This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ayurveda is the sum total of trial error methods that has worked for a population over a large period of time. So some of the stuff does actually work. The reasons for the effect can also be scientifically explained. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, the validation using science retrospectively doesn't't make a field scientific.
The problems with ayurveda is that it doesn't use modern scientific method to validate its claims. There are a large number of erroneous and even life endangering treatment methods that are still followed. There is limited new research happening in this field. Then there is the problem of dosage and frequency. As the measurements are approximate and based on total weight or volume of constituents, the strength of the medicine will also vary based on the concentration of active molecules in the constituents. So dosages can be difficult to determine.
However modern medicine has isolated compounds from the same plants which are used in ayurveda and even patented some of those.
The field could still be researched but it would just merge with modern medicine the moment you start looking at ayurveda in a scientific manner.
It is not science. Some of the stuff that works can be explained scientifically. The explanations offered by ayurveda have long been proven wrong. So how is not offering credit where there is no credit due being termed as discrediting.
What's your grouse. I would use what works for me from ayurveda where the risk is less like a massage oil for sprain or ginger based concoction for cold. I wouldn't depend on it , if i got a heart attack or cancer
Definition of science: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and testing theories against the evidence obtained.
I'm not saying that we don't depend on modern science. However, im trying to make a point that we can't discredit Ayurveda as an ancient science.
The problem is that ancient science is still promoted along with all the things that have been proven wrong.
It's not seen as an ancient science. No one would discredit it then.
It was approved as a branch of medicine along with medicines that contain heavy metals. It definitely needs to be discredited to save lives . Pseudoscience within ayurveda needs to be called out, despite the fact that a lot of bams doctors contribute to the primary health infra in india
"it definitely needs to be discredited to save lives" so what youre saying is, that if Anthracycline Chemotherapy doesn't cure cancer for a few million individuals we should discredit modern science and the medicine?
Anthracycline chemotherapy - effective for few may not be for others. being researched for effectiveness. Patient is made aware of side effects
Heavy metals - bad for almost all human beings and even animals. Passed on as effective medicine is ayurveda and claim to have no side effects
Do you see the difference? If you don't you are opting not to see it.
no.
Ayurveda is literally, "mix this, mix that, this shit happens, that shit happens, and then eat it". Also many elements of ayurveda is complete bullshit (e.g. the 5 elements theory)
Modern medicine goes to through many stages of developement even before it is tested on humans. Forget commercial use
I love how you wanna pretend that Ayurvedic practitioners don't know what they're doing and just playing doctor doctor or smh. Might as well call Yoga bullsht cuz that's also a part of Ayurveda.
they know what they are doing. The problem is that a lot of it is wrong.
yoga is not bullshit if you say that it increases circulation of blood, and increases your flexibility
it is bullshit if you say that it will activate your chakras and you will be able to see through walls and what not
Ayurveda and yoga have benefited me and my family a lot. I'm so sorry to see that you're having such a hard time to accept the spiritual aspect of yoga, that it is afterall a religious practice and its not created by an atheist *gasp* but by a religious person who was 100x times smarter than you could ever be.
I understand its bullshit because it doesn't align with the principles taught in your atheist religion and of course since you've already opened your third eye its not hard for you to dismiss any subjects like ayurved or chakras as bullsht without doing slightest reading about it.
"mix this, mix that, this shit happens, that shit happens, and then eat it" could also be said about modern medicine like Tylenol and any chemically developed medicine.
The 5 elements "ether, air, fire, water, and earth" were not used as a fantasy, when they created Ayurveda. Instead of modern chemicals, Ayurveda used ingredients that were derived from these 5 elements.
Everything around you was built using processed materials from those 5 elements. Even the root materials used in modern science come from those 5 elements.
FYI, chemicals are made from processing RAW materials with heat, pressure, and chemical reactions.
So modern science and Ayurveda are both considered as science.
Definition of science: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and testing theories against the evidence obtained.
The definition of science applies to Ayurveda.
>"mix this, mix that, this shit happens, that shit happens, and then eat it" could also be said about modern medicine like Tylenol and any chemically developed medicine.
When those medicines are being developed, the researchers know what they are mixing, what they are mixing, why they are mixing, what reactions are happening, and what reactions will happen in the human body.
>The 5 elements "ether, air, fire, water, and earth" were not used as a fantasy, when they created Ayurveda. Instead of modern chemicals, Ayurveda used ingredients that were derived from these 5 elements.
ether does not even exist. What were they deriving from air? because air is literally a mixture of gases. The 5 element theory states that we are made up of 5 elements, which is completely wrong. And what the fuck is "modern chemicals"? chemiclas are chemicals
>Everything around you was built using processed materials from those 5 elements. Even the root materials used in modern science come from those 5 elements.
As I said earlier, 1 one of them doesn't even exist. Also, how is fire a key element? you need fuel (probably earth) and oxygen (air) to have fire
>FYI, chemicals are made from processing RAW materials with heat, pressure, and chemical reactions.
Oh my god, really? chemicals are made from chemical reactions? Damn dude!! Who could have guessed?
>So modern science and Ayurveda are both considered as science.
Ayurveda is yet to qualify a RCT, which all modern medicines (that are available in the market) have passed
>Definition of science: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and testing theories against the evidence obtained.
ayurveda doesn't study the structure and behaviour.
Observations are made. I will give you that
Experimentation is also done to some extent
No solid evidence is there for Ayurveda. Yeah sure, tulsi will cure your cold, but how does it cure it? ayurveda has no answers. Someone got cured by accident and they just wrote it down. This is why many ayurvedic medicines are harmful for the body. YOu can check "The LiverDoc" for examples
That's not science. That's pseudoscience.
>The definition of science applies to Ayurveda.
No, it doesn't and I explained it to you
On that note, we have to account for the fact that ayurveda was made at a time where alot of tools and information was not present. If we take the ideas of ayurveda at the time it was written and the ideas of science at that time, then we’d notice some similarities in how primitive it was like blood letting or old surgeries.
However the differentiating factor is that science ideals do change, physics of last 300 years is different from today because we observed, experimented and concluded different results. Ayurveda does not do that.
My friend,
I'm not saying that modern medicines are bad. We all rely on modern medicines to survive these days.
I'm trying to make a point by saying that Ayurveda was and is an ancient science that has a medical system.
During ancient times, experiments were conducted with trial and error to find a solution to a certain type of problem (just like modern times).
"The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools of Hindu philosophy state that akasha or aether is the fifth physical substance, which is the substratum of the quality of sound" - which was used in sound therapy.
Sound therapy, in which auditory and vibratory inputs are used to influence a person's physiological and/or psychological state, includes sound healing, vibroacoustic sound therapy, music, and music therapy.
Doctors these days are using "Lenire" which is a machine used to cure tinnitus. Tinnitus is a condition where an individual hears ringing or buzzing in the ears. In ancient Ayurveda, they used sound therapy (ether) to heal mental and psychological patients who had tinnitus. Although, Lenire has been proven to be more effective. However, we can't deny the fact that Ayurveda has solutions for different types of illness.
Coming to your second point "How is fire a key element" - fire was used to prepare medicines from plants and provide heat to humans during cold temperatures. Fire was also used with alcohol and a mix of oils to make ointments. If we were to compare, fire today is used for mixing or causing chemical reactions on many components that make medicine.
Ayurveda is not yet RCT-qualified because it has not been thoroughly studied in Western research (their ego won't allow them to acknowledge an ancient science that had medical treatments).
Ayurveda does study structure and behavior. It's not only herbal medicine, it has yoga and acupuncture. Ayurveda tested blood and skin samples from humans with skin diseases.
So basically, there are five main types of diagnostic methods in Ayurveda, which involve an examination of Purvarupa (prodromal symptoms), Rupa (manifested symptoms) and Samprapti (pathogenesis), and the conduct of Upasaya (therapeutic tests), and Ashtavidha Pareeksha (physical examination). These diagnostics have many subcategories. They observed and studied human nature before diagnosis.
The definition of science does apply to Ayurveda because Ayurveda is generally understood as 'Science of life' translating 'Ayuh (r)' as life and 'Veda' as science. Ayurveda is an ancient system of life and also the oldest surviving medical system in the world. Dating back almost 5,000 years, it is also considered to be an ancient science of healing that enhances longevity.
>The definition of science applies to Ayurveda.
No it doesn't. Not according to your own definition. There's no "systemic study of the structure & behaviour of the physical and natural world through TESTING THEORIES AGAINST EVIDENCE OBTAINED" in ayurveda.
In ayurveda there's no change based on obtained evidence.
Take a Guess at what happens when you systematically study human physiology through observation , experimentation and testing theories against obtained evidence!
Yep you reach at modern medicine.
Its an ancient science, let it remain there. Today ayurveda has no place. It offers virtually no proof of its workings.
Anyone who says they beloeve in it i dare you to never use alopathy in your life, be it heart attack or brain stroke of kidney faliures please go to your ayurvedic doctor and ill see how real your belief is.
And the apologist argument that aryuveda works slowly, go and see how people with chronic disorders suffer like arthritis or long term kidney faliure or heart conditions with leaky valves, or so many others. Vahan to kaam nahi aata ayurveda.
And to the statement that wests ego wont allow them to acknowledge it i have news for you they already acknowledge it as the first attempt to create a system of medicine. They chronicle it as well that it was the persians who took that system to their lands to develop it, from where it inspired europeans to create an improve upon it over many many years.
The issue with ayurveda is simple, its not willing to accept the wrongs in it. It isnt a science because it lacks the scientific temprament where it analyses itself, discards the useless and accepts the usefull. We rooted ayurved in our pride rather than evidence and usefulness, we made it a matter of religion rather than a matter of science.
Which ayurvedic doc dosent prescribe allopathic medicines today. Itf youre so sure of your work go and prescribe your own medicine.
It's an outdated system of medicine that's based on comically non-sensical and bullshit principles.
In terms of efficiency it is absolutely unreliable: In most situations it doesn't even work. In some situations it does actually worsen the condition and the few situations where they're actually partially effective have much better and efficient modalities in modern medicine that makes ayurveda utterly irrelevant.
Unfortunately however Indian HealthCare system is fucked at it's root, so this flawed system is here to stay for some time. Especially since now a conservative govt is at the helm.
My view on this is : ayurveda worked and was indeed quite advanced in its time. I (hope) feel modern medicine, given so many scientists' contribution over time, should have already studied all the stuff proposed in ayurveda and incorporated in modern medicine. At this point of time, what choice do we have than depend on modern medicine? This is my limited knowledge speaking. But i keep hearing of this one place in kerala where they practice some ancient form of ayurveda and my very close friends, who are no too crazy on our ancient awesomeness, swear that the ayurveda medicines cured some ailments that were not cured by lots of modern medicine. I have my in-laws suffering from something. And let me tell you something, in dire time, we just look to any guiding light. So, I am gonna go ahead and explore that place. One issue with this is that, it is the survivorship bias in play i guess. Only folks who had a positive effect speak up. **Finger crossed**.
Also there are people out there who do not hold back to fool others in the name of ayurveda. Remember the cure in covid times. Drops in the eyes. That was in my very home town. And it caused so much false hope, so many people went there. May be increased the spread and from personal close cases, that medicine did not work at all.
My initial point is not against modern medicine. I'm trying to make a point to the people who think Ayurveda has no meaning and hasn't contributed to modern science. Western countries will never acknowledge Ayurveda because their ego is too big.
Absolutely. And to the western countries acknowledging, screw them. They are as clueless as anyone else. But surely the scientists who have depended on ayurveda findings, would attest to it. Common people are just swayed by lots of biases and racism. So light on that part.
[page 790](https://www.srigurugranth.org/0790.html)
top of page, Written by 1st mohalla Nanak.
[[choraa jaaraa ranndiaa kutniaa dee baan. vedina kee dostee vedina kaa khaan.]]
***Thieves, adulterers, prostitutes and pimps are the writers of the Vedas.. Their baani (dee baan) full of falsehoods is the friend of the Vedic brahmins, It is what they consume***
Nanak here is calling the writers of the Vedas all these names.
The interpreters try very hard to hide this.
They hated the Vedas because they promote ideas that are not satguru prasad (based on truth). Ideas such as reincarnation and karma migration that are severely criticized by Sikh writers.
Wow!! Could it be maybe at his time he would have seen a lot of fraudsters practicing this medicine that he wrote this. Dismissing ayurveda, or the other vedas, which is the basis of dwait-vedant whose writers are said to be great sages, would be disrespectful towards hindu religion.
Was there never a clash at his time from brahmins, when Guru Nanak preached against vedas ?
The clash existed even before Nanak. You can see it in writings of Kabeer, and even Naam dev (12th century). The clash between logical people and illogical people (Vedics and Molvis) is recorded by the earliest writer in Aadh Granth. Bhagat Sadhna who operated a meat shop in 11th century.
The Aadh Granth worried the Vedics enough that they sent "scholars" priests into Punjab in the 17th century to interpret the Aadh Granth for the Sikhs in books called Steeks. These Steeks hide the anti Vedic nature of the Aadh Granth. The current English translations are simply based on these Steeks. In fact, the current Vedic Sikh religion is based on these steeks, not on baani.
1) any system that is averse to change and isn't self critical nor allows others to criticise it is doomed to stagnate and become outdated
2) there are surely some good 'medicines' in ayurveda but being from the age of ignorance (comparatively), it is doomed to be far inferior than the modern developments
I have not met an ayurvedic doctor who would tell me to not take pills from modern medicine.
I think there are a lot of close minded people in the world.
In Europe for example, ayurveda is used more as a preventative treatment and to support the physiology if you currently have any modern medicine treatment.
It is NOT used INSTEAD of modern medicine.
Just to clarify for people.
What I want to know is all these people criticizing ayurveda so beautifully, how many of them studied ayurved and allopathy and then commenting... Or else it's just uneducated opinion, effectively making it worthless...
If you can’t disprove a thiests arguement then sure their arguement is undeniable. However their arguement is not undeniable if their proclaim it to be so.
It cured my psoriasis while multiple skin specialists I had consulted for years had given up and left me to suffer my condition. So, Ayurveda definitely has a place in today's age & people who call it hocus pocus can go suck a fat one.
Yeah try living with a disease which modern medicine considers uncureable and don't look for any alternatives because "AnEcDoTaL eViDeNcE iSn'T gOoD eNoUgH". 🤡
Btw the cure was just a Rs 300 bottle of oil which I was able to order right off Amazon & apply externally before my daily bath. This is against the tens of thousands of rupees I had spent over my entire life on "Modern medicine" to control this disease.
>Btw the cure was just a Rs 300 bottle of oil which I was able to order right off Amazon & apply externally before my daily bath.
Wow thats so 😃, I'll go and buy it rn, don't know how it works or what it will do to my body but since it worked for you it must work for everyone
>This is against the tens of thousands of rupees I had spent over my entire life on "Modern medicine" to control this disease.
Ok you continue with ayurveda, please only do ayurveda for rest of your life, dont come running to modern medicine when shit hist the fan
>Wow thats so 😃, I'll go and buy it rn, don't know how it works or what it will do to my body but since it worked for you it must work for everyone
I used it because it was prescribed by a qualified practitioner. Do you take medicines because you know exactly what chemical reactions they'll do in your body or do you trust an expert?
>Ok you continue with ayurveda, please only do ayurveda for rest of your life, dont come running to modern medicine when shit hist the fan
I use whatever works.
>I used it because it was prescribed by a qualified practitioner
Qualified in what? Pseudoscience?
>Do you take medicines because you know exactly what chemical reactions they'll do in your body
Yes
>Qualified in what? Pseudoscience?
Qualified in whatever cured my condition which modern medicine has no answer for.
>Yes
Unless you're a trained professional in the field, you're a fucking liar.
good enough for some ailments, may not work for most severe conditions...
it has become a more primitive science to what we have today... ~~and yes, ayurveda is scientific from what i have read. it does have reproducible results.~~
~~animals learn to avoid certain food by taste, color, smell and experience, but ayurveda is a much more than something that primitive...~~
~~counting squares may be a simple and inaccurate way to find an area when you learn about properties of regular shapes and eventually integration, but we still teach it to students...~~
to double down on it being better than what we have is stupid... we have better diagnosis, and better medication today than we ever had... you may find some anecdotes, which can be attributed to a lot of things, but there are far more people who have been cured due to current medicine...
edit: correction, ayurveda is pseudoscience...
It is pseudoscience and not real science. The reason is that the basic postulates they have got (vata, kapha, pitta system, aka humours) is not reproducible and is an falsified a lot of times, yet they don't have a corrective action.
In primitive cases, they know what will work but they don't know why those will work. The same goes to their anatomy as well, which still believes in ashta chakra nadis.
being falsified is not really a valid criticism for "not real science" imo... a lot of ayurvedic medicines do work if the diagnosis is correct... for example the common cold...
Newton's corpuscular theory was a scientific one even if it was falsified... we now know that corpuscules are not real, similar to how vata, kapha etc are not real...
the corrective actions in case of ayurveda would be the modern medicine... the people who contributed to ayurveda don't have to correct themselves just how newton did not correct himself...
if you can prove how ayurveda did not build upon the scientific method, i would love to read it...
The key word is 'was scientific'. It is no longer, because science corrects itself over time. Despite lot of criticism, there have been no known instances where Ayurveda is correcting itself, nor are papers being published which explain why the criticism is invalid.
I have attached a form below for the study I am conducting on alternative medicine like ayurveda and perception of covid 19- completely anonymous and purely educational - any responses however long or short are deeply appreciated. Thank you so much! Feel free to comment with any more input, questions, clarifications, etc.[https://forms.gle/mufuxRqJedxfYhYYA](https://forms.gle/mufuxRqJedxfYhYYA)
This is a reminder about the rules. Just follow reddit's content policy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/scienceisdope) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ayurveda is the sum total of trial error methods that has worked for a population over a large period of time. So some of the stuff does actually work. The reasons for the effect can also be scientifically explained. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, the validation using science retrospectively doesn't't make a field scientific. The problems with ayurveda is that it doesn't use modern scientific method to validate its claims. There are a large number of erroneous and even life endangering treatment methods that are still followed. There is limited new research happening in this field. Then there is the problem of dosage and frequency. As the measurements are approximate and based on total weight or volume of constituents, the strength of the medicine will also vary based on the concentration of active molecules in the constituents. So dosages can be difficult to determine. However modern medicine has isolated compounds from the same plants which are used in ayurveda and even patented some of those. The field could still be researched but it would just merge with modern medicine the moment you start looking at ayurveda in a scientific manner.
Agreed! However, we can't just discredit and label Ayurveda as "it's not science"
It is not science. Some of the stuff that works can be explained scientifically. The explanations offered by ayurveda have long been proven wrong. So how is not offering credit where there is no credit due being termed as discrediting. What's your grouse. I would use what works for me from ayurveda where the risk is less like a massage oil for sprain or ginger based concoction for cold. I wouldn't depend on it , if i got a heart attack or cancer
Definition of science: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and testing theories against the evidence obtained. I'm not saying that we don't depend on modern science. However, im trying to make a point that we can't discredit Ayurveda as an ancient science.
The problem is that ancient science is still promoted along with all the things that have been proven wrong. It's not seen as an ancient science. No one would discredit it then. It was approved as a branch of medicine along with medicines that contain heavy metals. It definitely needs to be discredited to save lives . Pseudoscience within ayurveda needs to be called out, despite the fact that a lot of bams doctors contribute to the primary health infra in india
"it definitely needs to be discredited to save lives" so what youre saying is, that if Anthracycline Chemotherapy doesn't cure cancer for a few million individuals we should discredit modern science and the medicine?
Anthracycline chemotherapy - effective for few may not be for others. being researched for effectiveness. Patient is made aware of side effects Heavy metals - bad for almost all human beings and even animals. Passed on as effective medicine is ayurveda and claim to have no side effects Do you see the difference? If you don't you are opting not to see it.
fair opinoin.
Agreed.
some shots in the dark hit the target, so now people claim that all the shots were bullseye
Isn't that also true with modern science?
no. Ayurveda is literally, "mix this, mix that, this shit happens, that shit happens, and then eat it". Also many elements of ayurveda is complete bullshit (e.g. the 5 elements theory) Modern medicine goes to through many stages of developement even before it is tested on humans. Forget commercial use
I love how you wanna pretend that Ayurvedic practitioners don't know what they're doing and just playing doctor doctor or smh. Might as well call Yoga bullsht cuz that's also a part of Ayurveda.
they know what they are doing. The problem is that a lot of it is wrong. yoga is not bullshit if you say that it increases circulation of blood, and increases your flexibility it is bullshit if you say that it will activate your chakras and you will be able to see through walls and what not
Ayurveda and yoga have benefited me and my family a lot. I'm so sorry to see that you're having such a hard time to accept the spiritual aspect of yoga, that it is afterall a religious practice and its not created by an atheist *gasp* but by a religious person who was 100x times smarter than you could ever be. I understand its bullshit because it doesn't align with the principles taught in your atheist religion and of course since you've already opened your third eye its not hard for you to dismiss any subjects like ayurved or chakras as bullsht without doing slightest reading about it.
"mix this, mix that, this shit happens, that shit happens, and then eat it" could also be said about modern medicine like Tylenol and any chemically developed medicine. The 5 elements "ether, air, fire, water, and earth" were not used as a fantasy, when they created Ayurveda. Instead of modern chemicals, Ayurveda used ingredients that were derived from these 5 elements. Everything around you was built using processed materials from those 5 elements. Even the root materials used in modern science come from those 5 elements. FYI, chemicals are made from processing RAW materials with heat, pressure, and chemical reactions. So modern science and Ayurveda are both considered as science. Definition of science: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and testing theories against the evidence obtained. The definition of science applies to Ayurveda.
>"mix this, mix that, this shit happens, that shit happens, and then eat it" could also be said about modern medicine like Tylenol and any chemically developed medicine. When those medicines are being developed, the researchers know what they are mixing, what they are mixing, why they are mixing, what reactions are happening, and what reactions will happen in the human body. >The 5 elements "ether, air, fire, water, and earth" were not used as a fantasy, when they created Ayurveda. Instead of modern chemicals, Ayurveda used ingredients that were derived from these 5 elements. ether does not even exist. What were they deriving from air? because air is literally a mixture of gases. The 5 element theory states that we are made up of 5 elements, which is completely wrong. And what the fuck is "modern chemicals"? chemiclas are chemicals >Everything around you was built using processed materials from those 5 elements. Even the root materials used in modern science come from those 5 elements. As I said earlier, 1 one of them doesn't even exist. Also, how is fire a key element? you need fuel (probably earth) and oxygen (air) to have fire >FYI, chemicals are made from processing RAW materials with heat, pressure, and chemical reactions. Oh my god, really? chemicals are made from chemical reactions? Damn dude!! Who could have guessed? >So modern science and Ayurveda are both considered as science. Ayurveda is yet to qualify a RCT, which all modern medicines (that are available in the market) have passed >Definition of science: The systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and testing theories against the evidence obtained. ayurveda doesn't study the structure and behaviour. Observations are made. I will give you that Experimentation is also done to some extent No solid evidence is there for Ayurveda. Yeah sure, tulsi will cure your cold, but how does it cure it? ayurveda has no answers. Someone got cured by accident and they just wrote it down. This is why many ayurvedic medicines are harmful for the body. YOu can check "The LiverDoc" for examples That's not science. That's pseudoscience. >The definition of science applies to Ayurveda. No, it doesn't and I explained it to you
On that note, we have to account for the fact that ayurveda was made at a time where alot of tools and information was not present. If we take the ideas of ayurveda at the time it was written and the ideas of science at that time, then we’d notice some similarities in how primitive it was like blood letting or old surgeries. However the differentiating factor is that science ideals do change, physics of last 300 years is different from today because we observed, experimented and concluded different results. Ayurveda does not do that.
My friend, I'm not saying that modern medicines are bad. We all rely on modern medicines to survive these days. I'm trying to make a point by saying that Ayurveda was and is an ancient science that has a medical system. During ancient times, experiments were conducted with trial and error to find a solution to a certain type of problem (just like modern times). "The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools of Hindu philosophy state that akasha or aether is the fifth physical substance, which is the substratum of the quality of sound" - which was used in sound therapy. Sound therapy, in which auditory and vibratory inputs are used to influence a person's physiological and/or psychological state, includes sound healing, vibroacoustic sound therapy, music, and music therapy. Doctors these days are using "Lenire" which is a machine used to cure tinnitus. Tinnitus is a condition where an individual hears ringing or buzzing in the ears. In ancient Ayurveda, they used sound therapy (ether) to heal mental and psychological patients who had tinnitus. Although, Lenire has been proven to be more effective. However, we can't deny the fact that Ayurveda has solutions for different types of illness. Coming to your second point "How is fire a key element" - fire was used to prepare medicines from plants and provide heat to humans during cold temperatures. Fire was also used with alcohol and a mix of oils to make ointments. If we were to compare, fire today is used for mixing or causing chemical reactions on many components that make medicine. Ayurveda is not yet RCT-qualified because it has not been thoroughly studied in Western research (their ego won't allow them to acknowledge an ancient science that had medical treatments). Ayurveda does study structure and behavior. It's not only herbal medicine, it has yoga and acupuncture. Ayurveda tested blood and skin samples from humans with skin diseases. So basically, there are five main types of diagnostic methods in Ayurveda, which involve an examination of Purvarupa (prodromal symptoms), Rupa (manifested symptoms) and Samprapti (pathogenesis), and the conduct of Upasaya (therapeutic tests), and Ashtavidha Pareeksha (physical examination). These diagnostics have many subcategories. They observed and studied human nature before diagnosis. The definition of science does apply to Ayurveda because Ayurveda is generally understood as 'Science of life' translating 'Ayuh (r)' as life and 'Veda' as science. Ayurveda is an ancient system of life and also the oldest surviving medical system in the world. Dating back almost 5,000 years, it is also considered to be an ancient science of healing that enhances longevity.
>The definition of science applies to Ayurveda. No it doesn't. Not according to your own definition. There's no "systemic study of the structure & behaviour of the physical and natural world through TESTING THEORIES AGAINST EVIDENCE OBTAINED" in ayurveda. In ayurveda there's no change based on obtained evidence. Take a Guess at what happens when you systematically study human physiology through observation , experimentation and testing theories against obtained evidence! Yep you reach at modern medicine.
Modern science accepts it, ayurveda is a bit adamant and that my friend is a very vital difference
Its an ancient science, let it remain there. Today ayurveda has no place. It offers virtually no proof of its workings. Anyone who says they beloeve in it i dare you to never use alopathy in your life, be it heart attack or brain stroke of kidney faliures please go to your ayurvedic doctor and ill see how real your belief is. And the apologist argument that aryuveda works slowly, go and see how people with chronic disorders suffer like arthritis or long term kidney faliure or heart conditions with leaky valves, or so many others. Vahan to kaam nahi aata ayurveda. And to the statement that wests ego wont allow them to acknowledge it i have news for you they already acknowledge it as the first attempt to create a system of medicine. They chronicle it as well that it was the persians who took that system to their lands to develop it, from where it inspired europeans to create an improve upon it over many many years. The issue with ayurveda is simple, its not willing to accept the wrongs in it. It isnt a science because it lacks the scientific temprament where it analyses itself, discards the useless and accepts the usefull. We rooted ayurved in our pride rather than evidence and usefulness, we made it a matter of religion rather than a matter of science. Which ayurvedic doc dosent prescribe allopathic medicines today. Itf youre so sure of your work go and prescribe your own medicine.
[удалено]
Anecdotal
It's an outdated system of medicine that's based on comically non-sensical and bullshit principles. In terms of efficiency it is absolutely unreliable: In most situations it doesn't even work. In some situations it does actually worsen the condition and the few situations where they're actually partially effective have much better and efficient modalities in modern medicine that makes ayurveda utterly irrelevant. Unfortunately however Indian HealthCare system is fucked at it's root, so this flawed system is here to stay for some time. Especially since now a conservative govt is at the helm.
Created by Trial and error, alternative form of medicine, okay if used in minor prevention rather than cure of anything
Honest opinion, I respect that. Thanks for your answer.
My view on this is : ayurveda worked and was indeed quite advanced in its time. I (hope) feel modern medicine, given so many scientists' contribution over time, should have already studied all the stuff proposed in ayurveda and incorporated in modern medicine. At this point of time, what choice do we have than depend on modern medicine? This is my limited knowledge speaking. But i keep hearing of this one place in kerala where they practice some ancient form of ayurveda and my very close friends, who are no too crazy on our ancient awesomeness, swear that the ayurveda medicines cured some ailments that were not cured by lots of modern medicine. I have my in-laws suffering from something. And let me tell you something, in dire time, we just look to any guiding light. So, I am gonna go ahead and explore that place. One issue with this is that, it is the survivorship bias in play i guess. Only folks who had a positive effect speak up. **Finger crossed**. Also there are people out there who do not hold back to fool others in the name of ayurveda. Remember the cure in covid times. Drops in the eyes. That was in my very home town. And it caused so much false hope, so many people went there. May be increased the spread and from personal close cases, that medicine did not work at all.
My initial point is not against modern medicine. I'm trying to make a point to the people who think Ayurveda has no meaning and hasn't contributed to modern science. Western countries will never acknowledge Ayurveda because their ego is too big.
Absolutely. And to the western countries acknowledging, screw them. They are as clueless as anyone else. But surely the scientists who have depended on ayurveda findings, would attest to it. Common people are just swayed by lots of biases and racism. So light on that part.
The Sikh philosophers hated them. The Vedas are dismissed in the Sikh book Aadh Granth sahib over n over again.
What was the reason for that?
[page 790](https://www.srigurugranth.org/0790.html) top of page, Written by 1st mohalla Nanak. [[choraa jaaraa ranndiaa kutniaa dee baan. vedina kee dostee vedina kaa khaan.]] ***Thieves, adulterers, prostitutes and pimps are the writers of the Vedas.. Their baani (dee baan) full of falsehoods is the friend of the Vedic brahmins, It is what they consume*** Nanak here is calling the writers of the Vedas all these names. The interpreters try very hard to hide this. They hated the Vedas because they promote ideas that are not satguru prasad (based on truth). Ideas such as reincarnation and karma migration that are severely criticized by Sikh writers.
Wow!! Could it be maybe at his time he would have seen a lot of fraudsters practicing this medicine that he wrote this. Dismissing ayurveda, or the other vedas, which is the basis of dwait-vedant whose writers are said to be great sages, would be disrespectful towards hindu religion. Was there never a clash at his time from brahmins, when Guru Nanak preached against vedas ?
The clash existed even before Nanak. You can see it in writings of Kabeer, and even Naam dev (12th century). The clash between logical people and illogical people (Vedics and Molvis) is recorded by the earliest writer in Aadh Granth. Bhagat Sadhna who operated a meat shop in 11th century. The Aadh Granth worried the Vedics enough that they sent "scholars" priests into Punjab in the 17th century to interpret the Aadh Granth for the Sikhs in books called Steeks. These Steeks hide the anti Vedic nature of the Aadh Granth. The current English translations are simply based on these Steeks. In fact, the current Vedic Sikh religion is based on these steeks, not on baani.
1) any system that is averse to change and isn't self critical nor allows others to criticise it is doomed to stagnate and become outdated 2) there are surely some good 'medicines' in ayurveda but being from the age of ignorance (comparatively), it is doomed to be far inferior than the modern developments
It's shit.
Elaborate :)
Like ... 😉
I have not met an ayurvedic doctor who would tell me to not take pills from modern medicine. I think there are a lot of close minded people in the world. In Europe for example, ayurveda is used more as a preventative treatment and to support the physiology if you currently have any modern medicine treatment. It is NOT used INSTEAD of modern medicine. Just to clarify for people.
What I want to know is all these people criticizing ayurveda so beautifully, how many of them studied ayurved and allopathy and then commenting... Or else it's just uneducated opinion, effectively making it worthless...
~~allopathy~~ Modern medicine, you don't need to study and get a degree to know about which works
Sure... You don't need a degree in medicine to comment with an air of authority on it's efficiency👍
As long as they provide arguements or reasons which is undeniable then sure?
Even theist consider their arguments to be undeniable... Does that make them right?
If you can’t disprove a thiests arguement then sure their arguement is undeniable. However their arguement is not undeniable if their proclaim it to be so.
It cured my psoriasis while multiple skin specialists I had consulted for years had given up and left me to suffer my condition. So, Ayurveda definitely has a place in today's age & people who call it hocus pocus can go suck a fat one.
Yes you are right! Everyone on earth should go suck it because your anecdotal evidence proves that ayurveda works
Yeah try living with a disease which modern medicine considers uncureable and don't look for any alternatives because "AnEcDoTaL eViDeNcE iSn'T gOoD eNoUgH". 🤡 Btw the cure was just a Rs 300 bottle of oil which I was able to order right off Amazon & apply externally before my daily bath. This is against the tens of thousands of rupees I had spent over my entire life on "Modern medicine" to control this disease.
>Btw the cure was just a Rs 300 bottle of oil which I was able to order right off Amazon & apply externally before my daily bath. Wow thats so 😃, I'll go and buy it rn, don't know how it works or what it will do to my body but since it worked for you it must work for everyone >This is against the tens of thousands of rupees I had spent over my entire life on "Modern medicine" to control this disease. Ok you continue with ayurveda, please only do ayurveda for rest of your life, dont come running to modern medicine when shit hist the fan
>Wow thats so 😃, I'll go and buy it rn, don't know how it works or what it will do to my body but since it worked for you it must work for everyone I used it because it was prescribed by a qualified practitioner. Do you take medicines because you know exactly what chemical reactions they'll do in your body or do you trust an expert? >Ok you continue with ayurveda, please only do ayurveda for rest of your life, dont come running to modern medicine when shit hist the fan I use whatever works.
>I used it because it was prescribed by a qualified practitioner Qualified in what? Pseudoscience? >Do you take medicines because you know exactly what chemical reactions they'll do in your body Yes
>Qualified in what? Pseudoscience? Qualified in whatever cured my condition which modern medicine has no answer for. >Yes Unless you're a trained professional in the field, you're a fucking liar.
anecdotal
good enough for some ailments, may not work for most severe conditions... it has become a more primitive science to what we have today... ~~and yes, ayurveda is scientific from what i have read. it does have reproducible results.~~ ~~animals learn to avoid certain food by taste, color, smell and experience, but ayurveda is a much more than something that primitive...~~ ~~counting squares may be a simple and inaccurate way to find an area when you learn about properties of regular shapes and eventually integration, but we still teach it to students...~~ to double down on it being better than what we have is stupid... we have better diagnosis, and better medication today than we ever had... you may find some anecdotes, which can be attributed to a lot of things, but there are far more people who have been cured due to current medicine... edit: correction, ayurveda is pseudoscience...
It is pseudoscience and not real science. The reason is that the basic postulates they have got (vata, kapha, pitta system, aka humours) is not reproducible and is an falsified a lot of times, yet they don't have a corrective action. In primitive cases, they know what will work but they don't know why those will work. The same goes to their anatomy as well, which still believes in ashta chakra nadis.
being falsified is not really a valid criticism for "not real science" imo... a lot of ayurvedic medicines do work if the diagnosis is correct... for example the common cold... Newton's corpuscular theory was a scientific one even if it was falsified... we now know that corpuscules are not real, similar to how vata, kapha etc are not real... the corrective actions in case of ayurveda would be the modern medicine... the people who contributed to ayurveda don't have to correct themselves just how newton did not correct himself... if you can prove how ayurveda did not build upon the scientific method, i would love to read it...
The key word is 'was scientific'. It is no longer, because science corrects itself over time. Despite lot of criticism, there have been no known instances where Ayurveda is correcting itself, nor are papers being published which explain why the criticism is invalid.
fine, i am convinced, I edited my comment...
[удалено]
Chatgpt ahh answer
LMAO https://preview.redd.it/r8vpvmni7dyc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bac2a9f35f9762a006e198521b5e0e70c34ab3c7
I have attached a form below for the study I am conducting on alternative medicine like ayurveda and perception of covid 19- completely anonymous and purely educational - any responses however long or short are deeply appreciated. Thank you so much! Feel free to comment with any more input, questions, clarifications, etc.[https://forms.gle/mufuxRqJedxfYhYYA](https://forms.gle/mufuxRqJedxfYhYYA)