How do you know what is real?

Headlines in today's Sunday Star-Times: 'Science is only now proving what natural health practitioners say they have known for years'. http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/features/4944581/Making-better-babies

The story pits Peter Gluckman, chief science advisor to the Prime Minister, against Loula George, Naturopath. Peter Gluckman announced the other day that he had discovered a link between a mother's diet during pregnancy and the chances of her baby later being obese. Loula's reaction: well, duh, we know that already.

But do we? In Peter Gluckman's world, this was 'the most important finding of my career and means that, for the first time ever there was a way of working out what a mother should eat'. This was new knowledge. He 'wasn't sure naturopaths have much to contribute to this matter. It's not evidence-based science. Belief and knowledge are two different things.'

This article highlights the chasm between objectivism where knowledge can only be proven by recognised scientific methods, and subjectivism, where there is no one reality, no one answer.

Peter Gluckman dismisses naturopaths out of hand - they work on a belief system - not a knowledge system. Their ways are pseudo-science, hocus pocus, witch doctory, quackery.

To the naturopath, it is not that simple - what Loula George has been doing for over 20 years has shown good results in her patients. It is common sense to eat well before and during pregnancy so that your baby has the best chance of being born healthy. Science doesn't need to prove anything to tell us that.

So how do we really know something? Do we need absolute, replicable, measurable proof? This seems to be Peter Gluckman's argument. But how real is this? Can we expect that gradually science will give us all the answers about how the world really works?

Don't get me wrong, I think that science has given us some pretty cool stuff - electricity, computers, technology, cars. But I'm not convinced that science is the total answer when we are dealing with something as unique and sensitive as our own selves.

Western medicine is based on science. Objective, positive science. A medicine is only approved once it has been through clinical - scientific, replicable, provable, trials.

But do we know everything we possibly can know about medicine? The scientists will agree with the non-scientists that we do not. The difference is in our approach to developing more knowledge. While scientists will work in laboratories to build on the absolute proofs they have already, others will seek alternative forms of therapy, based on alternative forms of knowledge.

Many of these are based on close observation of individuals, and have centuries of history. Alternative practitioners have theories which guide how they approach a patient. Many of these approaches focus on identifying and implementing treatment that is right for that individual in front of them. Defining treatment may be based on science, on beliefs, or a mixture of the two. And many, many people will tell you that the various approaches work for them.

So why does Peter Gluckman dismiss this knowledge out of hand as a quackery? And how many people out there will only visit traditional medical practitioners because of some fear that what will be prescribed for them will be witch-doctory of some kind? I'm not convinced that our traditional medical practitioners have all the answers. Like all other areas of our lives, I believe that medicine should be a combination of science - provable facts - and beliefs / best guesses / approaches that work.

Don't dismiss alternative practitioners out of hand. Find out more about them, about their approaches, about their beliefs and knowledge. It might surprise you how much they know.

Around Taupo to DGov

First, I've got to share what my sister said when I said (via text) 'I've been accepted! I'm doing a PhD! Her response... 'a what?'. A what?

Its only about six weeks later that I really have started to think 'a what'. Study wasn't really on my horizon this time last year. Or even this time three months ago.

Don't get me wrong, I finished my masters and thought it was pretty cool. I really enjoyed the research part where I went out and talked with all these passionate people who made me think, rethink and think again about what evaluation is and how you can get better value out of it in government. I know, most of you will go 'a what?'. But for me, evaluation is one of the most powerful tools a government can use to really fix in on making things work really well - and stopping doing the stuff that doesn't work well. And a lot of the time the effort and money that goes into evaluation in government is wasted. So I had a look at why. And I came up with some answers.

Anyway, most of you probably stopped back there. And the purpose of this blog is to share why on earth I've signed up to do six years of study. It's not about getting to be called 'Dr' at the end of it. Really its not. Well, that's not the biggest part.

For me, the Doctorate of Government fits for me right now. Its a practical course, designed to be undertaken alongside a full-time job in government. Now, I've never conceived of the notion of being anything less than a full-time worker. It's my security but even more than that, it's my sanity. So doing study at the same time as working suited me. And doing a doctorate... wow, what an opportunity.

I wonder how much my excitement for this is similar to what I felt about doing Taupo. Taupo, for me, challenged me beyond belief. It gave me a whole new perspective on what was possible and what I could push my body to do. There was science involved - what to eat, what to wear, how to ride. But there was something much more visceral than that - it caused a fundamental change in the way I view myself, my body and my mind.

So, a few weeks ago I did the Graperide. What a fantastic ride that was. I wasn't well, I woke up in the morning saying 'I'll pull out, I've been coughing all night, I feel bad, I won't do it'. Needless to say, I didn't have a choice. The rough advice was 'start it, if you need to stop, they have people who can bring you back'. So I was out of bed and on the bike before I knew it. My time for the Graperide wasn't that good. 4 hours 38 from memory, for 101kms. My main problem was a sore back - my new bike hadn't quite been set up right for me and it had aggravated a weak point - my back. But a lot of the time I was having a ball - riding in a bunch hitting a steady 32-35km/h - a huge improvement over Taupo.

So anyway, back to the DGov. This wasn't really a decision I took. When I got the offer of study, there was no question in my mind that this was the right thing for me. I don't even recall a decision on whether or not to apply - it just happened.

Is it that I'm so much more confident now that I can do anything I put my mind to? At times, my heart stops, thinking about how much work I will be doing in the next six years. But then my natural optimism kicks in, and reminds me how much fun I will have doing it, and then, how proud I will be of myself when I finish (there is no if in finish - its a definite when - I can see it all now). And I think it is a great thing for my daughter to see me do.

The DGov, like Taupo, will take a lot of hard work and commitment. But I know I will make some good friends along the way, learn a heap of stuff that is really fascinating and it will change the way I look at the world. What more could anyone ask for?