The placebo effect
I was watching a documentary recently, about alternative therapies, and how effective they were. One of the points that was made repeatedly was that therapy in question (I’ll use reflexology in this example) couldn’t work, because there was no connection between the action and the effect. “Since there are no nerves running between the soles of the feet and the various organs in the human body, then reflexology cannot work”, was the theory. “Any therapies that do work, are due to the placebo effect”.
Fair enough, I thought. Until I realised that the logic that states “there is no possible connection, therefore it cannot work” actually nullifies the placebo effect. The placebo effect states that me taking a sugar pill will treat my hayfever. However, since there is no connection between me taking a sugar pill and my hayfever being cured, using the logic above, my hayfever cannot be cured by taking a sugar pill. Even though, in repeated scientific studies, actions such as these are seen to be happening.
Scientists have proved that the placebo effect exists. It’s a very readily accepted scientific fact. However, there must be some kind of connection between the sugar pill and the hayfever for it to have an effect. Saying that “since there is no possible connection, it cannot work” with regards to reflexology, and then saying “even though there is no possible connection, it is obviously working” with regards to the hayfever/sugar pill test, is extremely illogical. Both of those statements cannot be correct.
So which is the case? Which statement is correct?
It’s either a] there is no connection = it cannot work or b] there is no connection = it can work. I’m really quite surprised that a community that is founded on logic doesn’t realise the illogic of these two statements. Individually, they are both capable of being correct. But they can’t both be. One of them has to be incorrect.
For example, if you stimulate a nerve on the sole of the foot to treat a headache, and take a sugar pill to treat a headache, in a situation where there is no connection in either instance, then they must either both work or neither work. You can’t have one of them working, and the other not, because it simply isn’t logical. If one does work, and the other doesn’t, then there must be a connection with the one that works, even if science says that there can’t be. One plus one equals two, always.
What makes most sense to me, is that the placebo effect does work (which is a scientific fact), but that we can’t yet perceive the connection. Gravity existed long before Newton was hit on the head by an apple. The connection was there, but nobody had seen it yet. Nobody had worked out a way to “view” gravity.
If there are any logicians out there that can explain this apparent dichotomy to me, I’d really appreciate it. I’d love to be proved wrong in this case. Or proved right. I don’t mind. 
