Earlier quoted context omitted.
A millennia of trial and error vs a century or so of methodical science. Certainly the science is much more effective, but there must be some gems in that great big pile of trial and error too. Also we shouldn't underestimate the healing power of careful attention, empathy, and placebo effects.
Yes... that's what I said... finding new treatments is like finding needles in a haystack, and science is the magnet. When it comes to traditional medicine, most of the haystack is really just hay. Historical trial and error told people what not to do, but it did not distinguish between ineffective and successful treatment due to generally high mortality rates and lack of rigorous testing. If you have time, browse th…
Citation needed? You can't blindly assert that something doesn't work by appealing to scientific methodology and its heavy reliance on proof without actually bringing that proof to the table.
Otherwise you're just arguing from your own heuristics and prior beliefs—just like other non-scientific traditions. You might be right, or you might be wrong; but cloaking that claim with the mantle of science is the exact opposite of careful scientific scrutiny.
> but it did not distinguish between ineffective and successful treatment due to generally high mortality rates and lack of rigorous testing.
And we're sure this is true for all cultures over all times how, exactly?
> ancient western medicine
This might be much more likely to be true since modern Western medicine developed from pre-modern Western medicine, so early modern doctors were intimately familiar with how effective (or not) those approaches were.
How likely is it that Western medicine has rigorously and thoroughly investigated non-Western medical traditions though?