this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2025
65 points (81.0% liked)
Asklemmy
45994 readers
1612 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I feel like the list is a mixed bag. There are things like flat earth, which are just against common sense, things like homeopathy, that sound promising to many people but were scientifically disproven many times.
And then there are many things that are mostly pseudoscience but can have some aspects that are true. For example aromatherapy is bullshit in general, but the smell of mint specifically was proven to have a beneficial effect on people's mood. And there could be more smelling efects we don't know about, so one day, we might witness the rise of a new science-based aromatherapy. Or Lysenkism - such a twisted terrible dark times for science! Such a disgrace, I always get angry just thinking about this totalitarian shit. But the Lamarckian evolution aspect is surprisingly not completely bullshit, as it turns out, now that we understand that genes are not the only vehicle for evolution and how things like epigenetics work. That's one point for Lamarck though, not for Lysenko.
Our decisions should be based on what was proven by science. That doesn't mean that's all there is. Otherwise we wouldn't need science anymore.
The list is very interesting, I've never heard of Minimum parking requirements and would definitely fall for that.
The wording for the fad diet section bothered me. If benefits of calorie restriction and fasting aren't scientifically supported, why are their Wikipedia pages full of scientific research regarding their benefits?
Things like the actual uses of aromatherapy make me wonder what to call them. Maybe the word placebo applies, but I feel that there's a certain level of arbitrariness needed for that specific word.
There's something about aromas and the soft gestures of reiki that are pleasurable to us in a more objective sense. We don't like them simply because we've been told they're good for us; we like them because we like them. A waterfall will make most people feel good even you don't tell them it's good for them, so I don't feel it can be called a placebo effect. What is the term for a thing which isn't directly a medicine, but is medically beneficial by promoting a sense of wellbeing?
I don't think that laughter should be considered medicine in a literal sense because it would make the term too broad, but also because these things are at least somewhat subject to taste rather than the truly objective effects of drugs. A given drug might effect two people differently, but the difference is a matter of chemistry rather than the subject's opinion.
(Maybe it will all be the same someday when we've dialed in how everybody's brains work in exact detail and tailor treatments more specifically. Maybe we'll actually prescribe touching grass instead of suggesting it.)