Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2023 May 18

Science desk
< May 17	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 19 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 18

What are the approaches or methods of conventional medicine (not specialties, rather treatment approaches or practical methods)?

From all my reading through the years, I came to the conclusion that we can generalize that there are only three approaches or methods in conventional medicine:

• Concentrational treatments: Administering a concentration of a molecule / several molecules or of a food / several foods in an internal or external way (ointments, suppositories, drops, shots, etc.).
• Surgical treatments: manually removing, altering or adding organs, tissues or secretions
• Genetic treatments

Is this generalization correct?

By asking this, I assume that there are tens of specialties in conventional medicine (internal medicine, plastic surgery, psychiatry, otolaryngology, cardiology etc.) but only three approaches or methods shared by them all.

Psychotherapy might also be a method reserved solely to psychiatry, but I'd argue that's more of an exception than the norm.

Please say if I have missed anything. Thanks. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:6DDA:F0FB:E151:910E (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Well there is also physiotherapy, and radiotherapy. Occupational therapy may be changing the environment. Speech therapy: is that a kind of "Psychotherapy"? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the following would fit:

• intubation;
• aquatic therapy;
• hypnotherapy;
• radiation therapy;
• light therapy;
• negative pressure ventilation;
• osteopathic manipulation;
• wound dressing;
• applying a cast.

 --Lambiam 08:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

A different question

I think that after replies by User:Graeme Bartlett and User:Lambiam my original question should have been "What does a conventional physician normally do?".
Wouldn't then the answer be the original three types of actions plus wound dressing (which in a broader sense includes Casts) as well as Artificial ventilation?

Hypnosis could be part of "psychotherapy". 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:E0E3:3D7:661B:CC4E (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Most hypnotherapists and psychotherapists will disagree with the last statement. If the question is, "What does a conventional physician normally do?", you can scratch out genetic treatments. It is rather a stretch to classify artificial ventilation as a form of wound dressing, since there is no wound and wound dressings are passive, whereas artificial ventilation is an active intervention.  --Lambiam 18:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Lambiam I didn't mean to say that wound dressing and ventilation are the same thing. Surely they aren't. I think you misunderstood me. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:A5E2:5FCE:BF1D:9EBB (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I overlooked the closing bracket after "Casts". I am not sure how to determine the scope of the procedures "normally" done by "conventional" physicians. Are you excluding radiotherapy because radiologists are unconventional?  --Lambiam 05:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, no, I don't exclude that. 2A10:8012:17:CDC6:797A:622D:297:C292 (talk) 07:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm reminded of dancing angels, while throwing in transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for good measure. Klbrain (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The answer to the angels question is, "Either all of them, or none of them." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Why does astrology (not astronomy) kept persisting?

We know so much about the planets and stars, yet astrology is still super common and exists everywhere. Why is that the case? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

1. You may have a decent scientific understanding of basic astronomy, but most people don't. They will believe a message received from a friend that tomorrow Mars will appear as large in the sky as the Moon and will readily forward it to others. Look how many flat Earthers there are, even though their model is flat out incompatible with easily observable facts.
2. Most people are susceptible to belief perseverance. Combine this with a distrust of the seeming certainty of scientists, a distrust sustained by failure to comprehend the essence of the scientific method.
3. The idea that heavenly bodies exert influence on us Earth-bound mortals is not a priori wrong. The main issue with popular astrology, such as in the form of a column in a newspaper, is the unverifiability. Compare various divining practices, as well as the popular "colour personality tests": the statements are so vague that half the time they may seem to apply. With the more heavy type of astrology, involving the computation of ascendants and the drawing of charts, some researchers have actually taken the effort to test the validity, but found no significant results.

 --Lambiam 19:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lambiam:: Re your #2 – a lot of the time people don't listen to scientific discussion, only to journalists' interpretation thereof. Occasionally the reports are fair from a knowledgeable journalist but often they are being interpreted by someone with an arts or languages background who last did science at age 16. Couple this with the desire of some editors to hit the headlines with a "shock-horror" or "Gee-whizz" front page story and it's hardly surprising that "the man on the Clapham omnibus" regards astrologers as more reliable. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I suspect that a lot of people indulge in astrology as a form of play, without really believing in it. Also, what many people think of as astrology is the grossly simplified Sun sign astrology that was, I believe, invented after 1900 by newspapers to be able to run something readers would want to read every day.

The far more complex Natal astrology requires significant astronomically related expertise – Johannes Kepler made much of his living by being paid for performing it by members of the ruling classes, which may really have depended on his intelligence and grasp of current affairs enabling him to analyse events and offer sage advice. It may even be genuinely useful, not because personal events on Earth are dictated by the minutiae of celestial positions, but because contemplation of the recursively complicated interplay of its supposed influences can free the subconscious to come up with intuitive insights, as may also be the case with the I Ching, Tarot divination, or for that matter Philip Pullman's fictional alethiometry. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.77 (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your interesting insights. But that leads me to an even bigger question: why does astrology is now can be considered as an entertainment form and not other pseudosciences? Maybe because the planets and stars do not have a real impact on our society yet? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I also suspect that some outwardly sincere Flat Earthers are really just arguing their case for a laugh. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.210.77 (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of ignorant, gullible boobs persons of limited rationality out there. They got Trump elected. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that's a helpful answer. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Is it false? Inapplicable? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The second. --Jayron32 10:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

So, well-informed skeptics make up the bulk of believers of astrology? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said that. The unhelpful part of your answer was unrelated to the word "boobs". Also, this is the reference desk, not the "make political insults" desk. You're not wrong in a factual sense, you're only wrong in a behavioral sense, which is to say that this is not the place to say things like what you said. Go say them somewhere else. If you have relevant pointers to references someone could read, fine. --Jayron32 12:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Barney: "You're a boob, Gomer!" Gomer: "Andy, he keeps callin' me names!"

"Don't count your boobies before they're hatched!" -- James Thurber ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I would guess it is part of an ancient drive built into our species by evolution - which favors the species over the individual. Randomness leads to an exploration of the boundaries of what's possible, it also can be used so there is less competition where the whole is divided into twelve groups, and in war it stops the enemy being able to predict what acions. Following something random is the basis of leadership rather than everybody arguing over what to do. Overall I think it may be silly for the individual but its effects have probably been very important for the development of the species. NadVolum (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a good argument: traits that increase the fitness of individuals will spread within a species, even if as a consequence they drive the species extinct. It is doubtful whether "species selection" is of any real importance but it could have some influence only on selecting properties of the species (e.g. propensity to speciate) rather than of the individual. JMCHutchinson (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly Group selection has a bad press, and it does seem that a characteristic that just favors the group like alturism cannot normally take over completely. However it can reach a game theory type balance or predator prey type swing where some individuals are cheaters. Religion and alturism are backed up by social opprobrium for outsiders or cheaters, The costs of astrology are pretty low but it does have a small in-group mechanism with people asking each other their star sign. NadVolum (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Good point. Much the same has been said about religion. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Astrology, when taken seriously, becomes a religion. In the Old Farmer's Almanac there is always a section on astrology, with the disclaimer that it's for "entertainment". Kind of like professional wrestling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)