that the area “encompasses a body of knowledge solidly established through clinical research and endless theoretical debates”.

And the reactions didn’t stop there. On social media, “What nonsense!” has been the subject of numerous discussions about the limits of science and denialism, not always in a cordial tone and, in the authors’ view, not always with the right target.

“People started to develop an imaginary book in their heads. This imaginary book is angry and aggressive, and Natalia –because they don’t talk about Carlos— attacks everyone, she’s out of control, crazy, hysterical”, says Pasternak.

Orsi adds: “We didn’t receive criticism about the data, about the sources used, but criticism from those who didn’t like to see their pet belief alongside other things that the person thinks are silly. ‘How did you put it? my favorite culture/activity/therapy along with flying saucer?'”.

It is a different climate from that experienced by the authors with their previous book, “Against Reality” (ed. Papirus), in which they combat denialism, defined as the attitude of denying “well-established facts or a scientific consensus, in the absence of conclusive evidence “.

Published in 2021, “Against Reality” took the path well paved by attitudes like Bolsonaro’s in the face of vaccines against Covid-an obvious waste for a large part of society.

“Nonsense!” did not have that same benefit, so to speak. In criticizing such popular practices, the book found far more opponents. But, according to Orsi, this is also part of the package.

“The misuse of science did not just happen during the pandemic”, says the journalist. “The world has always been irrational, and we wanted to show that these things are in a state of latency all the time.”

That is why, in the new book, the introduction is devoted to an explanation of what the scientific method is and how it serves to protect us from human errors during the knowledge process.

Examples of errors are, among others, the illusion of causality (tendency to think that what came after is necessarily caused by what came before) and confirmation bias (tendency to pay more attention to what confirms a belief than to something that confirms it). the contrary).

And, according to Pasternak and Orsi, it is mainly in the absence of the scientific method that “pseudosciences and other absurdities” gain ground.

If a person resorts to therapy – homeopathy, psychoanalysis, acupuncture or any other – and then feels better, the brain will be carried away by the illusion of causality, but nothing prevents the improvement from having another cause.

The scientific method has the function of filtering our perception and eliminating, as much as possible, these sources of errors, to identify whether the person actually improved due to the therapy or if it was for another reason.

Another reason that may even be the placebo effect, which they explain like this: “changes in the state of a patient caused by the perception or belief that there is an ongoing treatment, even if everything is just a simulation”.

The placebo effect produces real physiological changes, including in non-human animals, and the medical consultation itself, if well conducted, has the capacity to provoke it.

“We can always benefit from the placebo effect in any medical consultation or treatment, if the doctor or health professional is attentive and caring. Perhaps this is the single greatest lesson that alternative medicine really has to teach”, write Pasternak and Orsi.