I still disagree with the idea that all CAM should be thrown out as unscientific nonsense; I think that there are bits of CAM which should be researched
I absolutely agree. I’m a pretty strong critic of CAM, but I also suspect there are bits of useful therapy stuck in the morass of pseudoscience that are worth digging out. Herbal remedies, for example, undoubtedly have biologically active compounds which could potentially have real value (and, of course, real risks), we just won’t know what they are until they are properly studies. The resistance to researching CAM comes almost entirely from the CAM proponents, who believe their methods have already been clearly established to work and who see research as, at best, a marketing tool to quiet skeptics and, at worst, a deliberate effort by Big Pharma to quash “natural” therapies.
Of course, there are some CAM methods that have been studies and have failed clearly and consistently such that further research is an unjustified waste of resources (e.g. homeopathy, most applications of chiropractic other than musculoskeletal disorders). And there are others that are pure religion and can’t/shouldn’t be treated like scientific hypotheses at all (e.g. Reiki,“energy medicine” of various sorts). But I agree that there are elements of CAM which are worth investigating. I’m just not sure separating the effective from the nonsense will be achievable given the deep philosophical/epistemological differences between the scientific world view an that informing most CAM approaches.