Page 14 - Spring 19

continued from page 11
2, where the popular question of the pseudo-sciences is reintroduced in a subtle way, with the intent of routing “therapies not based on scientific evidence”.
Among the “pseudosciences” of Prof. Burioni is homeopathy, which, facts indicate, is the second most important scientific medicine practiced in the world.
Beside the fact is that, in Italy, homeopathy is not part of the essential levels of assistance, so it is a free choice of the citizen. I wonder how a sane person asks for political implementation to outlaw a scientific heritage, which in its turn (albeit in a different way) is so important, but above all to deprive billions of citizens of the freedom to choose their own care? But I also wonder, how does one subscribe to such absurdity?
Social shock absorbers/cushions
I would like to invite the signatories of the pact to imagine the consequences of the policy, specifically addressing Prof. Burioni proposal of a law to ban homeopathy, because it was considered a therapy not based on scientific evidence.
The effect, believe me, would be a disaster. In the first place there would be a social revolt, secondly the citizens would have only one state medicine founded on epistemic deception, thirdly we would have done away with the only social cushion now available for the problem of societal ‘hesitation’ regarding official medicine.
The Prof. Burioni should thank homeopathy, acupuncture, and other complementary medicines, because these, truly like a social cushion, take charge, on a scale of millions and millions of citizens, to compensate for their many dissatisfactions with medicine. And the Fnomceo has done well to ethically protect homeopathic
doctors, considering them simply an extension of the scientific ones. Homeopathy is a complement, scientific in its own way, in relation to official medicine in turn, in its scientific way.
Science is not just knowledge, but a way of being knowledge-based.
What is the difference between an inexact science and a pseudoscience?
But apart from this, I wonder and ask Prof. Burioni and his misguided supporters: if scientific evidence is ordinarily a deceptive test that is empirically falsifiable, and if medicine is not an exact science, and if the pseudoscience is in turn an inexact science, where is the difference between an inexact science and pseudoscience?
There is a risk that if we insist on considering medicine as an exact science, when it is not, in the eyes of this society it can be considered a pseudoscience. After all, I ask you, in your opinion, this hesitation to use scientific medicine of vast sectors of the population: from where does it arise? The more we insist on proposing a falsely exact and infallible medicine, the more the citizens are justified to consider scientific medicine a pseudoscience, and therefore to seek the solution to their problems elsewhere.
What proof and which method?
At this point I would like to reassure Prof. Burioni, that it
is obvious:
• We can not renounce having evidence as proof of truth, • We can not renounce a method of verification,
We must point out a difference between science and pseudoscience,
12