|
The
Palming of 'Medical Palmistry'
Dr. Santosh Helekar
A paper on Palmistry and its
purported use in Medicine has been published in the 2005 Archives of Goa
Medical College. It has been described in a lead article in the current
issue of the Goan Observer.
I think it is important to
critique this paper for its scientific merit, if any, because it makes
some extraordinary claims that have never been made in the mainstream
medical scientific literature. Being in possession of a little bit
of knowledge and experience in medical scientific research, I feel obliged
to offer my comments on the Goan Observer article.
To begin with this article boldly claims that a field called Medical
Palmistry is slowly emerging as a new branch of science or scientific
medicine. In support of this claim it merely provides what appear to
be some slightly reworded excerpts from a non-scientific internet
website
(Aarogya.Com)
devoted to promoting alternative medical therapies . It does not provide
any original references from the mainstream scientific or medical
literature to back its claim.
If one looks into the mainstream medical literature over the last 40
years, one finds no mention of medical palmistry, and no mention of it
being used to diagnose any disease.
There is, however, an area of
research called Dermatoglyphics which deals with the study of finger
prints, and to a lesser extent, palmar creases, in terms of their
development and their relationship to some birth defects and genetic
conditions.
This area of research has no
connection with Palmistry with its heart lines, head lines, life lines,
etc.
The assignment of names of
organs, parts of the body, states of health, accidents and emergencies,
and the very notions of life and death to various lines, crosses, cuts,
kinks etc in Palmistry, has no basis in science as we know it. No
scientific study in medical anatomy, developmental biology, physiology or
pathology has revealed any such evidence or rationale.
So there is no underlying
scientific hypothesis that would guide any objective medical researcher to
look for tell-tale signs of accidental head injuries on the line of head,
of heart ailment on the line of heart, or of fatal illness or longevity on
the line of life.
From a scientific standpoint
these are purely arbitrary assignments backed by nothing more than a
palmist's word.
What's more? Like Astrology, Palmistry is a hodge-podge of mutually
contradictory and internally inconsistent claims regarding many of these
assignments, depending on which Palmistry book one is reading.
Therefore, if objective medical researchers are interested in finding out
empirically whether there is any correlation between the lines and
patterns on the hand, and the ailments from which an individual suffers
then they have to be completely impartial and agnostic about any symbolic
significance that these features might have. More particularly, the
following requirements of a properly, impartially and dispassionately
conducted scientific study have to be met:
1. The medical researchers have to be blind observers in the conduct of
their observations in order to prevent conscious or unconscious observer
bias.
2. At least two independent observers who have no knowledge of the
ailments or general health status of the patients or subjects being
examined, and have to independently read their palms without divulging
their readings to each other.
3. The independent readings have to match with a high degree of
consistency and reliability when finally compared at the conclusion of the
study.
4. They have to study a sufficiently large number of randomly chosen
patients to enable them to draw statistically meaningful conclusions.
5. To distinguish between genuine correlations and purely random
coincidences, they have to study a sufficiently large number of randomly
chosen normal subjects whose composition in terms of various demographic
characteristics is comparable to that of the patient sample.
6. They have to apply proper statistical tests designed to rule out random
coincidences characteristic of multiple simultaneous comparisons.
7. Following the generally accepted convention, the statistical tests have
to reveal that the probability of occurrence by pure chance of any
observed correlation between an ailment and a palmar sign, is less than
5%.
A careful reading of the Goan Observer article reveals that none of the
above requirements have been met by the study described in it.
It is also worth noting that the
authors have not assumed any semblance
of an impartial stance at any point in their investigation. They have
failed to point out the existence of earlier studies by others
contradicting the central claims of Palmistry. There have been a number of
unsuccessful attempts in the past at finding correlations between
palmistic signs and life events. Please see the references appended below
for discussions on this issue.
Given these serious
deficiencies, I have to conclude that the extraordinary conclusions
reached in the said article do not pass scientific muster.
References
1. Park, M.A. 1982. "Palmistry: Science or Hand-Jive?" Skeptical
Inquirer, 7(2):21-32.
2. Boparai, M.S. 1992. Mind Pollution of Fortune Telling.
3. Edwards, Harry. 1993. "Cross my hand with a Fiver." The Skeptic,
Vol 13(3).
Santosh Helekar
February 7, 2006
To the Santosh Helekar page
Back to Front Page
|
