Is Ayurveda a scam? How the "science people" are not so scientific after all.

"Shilajit is scammy. Ayurveda is scammier. Yoga is scammiest."

There's a recent trend of calling traditional herbs, medicines and practices as "scams". This narrative is being peddled by people who've assumed the status of final arbiters and faithful protectors of "science". Question their thesis, and they'll tell you "how science works", and what "science is all about". And how some things are "unscientific".

Peddling such a narrative apparently drives a lot of social media engagement these days. Some people are impressed with such a "scientific" way of looking at things. But what's the bedrock of these people's thesis? What's their POV? And is it really scientific?

The core argument of these people against, let's say Turmeric, Shilajit, Ayurveda or Yoga in general, is that "there are not enough studies to prove that these things really work". There are a lot of anecdotal evidences/claims, but not enough formal research supporting them. No RCTs, no Peer reviews, no Meta Analysis and so on. Some idiots even harp up P-Values as the holy grail, even though they can be hacked and don't even matter.

But their point is, since these traditional herbs/practices have none of that "scientific" jazz playing for them, they're all a "scam".

But does that argument have any legs, "scientifically" speaking?

Can something be called a "scam", just because there's a lack of formal research backing it up? Does absence of formal evidence in case of these herbs/practices = evidence of absence of them being useful?

How does that work exactly?

So when you ask these "science people" the basis of their hypothesis, and how they're equating 'absence of evidence' with 'evidence of absence', they're quick to say:

"In science there’s a common saying, 'that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence'. If someone claims something works without presenting credible data, I can outrightly dismiss it. That’s how it works."

Well, okay! But is that "science"?

No. Not by a long shot.

Firstly, that's no "common saying in science". That line has nothing to do with "science". In fact, it traces its origins in theology, which is pretty much as far from "science" as you can go. That line is called Hitchens' Razor, and was propped up by Christopher Hitchens as an argument against evangelicals and essentially - god.

Hitchens was no scientist. Because if he was, he wouldn't have said that. Because, "science" fundamentally works on the principle of "falsification".

Basically, science advances not by proving things right, but by systematically trying to prove things wrong. Falsification is the main difference between science and pseudoscience.

So when these people call something a "scam" (despite many anecdotal evidences working for it since ages), ask them to back that claim with solid studies showing that it indeed DOES NOT work. Because if they’re claiming something is a scam because it doesn’t have enough studies in its side, they need to back it up with same academic rigour in the opposite direction.

Without assuming any burden of proof for themselves, these people are the ones pulling off the real "scam".

P.S. You just read an honest (and hopefully valuable) article for free. If you like reading my writing, please consider making donations. Amounts don't matter, gestures do. Here's a big cheers to all my Patrons!

Read more articles here.