Mod+ Why you, me, and our neighbors have a distrust of science and New York Times science journalists

[Neil]

I don't think following the questions you suggested helps you to understand, at all, how to predict beforehand which opinions Alex and others will hold. I've floated the suggestion (which is the only one which seems to work to distinguish views held by proponents from views held by skeptics) that judgements are based on whether or not something is anti-scientific establishment. This does seem to enable me to predict which opinions will be regarded as "following the data" and which will be mere "PR scheming".

Well the questions wouldn't be able to predict beforehand what Alex's view would be, but I don't see why that would matter for someone trying to determine what is most likely correct.

Did you read Alex's article? There doesn't seem to be any room for this in his stance.

I haven't. If he is indeed against using the questions I asked, that would appear to be unreasonable.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. Can you give a modern example of this - say from the last fifty years or so - where people were ridiculed or findings suppressed once there was evidence for an idea (please note that when I say "evidence", I am talking about its scientific use with respect to validity and reliability and whether or not the data makes an idea more or less likely to be true or false)?

I think there is a bit of a problem with very modern examples, since this seems to have a strong historical component. It is difficult to see what was definitely right or wrong without the benefit of hindsight and a decent amount of time. With that benefit, we can see obvious blunders and what was really correct.

I'm not sure how that's relevant. Alex isn't trying to dispute pre-scientific or folk science ideas. We're talking about the modern practice of science and modern theories.

Linda

I wouldn't call that pre-scientific or folk science. This was with medical doctors in about the mid 1800s. It still involved evidence from the main proponent, with resistance, suppression, and ridicule coming from the established medical community of the time. With the benefit of hindsight and significant time, we can see very clearly who was right and who was wrong. If the examples are too recent, we will end up debating it because we don't have the same degree of certainty. There are even examples within physics such as resistance to Maxwell's field theory, or Max Plank's resistance to his ideas, which seemed to lead to his famous quote about science progressing through deaths, not reason.

 

[David Bailey]

I had alert when tagged checked and it still didn't work. An admin may need to set user's privileges to allow tagging to make it work.

I don't know the difference between being tagged and being quoted - make sure both are set.

Unfortunately being a moderator doesn't imply actually knowing anything more about how the forum works :)

David

 

[Arouet]

I don't know the difference between being tagged and being quoted - make sure both are set.

Unfortunately being a moderator doesn't imply actually knowing anything more about how the forum works :)

David

yep, both were set. Probably something Alex has to enable.

 

[fls]

Ideally this would apply to all research, but since it would be expensive, it would initially be applied to research that was relevant to public policy.

Note that the idea would not be that individual statisticians would offer to review a piece of work (otherwise you might end up with pro-AGW and anti-AGW (say) enthusiasts simply publishing against each other), but that they would be picked from a pool and asked to review all relevant research work using similar principles. Ideally they might be involved during the work - long before publication.

How is this different from what already happens? Statisticians are already consulted for research. And after publication, research is scrutinized skeptically by other scientists, including statisticians. So what's the advantage of adding yet one more voice to the pot?

How would you solve the problem - or is it your opinion that there isn't a problem to solve?

David

Which problem? "You me and our neighbours have a distrust of science" isn't solved by adding more science to the pot. It's solved by identifying why lay-people want to come to different conclusions than the scientists. In the case of statins, for example, research which doesn't conform to your personal experience must be wrong in some way.

Linda

 

[fls]

Well the questions wouldn't be able to predict beforehand what Alex's view would be, but I don't see why that would matter for someone trying to determine what is most likely correct.

We're not trying to determine what is mostly likely correct. We are trying to determine how proponents decide that they are correct (so correct that scorn and derision can be heaped upon "scientific consensus").

I haven't. If he is indeed against using the questions I asked, that would appear to be unreasonable.

Right, but Alex doesn't see himself as the unreasonable one. It is clearly you and I who are unreasonable here.

I think there is a bit of a problem with very modern examples, since this seems to have a strong historical component. It is difficult to see what was definitely right or wrong without the benefit of hindsight and a decent amount of time. With that benefit, we can see obvious blunders and what was really correct.

Well, you gotta give me something other than an example which is 150 years old. If there aren't any more recent examples, then it suggests that science is doing fine in this regard.

I wouldn't call that pre-scientific or folk science. This was with medical doctors in about the mid 1800s. It still involved evidence from the main proponent, with resistance, suppression, and ridicule coming from the established medical community of the time. With the benefit of hindsight and significant time, we can see very clearly who was right and who was wrong.

I agree that at this time, the medical establishment did not "follow the data". But that was 150 years ago. Things have dramatically changed since then.

If the examples are too recent, we will end up debating it because we don't have the same degree of certainty.

I just want examples in order to get some idea of what you are talking about. They don't have to be certain.

There are even examples within physics such as resistance to Maxwell's field theory, or Max Plank's resistance to his ideas, which seemed to lead to his famous quote about science progressing through deaths, not reason.

Disagreement and criticism are part of the scientific process.

But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. Rather than scientists rejecting ideas for which there is evidence, we seem to have lay-people rejecting ideas which scientists regard as supported by evidence. Other than bad PR on the part of scientists, in what way does this represent a problem with the practice of science?

Linda

 

[Neil]

Which problem? "You me and our neighbours have a distrust of science" isn't solved by adding more science to the pot. It's solved by identifying why lay-people want to come to different conclusions than the scientists. In the case of statins, for example, research which doesn't conform to your personal experience must be wrong in some way.

Linda

In the example of statins, if you apply my questions, there are some massive conflict of interests involved with some research. This should automatically make anyone skeptical of supposedly good research or lack of negative results, since we know that there have even been pseudo journals exposed that were just fronts for pharmaceuticals. Not just that, the whole purpose of the statins is to reduce, for many people, a non-problem, especially considering that the definition of "high" cholesterol keeps getting dropped so more and more people are supposed to take the drugs. The lipid hypothesis has dramatically weakened, and cholesterol in and of itself is only a marker for something that is going on metabolically, and it does nothing to address the real problems, and of course has it's host of side effects. It's a drug attempting to cling to the old lipid hypothesis. Now this also happens to make sense with my own personal experience. So when I ask myself all those questions, the evidence to take a non-necessary drug (for most) just isn't making sense.

 

[Neil]

We're not trying to determine what is mostly likely correct. We are trying to determine how proponents decide that they are correct (so correct that scorn and derision can be heaped upon "scientific consensus").

Okay, then I suppose that is a much more sociological question. If I were to attempt to take a stab at it, it would be influenced by a growing public distrust in the scientific/academic community in general. I think some of the things that could have led to this distrust may be the following:

1. Religious fundamentalism, which is an illegitimate driver of ridiculous ideas that has somehow brainwashed a decent portion of the population.

2. For the lay public, nutrition science is an area that caused a major loss of confidence with all the flip-flopping of what is good or bad since many people have now lived long enough to actually see this flip flopping.

3. Increased realization of the problems with published research, where there have been fake journals that were fronts for pharmaceuticals, bad research, conflict of interests, etc.

4. The more recent negative sentiment towards corporations has probably driven even more skepticism towards products that they hock, especially combined with some of the negative findings regarding research/publication practices. Corporate cover-ups across the world of harm done and then later exposed also may play a role.

5. Very related to 4, there is probably a realization of previous con jobs by corporations that convinced people that something was either good for them or harmless, only to find out later that there were all sorts of cover-ups, manipulations of research, etc all in the interest of greed and profit.

6. Arrogance and closed-mindedness for certain topics of discussion may also play a role. It seems as if for many in the scientific/academic community that anything that may possibly be deemed quasi-religious or occult is grouped right in with religious fundamentalist ideas as non-topics. Arrogance and ignorant antagonism to religion and religious figures from public scientists can also cause a reaction and defense. For example, Lawrence Krauss saying that the Dalai Lama should step down was such an ignorant comment that it made me honestly and thoroughly enjoy David Albert's public lambasting of Krauss' self-inconsistent book. I was happy! Why? Because Krauss comes across as a total jack-ass and says some pretty idiotic things even though he is obviously highly educated. I now look at anything of his much more critically than I would of say, Brian Greene.

So while I could probably go on, I think the point is that there are factors that go into driving a more sociological type of reaction against science and academia. A lot of it is not logical, although some of it makes more sense. Antagonism and arrogance can create a reaction in the opposite direction from people, which ends up having negative aspects. This can lead some to much more automatic distrust of science, especially when there are corporate interests behind it (like with pharmaceuticals, or GMOs, etc).

Well, you gotta give me something other than an example which is 150 years old. If there aren't any more recent examples, then it suggests that science is doing fine in this regard.

I just moved and I still have all my research packed in boxes, so I am not going to be able to give very specific references at this time. I mentioned Plank's work as well as resistance from the mainstream to Maxwell's work on fields. I also know someone that was in vet school during a paradigm shift around 1980, where they studied under the idea that everything was autoimmune in nature, and then while still in school, all that was changed to virus theory. You should hear this woman talk about how upset her and all her classmates were to find out the entire idea under which they studied was changed while still in school! Lots of talk about wanting their tuition back. And of course, this paradigm has again changed. The lipid hypothesis is another more recent example (although I fear this may cause debate as I mentioned since it isn't old enough).

I agree that at this time, the medical establishment did not "follow the data". But that was 150 years ago. Things have dramatically changed since then.

Yes, but what has changed is that their screw-ups are now much more grand and complex, and often backed by corporate interests...

Disagreement and criticism are part of the scientific process.

But that doesn't seem to be what is happening here. Rather than scientists rejecting ideas for which there is evidence, we seem to have lay-people rejecting ideas which scientists regard as supported by evidence. Other than bad PR on the part of scientists, in what way does this represent a problem with the practice of science?

Linda

What happened with Maxwell's and Plank's work was not normal scientific disagreement and criticism. It was totally sociological in nature. That's why Planck later said the following:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

 

[fls]

In the example of statins, if you apply my questions, there are some massive conflict of interests involved with some research. This should automatically make anyone skeptical of supposedly good research or lack of negative results, since we know that there have even been pseudo journals exposed that were just fronts for pharmaceuticals.

Exactly. It is very well known in medicine that results can/will be altered by self-interest - inadvertently or deliberately. And psuedo journals are present for pretty much every field in science (which, again, is a well known concern ). If you take an evidence-based approach, this means that in some cases, research which otherwise would be of high quality, may be down-graded to good-quality instead, as this introduces a risk of bias. And that the solution is to address this risk of bias with measures such as logging all the results directly with an independent third-party.

What is not an evidence-based approach is to say, "since a small risk of bias has been introduced into high-quality research, let's abandon the findings from that research altogether and go with the findings collected under a super high risk of bias instead".

Not just that, the whole purpose of the statins is to reduce, for many people, a non-problem, especially considering that the definition of "high" cholesterol keeps getting dropped so more and more people are supposed to take the drugs. The lipid hypothesis has dramatically weakened, and cholesterol in and of itself is only a marker for something that is going on metabolically, and it does nothing to address the real problems, and of course has it's host of side effects. It's a drug attempting to cling to the old lipid hypothesis. Now this also happens to make sense with my own personal experience. So when I ask myself all those questions, the evidence to take a non-necessary drug (for most) just isn't making sense.

How do you expect this to be sorted out - through continued, careful research which directly tests these ideas or by going with your intuition?

Linda

 

[fls]

Okay, then I suppose that is a much more sociological question. If I were to attempt to take a stab at it, it would be influenced by a growing public distrust in the scientific/academic community in general. I think some of the things that could have led to this distrust may be the following:

1. Religious fundamentalism, which is an illegitimate driver of ridiculous ideas that has somehow brainwashed a decent portion of the population.

Agreed.

2. For the lay public, nutrition science is an area that caused a major loss of confidence with all the flip-flopping of what is good or bad since many people have now lived long enough to actually see this flip flopping.

I think this is a good example where the process of science is exposed and people are intuitively uncomfortable with it. I think that there is a perception that when there is evidence for an idea, it means that we are fairly certain that the idea is true. This is false most of the time. Most ideas are false to start with, and 'evidence' tends to make them somewhat less likely to be false, but still much more likely to be false than true. It isn't until you get into the realm of performing good quality research where your ideas are more likely to be true than false. See table 4 in this paper:

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124#s7

This means that as evidence builds for a particular idea, and seems to all be pointing in the same direction, as we perform exploratory and then our initial confirmatory research, it may still end up being completely reversed whenever good quality studies are performed. Much of the time, that process is invisible to the lay-person - they are unaware of the frequency with which evidence supports false ideas. What they see instead is the final product - those ideas which have survived the more rigorous tests of whether they are true or false. But there are areas in which recommendations need to be made when all you have to go on is fair quality studies and the results from good quality research are not yet available. Dietary and nutrition recommendations is one of these areas. As that good quality research becomes available, some of those recommendations will be altered and a few overturned. What you call "flip-flopping" is what you see in any field of investigation as good progress is made in figuring out which recommendations are valid and which are not.

Rather than a sign that science is to be distrusted, the fact that recommendations change is a sign that the process works. So this is a good example of how our intuitions about the process (the uncertainty makes us uncomfortable) mislead us. It is actually non-flip-flopping advice and recommendations that you should be most uncomfortable with.

However, I agree with you that this is likely one of the reasons for a general distrust in science, which isn't helped by the Alt-Med anti-consensus-science campaign which they depend upon to interest people in their products.

3. Increased realization of the problems with published research, where there have been fake journals that were fronts for pharmaceuticals, bad research, conflict of interests, etc.

This is also an example of our intuitions moving us in the wrong direction. These problems are best addressed by the increasing awareness and transparency. Science was less trustworthy when lay-people weren't aware of these issues, but awareness of the issues leads them to have less trust rather than more. But again, I agree that this contributes to the perception.

4. The more recent negative sentiment towards corporations has probably driven even more skepticism towards products that they hock, especially combined with some of the negative findings regarding research/publication practices. Corporate cover-ups across the world of harm done and then later exposed also may play a role.

5. Very related to 4, there is probably a realization of previous con jobs by corporations that convinced people that something was either good for them or harmless, only to find out later that there were all sorts of cover-ups, manipulations of research, etc all in the interest of greed and profit.

Yeah, I think that there is an increased cynicism and many groups get lumped in with corporate interests without any distinction made as to whether or not there is independence. I found this in the 911 thread as well, where anybody who has experience and knowledge within a field was dismissed as "the establishment" without any consideration as to whether or not any trace of dependence could be found between them and our lizard overlords.

6. Arrogance and closed-mindedness for certain topics of discussion may also play a role. It seems as if for many in the scientific/academic community that anything that may possibly be deemed quasi-religious or occult is grouped right in with religious fundamentalist ideas as non-topics. Arrogance and ignorant antagonism to religion and religious figures from public scientists can also cause a reaction and defense. For example, Lawrence Krauss saying that the Dalai Lama should step down was such an ignorant comment that it made me honestly and thoroughly enjoy David Albert's public lambasting of Krauss' self-inconsistent book. I was happy! Why? Because Krauss comes across as a total jack-ass and says some pretty idiotic things even though he is obviously highly educated. I now look at anything of his much more critically than I would of say, Brian Greene.

You are confirming my perception of the Skeptical movement. I also notice a distinction between when someone is writing about science and someone is writing about skepticism. Martin Gardner was a good example for me. I loved reading his mathematics books and columns. Which made me assume that I would like his books on skepticism. But I didn't (admittedly, I've only read part of one). I was uncomfortable when I encountered fallacious reasoning and generic dismissals. Something like "Psychology of the Skeptics" by Marks and Kamann was much better, as it was specifically about investigating and testing claims made by Tart and Puthoff. If I am put off by some of the general trends in the Skeptical movement (as someone who is at least sympathetic with some of the ideas), I wondered whether it could be regarded as useful for anything other than preaching to the choir. If it's off-putting to the general public, I suspect that some of that perception rubs off on to science, even though the two are distinct.

So while I could probably go on, I think the point is that there are factors that go into driving a more sociological type of reaction against science and academia. A lot of it is not logical, although some of it makes more sense. Antagonism and arrogance can create a reaction in the opposite direction from people, which ends up having negative aspects. This can lead some to much more automatic distrust of science, especially when there are corporate interests behind it (like with pharmaceuticals, or GMOs, etc).

And it is in a lot of group's interest to lead people to that distrust.

I just moved and I still have all my research packed in boxes, so I am not going to be able to give very specific references at this time. I mentioned Plank's work as well as resistance from the mainstream to Maxwell's work on fields.

So we are still going with an example from over a hundred years ago? Resistance is normal - people are protecting their own ideas as well. How do we know when someone is exhibiting unreasonable resistance to adopting a new idea or they are ignoring clueless mutterings?

ETA: As an example, why aren't we characterizing parapsychology as clinging to a failed paradigm by unreasonably resisting the new research which tells us so much about the ways in which cognitive biases and heuristics conspire to create the appearance of an effect when none is present, or the research into the ways in which the 'effect' within the field can simply be a measure of the prevailing bias created by experimental practices?

I also know someone that was in vet school during a paradigm shift around 1980, where they studied under the idea that everything was autoimmune in nature, and then while still in school, all that was changed to virus theory. You should hear this woman talk about how upset her and all her classmates were to find out the entire idea under which they studied was changed while still in school! Lots of talk about wanting their tuition back. And of course, this paradigm has again changed. The lipid hypothesis is another more recent example (although I fear this may cause debate as I mentioned since it isn't old enough).

Why are you calling those "paradigms"? I agree that lots of ideas are tested, and that at various times different ideas seem to be regarded as promising (which means that you have more people flocking into that area of research). And some of these ideas pan out and some don't. But this is what you'd expect when the practice of science is about following promising leads and investigating novel ideas.

Yes, but what has changed is that their screw-ups are now much more grand and complex, and often backed by corporate interests...

Can you give me some examples of what you are thinking of with "their screw-ups"?

What happened with Maxwell's and Plank's work was not normal scientific disagreement and criticism. It was totally sociological in nature. That's why Planck later said the following:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

So ideas are not sorted on the basis of validity, but are sorted on the basis the palatability with respect to sociological factors?

Linda

 

[Neil]

I think this is a good example where the process of science is exposed and people are intuitively uncomfortable with it. I think that there is a perception that when there is evidence for an idea, it means that we are fairly certain that the idea is true. This is false most of the time. Most ideas are false to start with, and 'evidence' tends to make them somewhat less likely to be false, but still much more likely to be false than true. It isn't until you get into the realm of performing good quality research where your ideas are more likely to be true than false. See table 4 in this paper:

http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124#s7

This means that as evidence builds for a particular idea, and seems to all be pointing in the same direction, as we perform exploratory and then our initial confirmatory research, it may still end up being completely reversed whenever good quality studies are performed. Much of the time, that process is invisible to the lay-person - they are unaware of the frequency with which evidence supports false ideas. What they see instead is the final product - those ideas which have survived the more rigorous tests of whether they are true or false. But there are areas in which recommendations need to be made when all you have to go on is fair quality studies and the results from good quality research are not yet available. Dietary and nutrition recommendations is one of these areas. As that good quality research becomes available, some of those recommendations will be altered and a few overturned. What you call "flip-flopping" is what you see in any field of investigation as good progress is made in figuring out which recommendations are valid and which are not.

Rather than a sign that science is to be distrusted, the fact that recommendations change is a sign that the process works. So this is a good example of how our intuitions about the process (the uncertainty makes us uncomfortable) mislead us. It is actually non-flip-flopping advice and recommendations that you should be most uncomfortable with.

While reading this, I couldn't find any disagreement, so I realized that this must not capture entirely what occurred to create the distrust. I think it was probably more how everything was presented to the public. I know some researchers were dismayed by how their research was presented, and felt they were misrepresented, however doctors certainly followed with the low-fat low-cholesterol and other general recommendations that came from the lipid hypothesis. Not only did marketing play a huge role, with everything being advertised as "low fat," or "no cholesterol," even if it was made of complete garbage, and sugar was added to compensate for the lack of fat. Somehow, though, margarine seemed to have support as being better than butter by research, doctor's advice, and of course corporate marketing, and this convinced people of it being true. This is not even mentioning that the government even used this to change official policy with dietary recommendations.

So while I am certainly not an expert on the history of the lipid hypothesis, there seems to be a lot more to it than just changing the general consensus based on the most current research. Did it start because of the original study on saturated fat did not support the conclusions, yet the researchers either consciously or subconsciously manipulated the data, or perhaps used poor methods, in order to publish successful findings, or be behind a discovery? That would be an area to blame researchers themselves. Or was it where doctors didn't carefully assess the research before using it to guide recommendations? It is nearly impossible for doctors to carefully assess a lot of research while actively practicing medicine, which itself is a problem, and part of it is because of how the profession has evolved, especially today, where there is almost just no time to do this for a typical PCP. Was it because of corporate interests taking the hypothesis and running with it, marketing it aggressively to the public? Was it because the government changed their dietary recommendations based on this, perhaps through lack of cautious and careful scientific scrutiny, and perhaps also because of lobbying of corporations that may have felt this would benefit them?

So I am glad you raised your point, because really I think there was an interplay of many factors here that led to, what should have been just a hypothesis requiring confirmatory research, to change in public policy, recommendations by doctors, and marketing of the idea by corporations with a financial interest, which led to this hypothesis being perceived as true. When research started to question these findings, it was heavily resisted for a long time, much more so than should occur in a normal scientific setting since there then existed public policies in place, along with what seemed like an almost brain-washing of medical doctors, and of course corporate interests that would then lobby to maintain their interests in these recommendations.

However, I agree with you that this is likely one of the reasons for a general distrust in science, which isn't helped by the Alt-Med anti-consensus-science campaign which they depend upon to interest people in their products.

This is another good point that is very important. The alternative medicine and nutritional supplement industries also have their financial interests, and can be just as guilty, if not more so, then pharmaceutical companies in exploiting research or even falsely presenting information as being true. I have more of a sports nutrition background, and the supplement industry is pretty bad in a lot of ways. Certain companies are often digging the grave of the supplement industry, especially in the sports supplement category. The whole prohormone ban was a good example, where unregulated prohormones and sometimes pretty much outright steroids were sold as dietary supplements. There were certain categories of methylated oral supplements that were extremely harsh on the liver, and far more dangerous than most actual steroids (some case reports from personal contacts were alarming). The new steroid supplements would eventually be banned, only to have a slight chemical tweak and then remarketed since it was technically a different compound under the law, just trying to make money and stay one step ahead of the law as long as they could.

I recently had a conversation with a nutrition researcher I know about how most research on dietary supplements, especially herbal supplements, is almost useless, yet it is used to market products for that particular purpose, not even mentioning all the problems with herbal supplements such as the quality, what part of the plant, what form on standardization, or even if the supplement even contains the claimed herb in the first place. But even with that, how long did it take for science to confirm that asprin worked, even though it had essentially be used as folk medicine for over 2000 years in Europe, and an unknown time of likely even longer by Native Americans.

So while there are effective alternative treatments, supplements, and supplement companies, they are given a bad name by these types of practices. It does seem that currently there is not enough skepticism towards these products in general, and those in-the-know would say that most supplements people take are utter garbage, and many with potential negative consequences.

This is also an example of our intuitions moving us in the wrong direction. These problems are best addressed by the increasing awareness and transparency. Science was less trustworthy when lay-people weren't aware of these issues, but awareness of the issues leads them to have less trust rather than more. But again, I agree that this contributes to the perception.

It does seem that this is improving, but there is an awful lot of improvement still needed. I would suggest that this initial exposure of these problems is far more troubling to the lay population than for you and I. I remember having a discussion with an individual that is a co-host on a science podcast about the problem of induction, and metaphysical assumptions of current theories, and he was in utter denial about any of these, because current science is based on "facts." Oh boy! So when there is exposure that these "facts" are questionable, due to the pedestal science is placed upon, many may think that the science as a whole is untrustworthy.

In some ways, it is hard to entirely blame the public, because even many educated people aren't educated in these aspects of science, and think it is based on established "facts." If this is the view of many educated people, what then will be the lay opinion that is often based on the opinions of these educated folks?

Yeah, I think that there is an increased cynicism and many groups get lumped in with corporate interests without any distinction made as to whether or not there is independence. I found this in the 911 thread as well, where anybody who has experience and knowledge within a field was dismissed as "the establishment" without any consideration as to whether or not any trace of dependence could be found between them and our lizard overlords.

Yeah, that one sounds really tough. Government conspiracy theories can be pretty deep and confusing rabbit holes, which is why I generally do not get involved in them (other than UFOs). Government and corporate conspiracies happen so much that these conspiracy theories almost rely on a plausibility argument alone!

You are confirming my perception of the Skeptical movement. I also notice a distinction between when someone is writing about science and someone is writing about skepticism. Martin Gardner was a good example for me. I loved reading his mathematics books and columns. Which made me assume that I would like his books on skepticism. But I didn't (admittedly, I've only read part of one). I was uncomfortable when I encountered fallacious reasoning and generic dismissals. Something like "Psychology of the Skeptics" by Marks and Kamann was much better, as it was specifically about investigating and testing claims made by Tart and Puthoff. If I am put off by some of the general trends in the Skeptical movement (as someone who is at least sympathetic with some of the ideas), I wondered whether it could be regarded as useful for anything other than preaching to the choir. If it's off-putting to the general public, I suspect that some of that perception rubs off on to science, even though the two are distinct.

It's funny how I somehow missed the skeptic movement, so thank you for bringing this up. I think the skeptical movement and many of its organizations such as CSI actually damage trust in science.

Your comment about it being distinct from science is true on the one hand, but effectively in different ways this ends up not being the case. CSI recruits scientists, so there are often big names essentially backing these organizations (for example, Carl Sagen), and then other scientists, while not using this as research, would allow it to influence and form their opinions on many subjects without real investigation. CSI has a history of attempting to influence policies, such as with remote viewing programs, and have been influential in even shutting down these programs. They also influence research grants, making it difficult to perform certain types of research. So in the end, you have a pseudo-scientific organization presenting themselves as scientific, influencing scientific opinions and what can even be researched, yet many are increasingly of the opinion that they are dogmatists and science is also guilty by association of the same dogmatism and aggressive hostility (people like Dawkins and Krauss certainly do not help, either, since this strengthens this association).

And it is in a lot of group's interest to lead people to that distrust.

Yes, I agree. And it is often seen that because of the problems with the mainstream position that the alternative positions and practices are then true by default!

So we are still going with an example from over a hundred years ago? Resistance is normal - people are protecting their own ideas as well. How do we know when someone is exhibiting unreasonable resistance to adopting a new idea or they are ignoring clueless mutterings?

Yes, I am purposefully using an old example. I am suggesting that these questions are ultimately decided by history. Only after a good amount of time can we clearly see who was right, who was wrong, and who was exhibiting unreasonable resistance to new ideas. Before the Wright brothers actually flew, was in unreasonable to say that man couldn't possibly fly based on physics? We know now, but if we were in that period of time and understood the world the way in which they did, that wouldn't be such a clearly absurd claim of impossibility.

: As an example, why aren't we characterizing parapsychology as clinging to a failed paradigm by unreasonably resisting the new research which tells us so much about the ways in which cognitive biases and heuristics conspire to create the appearance of an effect when none is present, or the research into the ways in which the 'effect' within the field can simply be a measure of the prevailing bias created by experimental practices?

History will tell whether or not psi was a monumental scientific discovery or a lengthy example of problems within scientific research.

Why are you calling those "paradigms"? I agree that lots of ideas are tested, and that at various times different ideas seem to be regarded as promising (which means that you have more people flocking into that area of research). And some of these ideas pan out and some don't. But this is what you'd expect when the practice of science is about following promising leads and investigating novel ideas.

As presented by the individual, it was a paradigm because it was not that there was an idea that some things are auto-immune, but rather than everything was essentially auto-immune in nature, and this changed to thinking that everything was viral in nature. They were not taught as individual hypotheses.

Can you give me some examples of what you are thinking of with "their screw-ups"?

I think the lipid hypothesis fits the bill. There is still nutrition research going on under the assumption that it is true. It's odd to still see papers published that run experiments and test hypotheses that are based on a false premise.

So ideas are not sorted on the basis of validity, but are sorted on the basis the palatability with respect to sociological factors?

Linda

Well, no, not entirely, but it does play a role in how the ideas are received. The sociological factors can stall the establishment of a discovery, but in the end the discovery wins by virtue of proving to lead to better predictions and that sort of thing.

 

[Neil]

How do you expect this to be sorted out - through continued, careful research which directly tests these ideas or by going with your intuition?

Linda

Intuition is never the arbiter of truth; significant reproduction of significant empirical results will be the judge. However, in nutrition, there are what I would call anchors. For example, if one wishes to claim veganism is the best diet for humans, my anchor is that this is a diet foreign to humans since we are not herbivores (based on solid physiological and paleoanthropological data), and that it is established that not all of our required forms of nutrients can be obtained through a vegan diet alone. With this anchor, if there is conflicting research that is undecidable on its own, then I will say that we should not adopt a vegan diet because it is an un-natural diet with known issues. Obviously not all topics can have such anchors.

 

[fls]

While reading this, I couldn't find any disagreement, so I realized that this must not capture entirely what occurred to create the distrust. I think it was probably more how everything was presented to the public. I know some researchers were dismayed by how their research was presented, and felt they were misrepresented, however doctors certainly followed with the low-fat low-cholesterol and other general recommendations that came from the lipid hypothesis. Not only did marketing play a huge role, with everything being advertised as "low fat," or "no cholesterol," even if it was made of complete garbage, and sugar was added to compensate for the lack of fat. Somehow, though, margarine seemed to have support as being better than butter by research, doctor's advice, and of course corporate marketing, and this convinced people of it being true. This is not even mentioning that the government even used this to change official policy with dietary recommendations.

Are you talking about the US?

I agree that marketing and media overtook the science. I guess I make a distinction between which parts are relevant to science and which are relevant to more sociological issues. But I don't think happens all that much with respect to public perception of science.

So while I am certainly not an expert on the history of the lipid hypothesis, there seems to be a lot more to it than just changing the general consensus based on the most current research. Did it start because of the original study on saturated fat did not support the conclusions, yet the researchers either consciously or subconsciously manipulated the data, or perhaps used poor methods, in order to publish successful findings, or be behind a discovery? That would be an area to blame researchers themselves. Or was it where doctors didn't carefully assess the research before using it to guide recommendations? It is nearly impossible for doctors to carefully assess a lot of research while actively practicing medicine, which itself is a problem, and part of it is because of how the profession has evolved, especially today, where there is almost just no time to do this for a typical PCP.

Physicians mostly depend upon evidence-based evaluations by other medical groups. This may range from peers who publish evidence-based reviews on specific topics (e.g. Annals of Internal Medicine Journal Club) to review committees associated with specialty boards (e.g. http://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(14)00023-3/fulltext) to review committees associated with government bodies (e.g. United States Preventive Services Task Force). Almost always, these guidelines/recommendations are published with full reference to the research which guides them. So if you want to take issue with something, it can be on the basis of a discussion of the evidence.

Was it because of corporate interests taking the hypothesis and running with it, marketing it aggressively to the public?

I suspect this was by far the biggest contributor to any disconnection between the science and public perception.

Was it because the government changed their dietary recommendations based on this, perhaps through lack of cautious and careful scientific scrutiny, and perhaps also because of lobbying of corporations that may have felt this would benefit them?

The US government in particular seems susceptible to lobbying.

So I am glad you raised your point, because really I think there was an interplay of many factors here that led to, what should have been just a hypothesis requiring confirmatory research, to change in public policy, recommendations by doctors, and marketing of the idea by corporations with a financial interest, which led to this hypothesis being perceived as true. When research started to question these findings, it was heavily resisted for a long time, much more so than should occur in a normal scientific setting since there then existed public policies in place, along with what seemed like an almost brain-washing of medical doctors, and of course corporate interests that would then lobby to maintain their interests in these recommendations.

I'm missing something here. What hypothesis was perceived as true and where/how has it been dropped?

This is another good point that is very important. The alternative medicine and nutritional supplement industries also have their financial interests, and can be just as guilty, if not more so, then pharmaceutical companies in exploiting research or even falsely presenting information as being true. I have more of a sports nutrition background, and the supplement industry is pretty bad in a lot of ways. Certain companies are often digging the grave of the supplement industry, especially in the sports supplement category. The whole prohormone ban was a good example, where unregulated prohormones and sometimes pretty much outright steroids were sold as dietary supplements. There were certain categories of methylated oral supplements that were extremely harsh on the liver, and far more dangerous than most actual steroids (some case reports from personal contacts were alarming). The new steroid supplements would eventually be banned, only to have a slight chemical tweak and then remarketed since it was technically a different compound under the law, just trying to make money and stay one step ahead of the law as long as they could.

I recently had a conversation with a nutrition researcher I know about how most research on dietary supplements, especially herbal supplements, is almost useless, yet it is used to market products for that particular purpose, not even mentioning all the problems with herbal supplements such as the quality, what part of the plant, what form on standardization, or even if the supplement even contains the claimed herb in the first place.

I don't disagree with any of that.

But even with that, how long did it take for science to confirm that asprin worked, even though it had essentially be used as folk medicine for over 2000 years in Europe, and an unknown time of likely even longer by Native Americans.

The problem is that almost all folk medicine is wrong. It took so long to 'confirm it worked' because actually finding out whether or not something works is a very recent phenomenon relative to the history of medicine. Folk medicines which have fairly dramatic short term effects (like pain killers or emetics) are fairly easy to establish. This was the low-hanging fruit which was picked early on. But beyond that, there is usually little relationship to be found between a substance's folk uses and the conditions for which it is actually effective. Aspirin was used as treatment for various pyretic conditions, such as malaria, when all it was doing was relieving the fever. It's benefits with respect to atherosclerosis were unknown. And its effect on the gastric mucosa was unrecognized and it was sometimes used to treat painful gastric ulcers - something which we now know would be frankly harmful.

Substances which have a traditional medicinal use tend to, as a group, contain more biologically active/useful substances than an unselected population. But using 'traditional use' to direct further research has not been particularly fruitful.

It does seem that this is improving, but there is an awful lot of improvement still needed. I would suggest that this initial exposure of these problems is far more troubling to the lay population than for you and I. I remember having a discussion with an individual that is a co-host on a science podcast about the problem of induction, and metaphysical assumptions of current theories, and he was in utter denial about any of these, because current science is based on "facts." Oh boy! So when there is exposure that these "facts" are questionable, due to the pedestal science is placed upon, many may think that the science as a whole is untrustworthy.

That is my perception as well.

In some ways, it is hard to entirely blame the public, because even many educated people aren't educated in these aspects of science, and think it is based on established "facts." If this is the view of many educated people, what then will be the lay opinion that is often based on the opinions of these educated folks?

I have been interested in identifying sources of information -i.e. science writers - who get this and who do a good job of conveying it. Often these are writers who are also active scientists (or have been). Interestingly, the New York Times is one of the sources which often has good science writing, yet Alex identifies it as a poor source. Maybe this gets at what Alex is complaining about. It does seem to be a fairly constant factor in proponent criticisms. Examples are given of a change in a scientific idea which is used as a sign that science is doing it wrong in general.

It's funny how I somehow missed the skeptic movement, so thank you for bringing this up. I think the skeptical movement and many of its organizations such as CSI actually damage trust in science.

I don't disagree with this (or rather, I have also wondered whether this is the case for quite a while). In some ways, I think the Skeptic movement conveys science in the way you pointed out above - as a set of facts. Arouet is going to jump on me for saying that (skepticism is a process, not a result). :) But I also think skepticism can be distinguished from the actions of the Skeptic movement.

Your comment about it being distinct from science is true on the one hand, but effectively in different ways this ends up not being the case. CSI recruits scientists, so there are often big names essentially backing these organizations (for example, Carl Sagen), and then other scientists, while not using this as research, would allow it to influence and form their opinions on many subjects without real investigation. CSI has a history of attempting to influence policies, such as with remote viewing programs, and have been influential in even shutting down these programs. They also influence research grants, making it difficult to perform certain types of research. So in the end, you have a pseudo-scientific organization presenting themselves as scientific, influencing scientific opinions and what can even be researched, yet many are increasingly of the opinion that they are dogmatists and science is also guilty by association of the same dogmatism and aggressive hostility (people like Dawkins and Krauss certainly do not help, either, since this strengthens this association).

Agreed that the Skeptic movement does not help because it does not make clear that distinction (which is at least partly deliberate).

As presented by the individual, it was a paradigm because it was not that there was an idea that some things are auto-immune, but rather than everything was essentially auto-immune in nature, and this changed to thinking that everything was viral in nature. They were not taught as individual hypotheses.

Really? That was piss-poor teaching then. I'm not familiar with the teachings in veterinary medicine, but they can't be that divorced from the thinking in medicine, can they?

I think the lipid hypothesis fits the bill. There is still nutrition research going on under the assumption that it is true. It's odd to still see papers published that run experiments and test hypotheses that are based on a false premise.

Wait...the lipid hypothesis is false?

And if so, how is this a "screw-up"? Can you identify the point()s where we should have known it was false beforehand?

Well, no, not entirely, but it does play a role in how the ideas are received. The sociological factors can stall the establishment of a discovery, but in the end the discovery wins by virtue of proving to lead to better predictions and that sort of thing.

So ideally, sociological factors should be excluded from influencing how a discovery is received?

 

[fls]

Intuition is never the arbiter of truth; significant reproduction of significant empirical results will be the judge. However, in nutrition, there are what I would call anchors. For example, if one wishes to claim veganism is the best diet for humans, my anchor is that this is a diet foreign to humans since we are not herbivores (based on solid physiological and paleoanthropological data), and that it is established that not all of our required forms of nutrients can be obtained through a vegan diet alone. With this anchor, if there is conflicting research that is undecidable on its own, then I will say that we should not adopt a vegan diet because it is an un-natural diet with known issues. Obviously not all topics can have such anchors.

That sounds like sociological factors are influencing your reception of the idea.

Linda

 

[Neil]

Are you talking about the US?

Yes, since that is where I live and I am more familiar with.

[quote-fls]Physicians mostly depend upon evidence-based evaluations by other medical groups. This may range from peers who publish evidence-based reviews on specific topics (e.g. Annals of Internal Medicine Journal Club) to review committees associated with specialty boards (e.g. http://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(14)00023-3/fulltext) to review committees associated with government bodies (e.g. United States Preventive Services Task Force). Almost always, these guidelines/recommendations are published with full reference to the research which guides them. So if you want to take issue with something, it can be on the basis of a discussion of the evidence.

That's good. It is a step in the right direction. Of course this needs to happen along with addressing issues with medical research itself.

I'm missing something here. What hypothesis was perceived as true and where/how has it been dropped?

I was referring to the lipid hypothesis, where eating fat (esp saturated) and cholesterol cause heart disease. But I can't really say it has been entirely dropped. There is a still a large influence hanging around. Just the other day I had a rep at work say something about how you shouldn't eat shrimp because it's bad for your heart. I asked why, and he said his doctor told him because of the cholesterol. Wow!

The problem is that almost all folk medicine is wrong. It took so long to 'confirm it worked' because actually finding out whether or not something works is a very recent phenomenon relative to the history of medicine. Folk medicines which have fairly dramatic short term effects (like pain killers or emetics) are fairly easy to establish. This was the low-hanging fruit which was picked early on. But beyond that, there is usually little relationship to be found between a substance's folk uses and the conditions for which it is actually effective. Aspirin was used as treatment for various pyretic conditions, such as malaria, when all it was doing was relieving the fever. It's benefits with respect to atherosclerosis were unknown. And its effect on the gastric mucosa was unrecognized and it was sometimes used to treat painful gastric ulcers - something which we now know would be frankly harmful.

Substances which have a traditional medicinal use tend to, as a group, contain more biologically active/useful substances than an unselected population. But using 'traditional use' to direct further research has not been particularly fruitful.

Regarding the first sentence, I'm not sure I am clear on what you mean by "folk medicine" or "wrong." I recently had a conversation with a nutrition researcher I know and we were discussing herbal remedies, and got into a conversation about traditional medicinal herbs. Some particularly interesting ones have come from ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine. Research is tedious because of the nature of it, but there are some interesting confirmations that have come out of these branches of traditional medicine.

I have been interested in identifying sources of information -i.e. science writers - who get this and who do a good job of conveying it. Often these are writers who are also active scientists (or have been). Interestingly, the New York Times is one of the sources which often has good science writing, yet Alex identifies it as a poor source. Maybe this gets at what Alex is complaining about. It does seem to be a fairly constant factor in proponent criticisms. Examples are given of a change in a scientific idea which is used as a sign that science is doing it wrong in general.

I am not well-versed in Alex's epistemology, but I would respond that at times on the show he does seem to react a bit too quickly or be too dismissive of what we might call more scientific (attempted) answers to some questions regarding consciousness, NDEs, etc. There seems to be a weird dichotomy forming between "mainstream science" and, I'm not even sure what to call it exactly, but perhaps call it a "spiritual paradigm." I have noticed it on this forum as well, since I have ideas that look to unify the material and spiritual, but there is resistance to any idea to explain our conscious awareness or our experiences in any way other than using philosophical metaphors or psychology.

I don't disagree with this (or rather, I have also wondered whether this is the case for quite a while). In some ways, I think the Skeptic movement conveys science in the way you pointed out above - as a set of facts. Arouet is going to jump on me for saying that (skepticism is a process, not a result). :) But I also think skepticism can be distinguished from the actions of the Skeptic movement.

Yes, the distinction is important. The skeptic movement is to skepticism as Scientism is to science.

Really? That was piss-poor teaching then. I'm not familiar with the teachings in veterinary medicine, but they can't be that divorced from the thinking in medicine, can they?

I didn't go to vet school or medical school, so I don't know :) She was rather insistent on this, and while I won't name names, it was a respected university in the US.

Wait...the lipid hypothesis is false?

That eating cholesterol and saturated fat will cause heart disease? Sure.

And if so, how is this a "screw-up"? Can you identify the point()s where we should have known it was false beforehand?

It's been a while since I really read the details on the history here, but it was not based on solid conclusions.

But to answer the second part, that is a very difficult question. The more we talk about this, the more I am starting to think that the only way to know for sure requires a historical aspect. With much more advanced knowledge of limitations of research, confounding variables, and other branches of science that we have today, we can now look back and have more confidence in saying what was right and what was wrong. During the period of controversy, one can only accept the inherent limitations of knowledge and do their best to follow what they feel is the correct evidence and interpretation, but there is still uncertainty.

So ideally, sociological factors should be excluded from influencing how a discovery is received?

I am inclined to say yes, since historically sociological factors have seemed to be very limiting, but perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Neil]

That sounds like sociological factors are influencing your reception of the idea.

Linda

Why do you say that? I don't feel it is sociological, rather that it is based on historical, physiological, and paleoanthropological data.

 

[fls]

That's good. It is a step in the right direction. Of course this needs to happen along with addressing issues with medical research itself.

Agreed. That's why you also see clinical trials registries, tying publication to registration, reporting on conflict of interest, insistence of making data freely available, etc.

I was referring to the lipid hypothesis, where eating fat (esp saturated) and cholesterol cause heart disease. But I can't really say it has been entirely dropped. There is a still a large influence hanging around. Just the other day I had a rep at work say something about how you shouldn't eat shrimp because it's bad for your heart. I asked why, and he said his doctor told him because of the cholesterol. Wow!

Where are you getting the impression that it has been dropped?

Regarding the first sentence, I'm not sure I am clear on what you mean by "folk medicine" or "wrong." I recently had a conversation with a nutrition researcher I know and we were discussing herbal remedies, and got into a conversation about traditional medicinal herbs. Some particularly interesting ones have come from ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine. Research is tedious because of the nature of it, but there are some interesting confirmations that have come out of these branches of traditional medicine.

By "folk medicine" I mean any of the traditional practices (such as Chinese or Ayurvedic), which depended upon observation, intuition and 'common sense', rather than rigorous methods. By "wrong" I mean that conclusions are drawn about effects which are not correct, such as a lack of safety or efficacy.

For example, 200 Traditional Chinese Medicines were used for treating febrile illnesses, including malaria. When the decision was made to search among these choices for a new anti-malarial, testing only identified one out of the 200 which was active against malaria (artemisinin). Not only had TCM failed to recognize the substances which were not effective, it failed to recognize that one was.

I am not well-versed in Alex's epistemology, but I would respond that at times on the show he does seem to react a bit too quickly or be too dismissive of what we might call more scientific (attempted) answers to some questions regarding consciousness, NDEs, etc. There seems to be a weird dichotomy forming between "mainstream science" and, I'm not even sure what to call it exactly, but perhaps call it a "spiritual paradigm." I have noticed it on this forum as well, since I have ideas that look to unify the material and spiritual, but there is resistance to any idea to explain our conscious awareness or our experiences in any way other than using philosophical metaphors or psychology.

Yeah. It's unfortunate, as there is a fruitful middle ground, I think.

I didn't go to vet school or medical school, so I don't know :) She was rather insistent on this, and while I won't name names, it was a respected university in the US.

Interesting. I didn't run across any of that in medical school or residency/fellowship (Canada and the US).

That eating cholesterol and saturated fat will cause heart disease? Sure.

Can you point me to this information?

It's been a while since I really read the details on the history here, but it was not based on solid conclusions.

How is that a "screw-up"? I doubt any idea is based on solid conclusions when it is first explored. And there have been ideas which seemed to be quite solid which ended up falling apart (hormone replacement therapy, for example). How are we supposed to know beforehand whether a novel idea should be dropped or explored, especially as evidence accumulates in support of the idea?

But to answer the second part, that is a very difficult question. The more we talk about this, the more I am starting to think that the only way to know for sure requires a historical aspect. With much more advanced knowledge of limitations of research, confounding variables, and other branches of science that we have today, we can now look back and have more confidence in saying what was right and what was wrong. During the period of controversy, one can only accept the inherent limitations of knowledge and do their best to follow what they feel is the correct evidence and interpretation, but there is still uncertainty.

Now you're making it sound like it isn't avoidable, after all. So what makes it a screw-up? And are we really at the point where we are certain who is right and who is wrong? People with expertise don't seem to agree on this, at the moment.

Linda

 

[fls]

Why do you say that? I don't feel it is sociological, rather that it is based on historical, physiological, and paleoanthropological data.

You justified it using your intuition (in this case, your intuitions about the importance of a natural diet). I suspect that scientists who reject a novel idea justify it using their intuitions about the relative importance of external factors, as well.

Linda

 

[Reece]

That's good. It is a step in the right direction. Of course this needs to happen along with addressing issues with medical research itself.



I was referring to the lipid hypothesis, where eating fat (esp saturated) and cholesterol cause heart disease. But I can't really say it has been entirely dropped. There is a still a large influence hanging around. Just the other day I had a rep at work say something about how you shouldn't eat shrimp because it's bad for your heart. I asked why, and he said his doctor told him because of the cholesterol. Wow!



Regarding the first sentence, I'm not sure I am clear on what you mean by "folk medicine" or "wrong." I recently had a conversation with a nutrition researcher I know and we were discussing herbal remedies, and got into a conversation about traditional medicinal herbs. Some particularly interesting ones have come from ayurvedic medicine and Chinese medicine. Research is tedious because of the nature of it, but there are some interesting confirmations that have come out of these branches of traditional medicine.



I am not well-versed in Alex's epistemology, but I would respond that at times on the show he does seem to react a bit too quickly or be too dismissive of what we might call more scientific (attempted) answers to some questions regarding consciousness, NDEs, etc. There seems to be a weird dichotomy forming between "mainstream science" and, I'm not even sure what to call it exactly, but perhaps call it a "spiritual paradigm." I have noticed it on this forum as well, since I have ideas that look to unify the material and spiritual, but there is resistance to any idea to explain our conscious awareness or our experiences in any way other than using philosophical metaphors or psychology.



Yes, the distinction is important. The skeptic movement is to skepticism as Scientism is to science.




I didn't go to vet school or medical school, so I don't know :) She was rather insistent on this, and while I won't name names, it was a respected university in the US.



That eating cholesterol and saturated fat will cause heart disease? Sure.



It's been a while since I really read the details on the history here, but it was not based on solid conclusions.

But to answer the second part, that is a very difficult question. The more we talk about this, the more I am starting to think that the only way to know for sure requires a historical aspect. With much more advanced knowledge of limitations of research, confounding variables, and other branches of science that we have today, we can now look back and have more confidence in saying what was right and what was wrong. During the period of controversy, one can only accept the inherent limitations of knowledge and do their best to follow what they feel is the correct evidence and interpretation, but there is still uncertainty.



I am inclined to say yes, since historically sociological factors have seemed to be very limiting, but perhaps I am wrong.

I recently had a mandatory visit to our company doctor. In his office is a food guide poster thing. It listed bad fats and had coconut on it, I think bc they're high in saturated fats . . . I mean, leave it to a doctor to say that coconuts are bad for our health.

 

[Neil]

I recently had a mandatory visit to our company doctor. In his office is a food guide poster thing. It listed bad fats and had coconut on it, I think bc they're high in saturated fats . . . I mean, leave it to a doctor to say that coconuts are bad for our health.

That is true. That reminds me of the comment about shrimp being bad for your heart because of cholesterol. I think I am probably wrong then, and that the medical community still believes in the lipid hypothesis. Perhaps it is the more progressive doctors that realize this is not the case. It's odd how my friends that are nutrition researchers don't believe in that.

My experience with medical doctors has rarely been positive. With my last visit for regular blood work, I asked to check my vitamin D levels since I had been supplementing with 5,000 IUs throughout the winter. I didn't tell the doctor how much at first, but when he resisted I told him the amount. He agreed to order the test, but told me I should reduce the amount anyway. Huh?? Why not wait for the lab results? The lab results returned and my vitamin D levels were in a good range, so I of course kept taking the same amount. Why would he tell me to reduce the amount before seeing the results?

The experience with my father and his diagnosis of type 2 diabetes was also very frustrating. The dietary recommendations are basically to continue to eat a bunch of carbohydrates but just to make sure to shoot up with insulin to control the blood sugar levels! Wow! Even the information they give is garbage, because they act as if sugar is terrible and starch is okay, even though starches often raise blood sugar levels much more quickly than many sugars. But even with that, it blows my mind that he is diagnosed with a disease that is defined in part by a lack of ability to control blood sugar levels, but is recommended to eat a lot of the very nutrient that he is incapable of properly regulating. I had him stop the insulin and reduce his carbohydrate intake and his blood sugar dropped significantly and remained stable. Are the doctor's recommendations sheer ignorance? Or are there financial interests for putting people on drugs without any intention of ever stopping?

These two examples (I have many more) are a big part of why I do not trust medical doctors for general health at all. The majority of my experience has been that they are very ignorant. If I have an infectious disease and need an antibiotic, sure, or if I have an accident and end up in the hospital to help me recover, of course, but when it comes to health no way in hell.

 

[Neil]

Where are you getting the impression that it has been dropped?

Looks like I am wrong about that, sadly.

By "folk medicine" I mean any of the traditional practices (such as Chinese or Ayurvedic), which depended upon observation, intuition and 'common sense', rather than rigorous methods. By "wrong" I mean that conclusions are drawn about effects which are not correct, such as a lack of safety or efficacy.

For example, 200 Traditional Chinese Medicines were used for treating febrile illnesses, including malaria. When the decision was made to search among these choices for a new anti-malarial, testing only identified one out of the 200 which was active against malaria (artemisinin). Not only had TCM failed to recognize the substances which were not effective, it failed to recognize that one was.

Thanks for that information. I was referring to some other compounds, such as curcumin, for example, found in turmeric, and not only was Ayurvedic medicine pretty good with what was claimed, it was also accurate that taking it with black pepper helped absorption, since it contains piperine which dramatically increases the bioavailability of curcumin. This is a bit of a different category, in a way, since it is not claimed to fight infectious disease, but your examples make it clear of why science is needed!

Can you point me to this information?

Here is a link to a very good article:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html

How is that a "screw-up"? I doubt any idea is based on solid conclusions when it is first explored. And there have been ideas which seemed to be quite solid which ended up falling apart (hormone replacement therapy, for example). How are we supposed to know beforehand whether a novel idea should be dropped or explored, especially as evidence accumulates in support of the idea?

The mistake would be running with the idea as I mentioned before instead of cautiously continuing research. Why jump to conclusions, especially in an area of research with so many confounding variables? Or maybe was it ignorance at that time of all the issues with this type of research that led to thinking it was more solid than it was?

I don't think there is any way of knowing beforehand whether the idea should be dropped or explored. Considering some of the completely goofy studies I have seen, one would think that there should be funds allotted for exploring these types of ideas.

Now you're making it sound like it isn't avoidable, after all. So what makes it a screw-up? And are we really at the point where we are certain who is right and who is wrong? People with expertise don't seem to agree on this, at the moment.

Linda

Yes, this is tough. I appreciate your questions here because I have been thinking about this a lot. I keep coming back to the example of parapsychology, because I think it is an extremely good example.

I keep asking myself, what would make parapsychology a science or what would make it a pseudoscience? If psi is real, how could one possibly say that parapsychology is a pseudoscience? If psi does not exist, how could parapsychology be a science? I can't find a way to answer this question other than to say that it will require a historical aspect. I don't think that we can know for sure right now given the limits of our current level of understanding.

I think psi exists based on the evidence, but I certainly do not have the type of certainty that I do with quantum theory. But why is quantum theory so certain? It wasn't for Einstein. But now we have enough experimental confirmation to know that those initial objections were not correct. Who was to say that Einstein was wrong in 1935 with his objection to non-locality? How could anyone know for sure at that time? The theory seemed to explain things well, but Einstein's objection also seemed legitimate.