The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense

the problem is documentation.  yes some things seem obvious, but in order for mainstream science or medicine to take them seriously you have to have data to back it up.  you have to have this information to get funding for new studies and research, the basis of what you are looking into has to be proven to build a sound theory worth investing in. 

you think X? ok prove it. got the data? ok cool we can go from there.

Why?  Despite all of the science you point toward, our human life expectancy has increased by what?  Is that even a pimple on a blip on a grain of one of the sands of time?  I guess I'm with you .........why does it bother you?    It's interesting......people can think whatever they want.....some of them live longer than others, some don't.  "Fixing" the way people think sure doesn't seem to make a difference from what I can see.

I hear you.....but then I go back to the idea of "why do you want to"?  It's funny, because I can have critical discussions about most things, but I'm pretty locked in and unmovable on others......I suspect most people are the same depending on life expereinces, especially as we get older. 

Still, yeah, I get your point about things that have been relatively settled, like Vitamin C.

Hmmm, Fixing people.  Fixing the way they think.      That's dangerous territory.    Do we fix them physically?  Do we fix them emotionally? Do we fix them psychologically?        Do they get a say in this?   Wars have been fought over this type of thinking.....

I happen to agree with you, for the most part, so mercifully I don't need fixing.   It is just that I believe more in Darwinism than I do in the medical arts.   In the grand scheme of things Mother Nature will run her course,    

Sorry that  I can't really contribute constructively to the discourse, but my areas of expertise don't include the higher forms of chemistry and biology.   
But I am quite interested in where this discussion will go.  

Still, yeah, I get your point about things that have been relatively settled, like Vitamin C.

I'll go back to age and experiences..............they are both hard to account for.  No matter how hard we try, it's really hard to go back.  Man, I miss some old friends of mine as well, but I've come to accept that we didn't run down the same roads.  I suspect it's the same for all of us.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH

Substitute "grandma" with "my mother" and it's spot on. 

/thread

My grandmother used to smoke.  Then researchers proved that it was bad for you.  So she quit.

Before the research, people thought that it was ok to inhale smoke?  That must be why most first timers almost puke from a coughing fit.

I think searching for how things work is at its basis a survival technique.  Figuring stuff out. noticing a little trend, seeing if something works or not  is how we cope with changing conditions and it may give us an edge on the competition.  We can take that same human intelligence and refine it with a more systematic method and call it science.

At the same time, we born to be skeptical as well.  We say, "Don't believe everything you hear."   That is also a basic human survival technique.  And it is just as fundamental as the original solving the problem   The greatest discoveries of science have all met with huge skepticism when first introduced.  The new idea has to stand up to the skepticism in a very Darwinian survival of the fittest ordeal.  

Your friend may be right or wrong on this one.  I think the science is pretty good and she may not be inquiring very deeply in her skepticism, but someone somewhere is questioning just how well Vitamin C works and questioning what we know about it.   That will lead to something new and better.

TW

I have a somewhat unique perspective on this topic because I do tend to be skeptical of the scientific method at times, but I also recognize and accept it as a valid process that benefits us all when done properly.

Often my skepticism comes from the people doing various studies because there are cases where the scientists are funded into the future if the results match what the entity paying for the study wants to hear.  If it conflicts with their interest then the money quickly dries up.
Take any hot button scientific topic out there and you can find a plethora of "studies" that support completely opposite viewpoints and ironically the side funding each study is the direction the study leans.  Think tobacco, alcohol, fracking, etc...

You guys mentioned vaccinations earlier and I'm a huge proponent of vaccinations, but I also think there are some that could be considered questionable or optional such as chickenpox.  When our kids had the option to get the shot, the doctor said they're recommending it but there's a potential for it to wear off as an adult and chickenpox is worse as an adult.  So, we chose to not do that one and let our kids just get chickenpox if it comes around.  Unfortunately people are taking what I would consider "optional" vaccinations like this one and twisting it into all vaccinations which is stupid and dangerous for everyone.

Another factor that leads to a prejudice towards studies is the truly stupid obvious studies.  Just a few months back the University of Nebraska did a funded study that watched men and how they looked at women walking by.  They noticed that most men looked at women's breasts as they walked by.  OK, that's one for the "duh" category and I could have saved them a lot of money.  In my opinion these "stupid" studies harm the overall scientific method because people categorize legitimate studies such as the one you mention as "stupid".

I always like to say that I trust science but I don't trust scientists because there is the possibility and reality of corruption in the "scientific method" in my honest opinion.  I have absolutely no issues with the study you cited about diet and it's effect on Cancer because I feel very strongly that there are links between diet/environment and cancer and we absolutely need to be studying stuff like that.  Yes, drug maker X or food producer Y may be funding/pushing studies in one way to promote their product, so it's not perfect.  This is why I feel we do need to have a skeptical eye on the scientific method.