|
Article
The Fine Line: (W)holism and Science
by Annemarie Colbin, Ph.D.
There are so many interesting things going on in
the world today, especially in the fields dedicated to understanding what human
beings are like and how to keep them well. In trying to understand ourselves,
we have currently two different models: on the one hand, the scientific reductionist
model, and on the other hand, complexity theory.
The reductionist model, which is also generally
thought of as the “scientific” approach, reduces everything to its constituent
parts, and then studies those parts. It studies the trees instead of the forest,
the cells instead of the organs, the DNA instead of the whole being. Molecular
biology is a perfect example. In molecular biology, the hierarchy of who’s
in charge goes from the DNA to the person, so that if one has a “defective gene,”
that is viewed practically as sentence of disease. In a clear example of how
this applies to real life, I once heard a woman, whose husband is a Nobel laureate
in one of the life sciences, comment that she couldn’t understand why, if a
woman were shown she has the gene for breast cancer, she wouldn’t have a mastectomy
immediately.
Complexity theory is a bona
fide scientific field as well, although newer and less well known. It grew
out of scientists hanging out together in the 1980's at what is now the Santa
Fe Institute and trying to figure out how life works
[1]. I consider
it pretty close to what we generally call “holistic” or “wholistic” thinking,
except that because of its extensive use of math and computers it’s considered scientific. Basically, complexity studies
complex adaptive systems, which can be anything from cells to humans
to ecosystems to computers. Complex adaptive systems, according to Murray Gell-Mann
in The Quark and the Jaguar[2], take in information from their
surroundings, detect regularities in the information, build a model of “reality,”
and then change and adapt according to that model. In complexity theory, information
from a system is “emergent,” that is, it appears as all the parts work together
as a whole. Therefore, in this model, the hierarchy is from the whole to the
parts; it is the whole that rules, so from this standpoint we study the forest
instead of the trees, the organs instead of the cells, the whole person instead
of the DNA.
Looking at the way the world works, it is clear that
in order to keep balance we need both views. Individuals may prefer one model
to the other, and spend their lives working on it, but both sides are necessary
for “the whole.” In terms of healing, that must be our main position, because
healing is about making whole, about unifying the opposites. And then of course
we have “the science,” which is a methodology and a way to study things that
carries a lot of credibility. Scientific studies have been used mostly in the
reductionistic mode, although for the past few years many studies have been
made of “alternative” systems.
In the field of medicine we have these two viewpoints
well represented. Molecular biology on the one hand, and complementary/alternative/holistic
medicine on the other hand are to be found everywhere these days. In fact,
“complementary” is the buzzword, as is “integrative.” This makes me happy!
And look around, there are a number of health professionals who integrate the
two systems both in their own selves and in their practices. I think we need
to become aware of how this paradigm is spreading. Many of us are plugged into
Western medicine, but we also like the “alternatives.” It gets confusing at
times - when you have a cold, do you go for antibiotics or acupuncture? When
you feel under the weather, do you get vitamin shots or Chinese herbs? When
should you go for surgery, when not? We need to walk a fine line.
To see how those at the front lines handle the philosophical
dichotomy, I asked some of my holistic physician friends the following question.
How do you see the relationship between the scientific and the wholistic
aspects of your practice?
Joel Evans, ob-gyn and the director of the Center
for Women’s Health in Darien, CT, said, “I place the scientific as part of the
wholistic, because holistic is an all encompassing perspective in how I treat
my patients. What health care and treatment means to me is that I am using
the science that we know about medicine, the science we know about herbs, about
supplements, about nutrition, the science behind exercise, and the science behind
stress reduction, relaxation, group support, and spiritual health. We’ve evolved
to the point where there is good science on each of those healing modalities,
and I use that science as I work individually with my patients to set up an
individual treatment plan for each of them.”
Scott Gerson, a New York City internist who also
practices Ayurvedic medicine, answered as follows: “I think that science and
the art of medicine have always been close, if not always perfectly comfortable,
partners. At times through history they have appeared to be separate, but
sooner or later they end up reunited. Today there is a lot of misinformation
regarding the efficacy and safety of herbs and other traditional healing systems,
for example. Wholistic approaches to health have to be scrutinized carefully
from a scientific position. However, it is best that the scrutiny come from
those who are familiar with and well grounded in the practice of the wholistic
healing arts. Its is this group of people who will have the insight necessary
to guide the efforts of scientific investigations. I always view science as
a way to appeal to the rational mind of my patients, to make them comfortable
with what often seem unusual treatment protocols.”
Larry Palevsky, a pediatrician with a practice at
the Beth Israel Continuum Center for Health and Healing, answered the question
this way: “I use what I consider good scientific information, properly researched
scientific information, as part of the way in which I approach the whole patient.
To me, science is only one fourth of the knowledge base that goes into how a
patient stays healthy and gets sick. In addition to science, in working with
children there is the experience and knowledge of the mother and father as another
fourth of the knowledge base. Then there is the parents’ intuition as to how
to take care of their child. And the fourth quarter is an unknown way in which
information comes to us as a group exchanging information, and something new
comes up and we don’t know why. “ This latter comment relates to what I mentioned
above, regarding complex adaptive systems: the group of parents, child, and
physician become a complex adaptive system and new information emerges from
their interaction.
For the practical angle which always closes my columns,
here to help you with finding a health professional, medical or otherwise, who
suits you, is a short list of holistic healing practices including those mentioned
above as well as others. There are, of course, many additional others; at
least this is a start. Be well and take care of yourself!
Center for Women’s Health
-
Joel Evans, MD, Medical Director
Darien Medical Center
1500 Boston Post Road
Darien, CT 06820
203-656-6635 - www.centerforwomenshealth.com
Scott Gerson, MD
Ayurvedic Medicine of New York
13 West 9th Street
NY NY 10011
212-505-8971
Beth Israel Continuum Center for Health
and Healing
245 Fifth Ave - 2nd floor - at 28th
street
NY NY 10016
646-935-2220
www.healthandhealingny.org
Michael Schachter, MD
Schachter Center for Complementary
Medicine
Two Executive Blvd, Suite 202
Suffern, NY 10901
845-368-4700
Coming up in April, a new center (which
I’m involved in) - it’s worth looking into:
Olive Leaf Wholeness Center - Rudolph Ballentine, MD, Medical Director
123 E. 23rd Street, NY NY
REFERENCES
[1]. Waldrop MM. Complexity: The emerging science at the edge
of order and chaos. New York, London: Simon & Schuster; 1992.
[2]. Gell-Mann M. The Quark and the Jaguar: adventures in the simple
and the complex. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company; 1994.
Top of Page
| Other Articles
© 2002 by Annemarie Colbin,
Ph.D. |
