Bestimmung von Stellenwert und Wirksamkeit komplementärmedizinischer Behandlungen: Brauchen wir eine <<alternative>

Journal/Book: Forschende Komplementärmedizin. 1995; 2: 82-87.

Abstract: Before the time of Paracelsus, disputing in Latin language as an epistemological method for gaining knowledge had decayed to an attitude and thus had to be replaced. TodayÂ’s ´Latin creed' is science creed, and inconsiderate collection of scientific facts is mistaken for scientific approach. The clinical epidemiologist Feinstein revives the call for a Patient-adjusted science and faults that the ´clinical material' (i.e. the patient) cannot be characterized appropriately by an ill-balanced, pathologic-anatomically oriented nosology. Increasingly, innovatively thinking persons in the field of conventional medicine identify and describe dramatically appearing shortcomings of ´scientific' diagnostics and of the establishment of therapy objectives, whereas these shortcomings frequently are overlooked by complementary medicine researchers. We do not need a basically new research methodology for complementary medicine; rather it is important to take notice of the profound methodological developments in conventional medicine in recent years and to creatively get on with them.

Keyword(s): Conventional medicine

Zurück | Weiter

Bestimmung von Stellenwert und Wirksamkeit komplementärmedizinischer Behandlungen: Brauchen wir eine <<alternative> > Forschungsmethodik?