I cannot elaborate on the limitations on modern science in general. In the medical field I can say modern science cannot evaluate Indian system of medicine. It's efficacy, its principles, etc.. Because both are branches of two different trees.
How can a physics department evaluate a chemistry paper?
It's like measuring gas using a tape or ruler. That's not the way gases are measured or evaluated. Just because my lab has only tape, can't put that under scientific label. Or just because we can't see gases doesn't mean they don't exist or they don't have a method of measurement "scientifically ".
Limitation of a particular science shouldn't be labeled as unscientific.
Human body is the same, but human understanding of the same can be multi dimensional. You cannot generalise physics as a science. There is quantum physics and atomic physics. Are they the same?
Modern has a different understanding of human anatomy and so is the physiology.. More pertaining to the structures. Body is a machine made of different organs and organ based systems. Ayurveda looks body as whole system. All inter connected. More a functional base. Tissue based than organ based.
I would love to explain more on how they are different. But typing on a mobile is quite boring. Please excuse.
Both structures and functions are important. Structures for modern medicine and functions for Indian medicine. That's why I said both are different. And one cannot judge the other. Or evaluate the other.
Different branches of physics tackle the description at different levels, but they're all consistent from top to bottom. We know *exactly* how to adjust the equations to get Newton's Laws from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. GTR is just a generalisation of Newtonian Relativity.
Similarly, Chemistry describes interactions between molecules at one level, while Physics - especially Quantum Mechanics - can tell you why the molecules interact that way.
Science is not what you learnt from the textbook and vomited on the exam paper. It's a body of knowledge and a way of thinking, of asking questions and seeking answers. Things are unscientific when the scientific method is ignored. And when they are unscientific, they should be discarded.
If you believe that, you're grossly misinformed about how modern medicine is done. To give you an example, I've been observing several generations of diabetics in the family and how they're treated by doctors. The fact that the person is diabetic means that either Insulin production is low, or Insulin resistance is high. There are several side-effects of this, and *all* of these are tested for, from blood pressure and cardio-vascular function to neurological issues. When prescribing medicine, the height, weight, age, gender and patient history are all considered. The compounding effect of multiple medicines are taken into account. Function is checked periodically and the dosage is adjusted.
Now, apart from diagnostic methods and the medicine prescribed, this is the same as any system of medicine that actually *works*. In my opinion, there are only two systems of medicine - those that work, and those that don't.
If with so much of monitoring and careful judgement of height weight gender etc medicines are prescribed or insulin is given...and sugar level is kept under control why are people suffering from complications of diabetes?
A patient with perfect control on sugar level also gets complications of diabetes. Why?
Complication or side effect of disease occurs if it was left untreated to grow into a chronic condition. Was there a problem In the monitoring or in the understanding of diabetes?
Does your diabetes doctor treat the neuropathy or retinopathy which was complication of diabetes himself or refer you to another doctor telling its not my department.
One looks into the structure and the other energy or functional part.
Physics is not my subject.. I agree the example of physics is just bookish.
But not the diabetes part. With an unscientific method one cannot treat and help millions of people for thousands of years.
"With an unscientific method one cannot treat and help millions of people for thousands of years."
The success rate for medicine curing more people than it killed only went up in the last couple of centuries, with the discovery of things like the Germ Theory of Disease and the actual nature of the circulatory and digestive systems. In centuries past, empirical knowledge helped them at least save a few people, but the majority died of complications. Ayurveda was probably one of the better systems, with a better success rate than say pre-modern European medicine. But still nowhere near the efficacy of modern medicine.
Yes I agree with Mr.Sashwath that science is a way of thinking and validation. But I disagree with the validation of one with another.
I can't answer the why, because as Rajiv Ramnath said, it's pretty hard to find a patient who is as you describe. The reason being, the definition of diabetes is insulin malfunction - either control or response.
There may be other reasons to have the same complications - someone may have a congenitally weak circulatory system, or nerve damage due to some accident or infection. The point is, diabetes is one of those diseases that causes those secondary effects. Those are identified and tracked.
"Does your diabetes doctor treat the neuropathy or retinopathy which was complication of diabetes himself or refer you to another doctor telling its not my department."
Naturally they refer you to a specialist. There's a really good reason for that - the body is an insanely complex system with insanely complex sub-systems. A single person cannot master all those systems. Specialists who deal with that organ know much more about the system than a generalist. Many times, a good specialist will tell you that no further action is required, because that subsystem is working perfectly. On the other hand, all of them know the basics of other systems, and can gauge when the one they specialise in affects another or when it is affected by another.
Contrast that with so-called "traditional systems", where you assume that a single person can master all the complexities of all the various systems of the body. It's impossible.
In fact, it's not even historically accurate - out of the basic levels, there were always people who specialised in specific systems or ailments or whatever.
Here's why it's faith based. Current Ayurvedic theory was written at a time when neither the germ theory of disease, nor a goo...
No, it's not. It is a superior system, which has cropped up in many places and times in history, including in ancient India. It's a system that focuses on self-improvement and self-correction, always re-examining old theories in light of new evidence. Again, I'm not talking about the books we reproduced on exam papers, but actual *science* - forming hypotheses, testing them, revising the hypothesis, sharing with others and collaborating. It's from this process that we've understood so much about physics, chemistry, mathematics, and medicine among so many others.
"And on what basis would you consider ayurveda as an alternative to a science based system ?!"
We don't; you do. I think the good bits of Ayurveda are scientific enough, and should be (and often already are) incorporated into modern medicine. Nasal flap reconstruction pioneered by Sushruta for example. Or the basic advice he gives for diabetics (exercise). Or the later examples of cataract treatment which was learnt by and taken back by European physicians and incorporated into the then-growing system of modern medicine.
As I've said before, there's medicine that works and is scientific, and medicine that doesn't and isn't. There are no "alternatives".
"In my studies it has proved a most valid scientific system."
Modern Ayurveda doesn't follow that fundamental principle of science - self correction and continuous improvement. It's been left behind in the state it was centuries ago. It hasn't attempted to improve its knowledge of the body, insisting arrogantly that as an old system, it knows better. This is dangerous, and is why we call it an unscientific system.