login
The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2013-12-16 4:07 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Coach  9167     Stairway to Seven |  Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon SenseOriginally posted by tuwood 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. Super insights here. Your comments make me think about some of what I've been learning recently regarding reserach funding. NIH vs. private sources. Funding that demands results in 1-2 yrs vs long term funding that allows researchers 5-10 years or more to generate answers. I think most true scientifically inquisitive folks recongize that a long range view is really beneficial...and this alsy filters out the short term studies funded by commercial entities. There is room for both, and it's vital to have a trusted body of minds for peer review and outside validation...repeating studies in various populations, etc. Thanks. |
| 2013-12-16 4:35 PM in reply to: AdventureBear |
| Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense I don't believe I have a hard and fast rule as to which way I lean but I thought this was amusing in light of this thread: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/16/vitamin-supple... The latest studies on vitamins have some medical experts saying "case closed" — it's time for most consumers to stop wasting money on multivitamins and other supplements, because they have no proven benefits and some possible harms. |
| 2013-12-16 4:40 PM in reply to: AdventureBear |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by AdventureBear Originally posted by tuwood Super insights here. Your comments make me think about some of what I've been learning recently regarding reserach funding. NIH vs. private sources. Funding that demands results in 1-2 yrs vs long term funding that allows researchers 5-10 years or more to generate answers. I think most true scientifically inquisitive folks recongize that a long range view is really beneficial...and this alsy filters out the short term studies funded by commercial entities. There is room for both, and it's vital to have a trusted body of minds for peer review and outside validation...repeating studies in various populations, etc. Thanks. 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. Agree, it's such a jumbled mess and the sad part is the whack job studies get lumped in with legitimate scientific studies. So a science "skeptic" like me has a really hard time filtering all the alarmism stuff from the legitimate science because it's so political. I'm almost forced to treat everything more skeptical because of this. I don't want to derail this thread into an AGW discussion because I've had plenty of those already. I guess I'm just trying to point out that it's frustrating at how much bad gets mixed into the good so people who are generally more "skeptical" just distrust all of what they hear from the "scientific community". |
| 2013-12-16 6:15 PM in reply to: 0 |
Expert 1233 | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by AdventureBear 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. Yeah, Ok this is a totally fair question. Why do I want to? In this particular case this is a friend whom I used to be VERY close to. We've moved different directions. I miss our old ffriendship and long to connect with her. She hasn't left a comment on my facebook wall in at least a year...then this. SO I guess I took it personally. Although she commented a 2nd time today on a totally different and someone touching topic...I'm guessing she is far less affected by this than I am. We are both old enough to be happy/satisfied, if for no other reason than it's too late to go back... with the decisions we've each made. When we were 23 (when I met her) life was very very different. THere were possibilities and potentials for each of us that no longer exist 20+ years later. I guess this goes deeper than the scientific sort of discussion into a personal realm. Thanks for reading and participating. I really jus tneeded to bounce this off of some peoples besides my boyfriend If you recall Linus Pauling, Nobel Laureate, really oversold the benefits of Vitamin C. Not that he purposely did it for profit, he really believed in its benefits far beyond a cure for the common cold. The average person (media, etc.) started thinking of it as a wonder drug, people still take mega doses to this day (good thing its water soluble). There have been numerous scientist who not only were mistaken but drastically wrong (i.e., those recommending Lobotomies). Add to that the 'pure arrogance' that is sometimes encountered when dealing with professionals and it is 'know' wonder (or maybe 'don't know' wonder) that the average person questions the validity of science and reaches for the comfort of common sense and tradition. Fifty years from now much of today's science, common sense, and tradition will be laughed at, as the present in every society believes they are the pinnacle. Was it the Nobel Prize ceremony for the prize in medicine (synaptic transmission maybe) that the two winners had a heated argument on stage disputing the others theory? How can lay people place confidence in science when scientist don't! Remember that even Newton's Laws are more like guidelines or suggestions, when you're at the quantum level  Edited by vonschnapps 2013-12-16 6:24 PM |
| 2013-12-16 6:40 PM in reply to: 0 |
Veteran 945 South Windsor, CT | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by AdventureBear so wondering what you think. I posted a link to a very interesting (I thought) article summarizing some effects of anti-cancer activity in various fruits. The study actually added fruit juices to cancer cells growing in a dish and observed how it affected the growth of the otherwise happily growing cells. (link here: http://feedly.com/k/ILPGYc) A friend of mine commented something along the lines of, "It's interesting that scientist feel the need to prove that eating right and taking care if oneself is a preventative of cancer. I wonder how many millions of dollars went into that one, lol" Fundamentally this really bothers me that she is minimizing the efforts of various researchers to further elucidate & understand mechanisms for health...as if the healthiest way to live should be obvious. This sparked a really odd debate between the two of us in which she ascertains that all we need is common sense and to look at history, and I maintain that "common sense" forms the hypothesis for scientific inquiries, and without those efforts we'd be still in the dark ages. We get around to Vitamin C and she makes some very "black and white" thinking comments that to me sound like an Us vs Them conspiracy sort of thing. "Secrets of health that doctors don't want you to know" kind of pseudoscientific attitudes. "25 years ago scientists stated that vitamin C gave no positive effect on health". Umm...even the world "Vitamin" stands for a "Vital" element. The effects of a lack of vitamin C on health have been known for literally thousands and thousands of years...the first controlled experiment in modern science is thought to be one form the 1700s in which sailors were given citrus fruits or traditional diet supplements to see who developed scurvey...and vitamin C was identified by name and chemical structure in the 1930s for which the discover won a nobel prize. OK, so here is the point of my post ... much of what we know as "common sense" are behaviors and traditions built on literaally centuries of varies scientific inquiry on one hand. On the other hand, things that people have been doing without scientific backing are often used as the hypothesis for research studies. These two things hand in hand, advance our knowledge forward, year after year, century after century. I am just stumped at this general attitude that what's best & healtiest (ie cancer prevention) is evident in the behavior of humans in history...as if no one ever developed cancer until modern processed food era. It's as if she is looking at a tiny slice of knowledge, in her mid the last 25 years, and suggesting that history started THEN...25 years ago...without giving any thought to how the discovery and accumulation of knowledge through application of scientific thought shapes our lives today. Now I am certainly not suggesting that looking at other ways of living in the past in a less scientific way (ie not spending ressearch $$ to conduct studies) is not a valid way to learn...it certainly is. But there is no clearcut line separating the various ways we learn things...history, observation, inquiry, experiments etc...they all shape our current knowledge. Thoughts? Am I crazy? Can anyone put a finger on what is fundamentally bothering me here? Because I'm having a really hard time putting a finger on it myself...but something feels wrong to me. Suzanne, Lots of interesting stuff in here, and since I'm on call tonight and 'bored' to use LB jargon, I'll comment... Your friend seems to have some sort of issue either with the money being spent on research, your personal involvement in medicine or both. However, her comments lead me to believe there is not only a healthy skepticism of 'the process' but also profound misconception of research and medicine in general. I'm not sure it's fair to compare the fact that vitamin C was deficient in diets long ago (and found to be 'vital' to health) and compare that to placebo controlled studies which showed no benefit of Vitamin C in prevention of mortality from CAD or cancer (#1 and 2 for most common reasons for dying in the US today) now. Many vitamins have come into the spotlight as so many people want a 'magic pill. It seems there is a lack of understanding of why research is done. It does not help when studies are done for silly reasons as it demeans the scientific process in whole and makes people skeptical. (I did not read your link, as it appears to be broken, so I'm not sure about that...) Since I am a believer and pratice evidence-based medicine, I would never say that we know it all as our knowledge constantly evolves. Sometimes it seems there is a pendulum swing with certain treatments-vitamins in particulair. (I won't bring up Vit E) I do believe that her words struck you more because she stated her opinion as fact, and you challenged it. Also you took it as a personal attack. Many people do this and I always try to point out that 'this' is opinion and 'this' is fact-and back it up with evidence, or open my mind if I misperceived it. You cannot 'fix' people or their thinking. You may be able to educate some, but often it's not worth the time or trouble. I like the comment 'let them go', as you simply cannot force 'enlightenment'. Alternatively, you could ask 'why' they feel that way? Ask some open ended questions and maybe get to the bottom of where their real beef is...perhaps she is bothered by the loss of friendship too...or not. I'm not sure you have to walk away from anyone. You can be still get along with people and value their friendship even if you don't agree with their belief system. BTW, common sense, to me, is a different kind of evidence. Stuff that has evolved over years, some factual, some anecdotal, some circumstantial. Sometimes it's challenged in the science arena and sometimes not. But I'd always believe the research more, if done well-ha. http://pirate.shu.edu/~hovancjo/exp/sci_cs.htm Dale Edited by dtoce 2013-12-16 6:59 PM |
| 2013-12-16 7:39 PM in reply to: vonschnapps |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by vonschnapps If you recall Linus Pauling, Nobel Laureate, really oversold the benefits of Vitamin C. Not that he purposely did it for profit, he really believed in its benefits far beyond a cure for the common cold. The average person (media, etc.) started thinking of it as a wonder drug, people still take mega doses to this day (good thing its water soluble). There have been numerous scientist who not only were mistaken but drastically wrong (i.e., those recommending Lobotomies). Add to that the 'pure arrogance' that is sometimes encountered when dealing with professionals and it is 'know' wonder (or maybe 'don't know' wonder) that the average person questions the validity of science and reaches for the comfort of common sense and tradition. Fifty years from now much of today's science, common sense, and tradition will be laughed at, as the present in every society believes they are the pinnacle. Was it the Nobel Prize ceremony for the prize in medicine (synaptic transmission maybe) that the two winners had a heated argument on stage disputing the others theory? How can lay people place confidence in science when scientist don't! Remember that even Newton's Laws are more like guidelines or suggestions, when you're at the quantum level Yep...my grandfather was a HUGE fan of Linus Pauling and proponent of Vitamin C. he kept dishes around with 500mg Vit C tablets and would chew on one every few hours to try and get about 2g a day . knowing it was water soluble he spread it out. GIven what was known and hypothesized back then (I was about 10 , so late 70s, early 80s), my grandfather was ahead of his time. Now a days we know that, well maybe 2g of vitamin C doesn't do what he hoped it would have, but aside from that, he was my example of someone who read a lot, questioned a lot, did his own research and could mostly sort the wheat from the chaffe. That's why when this friend challenged me regarding Vitamin C I laughed to myself...i was indoctrinated in Pauling's theories from the time I was born. Yet my grandfather had no hesitation updating his actions & thoughts as new research came out. He had the perfect combinaiotn of common sense and scientific rigor in my opinion. I want to be as much like him as possible.  |
| 2013-12-16 7:43 PM in reply to: dtoce |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by dtoce [ Alternatively, you could ask 'why' they feel that way? Ask some open ended questions and maybe get to the bottom of where their real beef is...perhaps she is bothered by the loss of friendship too...or not. I'm not sure you have to walk away from anyone. You can be still get along with people and value their friendship even if you don't agree with their belief system. Dale Thanks a lot Dale I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts ! Very well grounded. I do like the idea of the open minded questions and try ot practice that usually. I think she was having a hard week and have a sense that she was somehow 'defending' herself on a bigger scale than just our little discussion on facebook. I know I do that sometimes...get really involved (overly) in somethign of little relevance if I'm having some struggles or conflicts in other areas. |
| 2013-12-16 7:57 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 6503 NOVA - Ironic for an Endurance Athlete | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by tuwood 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. 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. Since you brought up vaccines...don't you think that Glaxo-johnson-merck-pfizer are behind the hype about the flu vaccines? |
| 2013-12-16 9:53 PM in reply to: pga_mike |
| Expert 1233 | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Many here mentioned the 'connection' (we'll use that term to neutralize statistical assumptions) between diet and cancer, and also their skepticism for some science, myself included. For a long period of time the China Study (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study) was cited as sort of evidence of a linkage, and also that established medicine, big pharma, and big food, were part of a conspiracy. How could anyone argue the results of the study, it was common sense couple with the scientific method wasn't it? There was something troubling other scientists however. People eating these same diets in other areas were not immune to the cancers potentially prevented by the associated diets in the various regions of China. Bad research methodology? No, not at all, the study has been validated many times. Incomplete study? Possibly, but no fault of the researchers. At the time very little was known about the human microbiome and its potential 'connection' with cancer and diet. Once again, interaction factors outside the scope of the research can have a huge effect. Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, but it's better that all the rest." That's sort of like the scientific method. It's actually pretty poor, but currently there's nothing better. |
| 2013-12-17 7:19 AM in reply to: pga_mike |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by tuwood 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. 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. Since you brought up vaccines...don't you think that Glaxo-johnson-merck-pfizer are behind the hype about the flu vaccines? lol, don't get me started on the flu vaccines. In all seriousness I'm not a fan of the flu shots, but it's mostly for anecdotal reasons. I had to get the flu shot every year when I was in the Navy and I got sicker than a dog every time I got it. Since I got out of the Navy in 1997, I've never caught the flu and only been really sick maybe once and it wasn't from the flu. So, I'm more in the category of what's the point for a healthy middle aged dude. Even when I get older, I may still be in the camp of not getting one because it always seems to do more harm than good for me personally. Are there companies that have a vested interest in the flu vaccine? Absolutely. I'm sure I could google people saying it's all a big conspiracy but I don't really need to go there. It's an optional vaccine so I'm all for people who want to get it getting it and I chose not to so it doesn't bother me a bit. |
| 2013-12-17 7:46 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by pga_mike Originally posted by tuwood 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. 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. Since you brought up vaccines...don't you think that Glaxo-johnson-merck-pfizer are behind the hype about the flu vaccines? lol, don't get me started on the flu vaccines. In all seriousness I'm not a fan of the flu shots, but it's mostly for anecdotal reasons. I had to get the flu shot every year when I was in the Navy and I got sicker than a dog every time I got it. Since I got out of the Navy in 1997, I've never caught the flu and only been really sick maybe once and it wasn't from the flu. So, I'm more in the category of what's the point for a healthy middle aged dude. Even when I get older, I may still be in the camp of not getting one because it always seems to do more harm than good for me personally. Are there companies that have a vested interest in the flu vaccine? Absolutely. I'm sure I could google people saying it's all a big conspiracy but I don't really need to go there. It's an optional vaccine so I'm all for people who want to get it getting it and I chose not to so it doesn't bother me a bit. btw, flu vaccines are another example of the controversy overtaking the actual science and putting the lay person (me) in a spot where it's very difficult to find reliable information. I did a quick google out of curiosity on the flu vaccine and half the sites were anti vaccine with lots of "scientific evidence" and have were pro vaccine with lots of "scientific evidence" lol |
| 2013-12-17 12:15 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Caught this on the news this morning, made me think of this thread.
For the lay person who does not know much about medical science and who does not keep up on this sort of thing it is daunting to sift through all the noise. One week multivitamins will save your life, now they are worthless. One study says eat bacon to save your life, another says it kills your sperm. At some point you just tune it all out. At that point it is easier to go off anecdotal evidence to make your decisions. IE, it worked for this one person I know so it must be true. Probably frustrates the heck out of people like the OP who are in the know, but there is really too much for a casual observer to sift through. Couple that with the fact that these studies are done to make money for whoever is making the correct pill at the time and it is even easier to just write off studies as a bunch of bull. Probably not the correct way to look at things but might help you see where your friend is coming from and how they formed their particular point of view. |
| 2013-12-17 12:50 PM in reply to: Aarondb4 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by Aarondb4 Caught this on the news this morning, made me think of this thread.
For the lay person who does not know much about medical science and who does not keep up on this sort of thing it is daunting to sift through all the noise. One week multivitamins will save your life, now they are worthless. One study says eat bacon to save your life, another says it kills your sperm. At some point you just tune it all out. At that point it is easier to go off anecdotal evidence to make your decisions. IE, it worked for this one person I know so it must be true. Probably frustrates the heck out of people like the OP who are in the know, but there is really too much for a casual observer to sift through. Couple that with the fact that these studies are done to make money for whoever is making the correct pill at the time and it is even easier to just write off studies as a bunch of bull. Probably not the correct way to look at things but might help you see where your friend is coming from and how they formed their particular point of view. To me, this is the core of the problem. And it ultimately goes to the general scientific illiteracy of the average individual in the US. I'm not saying that they have to have a degree in a scientific field, but the lack of general scientific understanding is staggering. Just my opinion. |
| 2013-12-17 1:32 PM in reply to: crowny2 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by crowny2 Originally posted by Aarondb4 Caught this on the news this morning, made me think of this thread.
For the lay person who does not know much about medical science and who does not keep up on this sort of thing it is daunting to sift through all the noise. One week multivitamins will save your life, now they are worthless. One study says eat bacon to save your life, another says it kills your sperm. At some point you just tune it all out. At that point it is easier to go off anecdotal evidence to make your decisions. IE, it worked for this one person I know so it must be true. Probably frustrates the heck out of people like the OP who are in the know, but there is really too much for a casual observer to sift through. Couple that with the fact that these studies are done to make money for whoever is making the correct pill at the time and it is even easier to just write off studies as a bunch of bull. Probably not the correct way to look at things but might help you see where your friend is coming from and how they formed their particular point of view. To me, this is the core of the problem. And it ultimately goes to the general scientific illiteracy of the average individual in the US. I'm not saying that they have to have a degree in a scientific field, but the lack of general scientific understanding is staggering. Just my opinion. Most definitely a part of the problem. But how do you fix that? Say a person who is already out of college wants to learn more. I guess they go to Google, who knows what they will find and how do they know who or what to trust? Like I said there is a study for everything. It is the same for other fields too. Ask two different financial advisers what to do and you will get two different answers. Same for lawyers, doctors, CPA's, etc. etc. Impossible for one person to be an expert in everything. The OP's area is a a field where it is easy to take advantage of people. If Pfizer has a new pill coming out it is pretty easy for them to get a study out then get the media to tell everyone to take it or die. Same as the scientist who takes their car to the mechanic, knows nothing about it and gets taken for a ride on repairs. |
| 2013-12-17 2:43 PM in reply to: Aarondb4 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by Aarondb4 The OP's area is a a field where it is easy to take advantage of people. If Pfizer has a new pill coming out it is pretty easy for them to get a study out then get the media to tell everyone to take it or die. Same as the scientist who takes their car to the mechanic, knows nothing about it and gets taken for a ride on repairs. Medicine is a HUGE field, but I am not involved in research. My field is fixing hurts, restarting hearts, sewing up injuries, draining abscesses, setting bones and more often than I'd like, here's some percocet for your back pain. |
| 2013-12-17 3:26 PM in reply to: Aarondb4 |
Champion 15211 Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL | Subject: RE: The Scientific Method vs Tradition & COmmon Sense Originally posted by Aarondb4 Originally posted by crowny2 Originally posted by Aarondb4 Caught this on the news this morning, made me think of this thread.
For the lay person who does not know much about medical science and who does not keep up on this sort of thing it is daunting to sift through all the noise. One week multivitamins will save your life, now they are worthless. One study says eat bacon to save your life, another says it kills your sperm. At some point you just tune it all out. At that point it is easier to go off anecdotal evidence to make your decisions. IE, it worked for this one person I know so it must be true. Probably frustrates the heck out of people like the OP who are in the know, but there is really too much for a casual observer to sift through. Couple that with the fact that these studies are done to make money for whoever is making the correct pill at the time and it is even easier to just write off studies as a bunch of bull. Probably not the correct way to look at things but might help you see where your friend is coming from and how they formed their particular point of view. To me, this is the core of the problem. And it ultimately goes to the general scientific illiteracy of the average individual in the US. I'm not saying that they have to have a degree in a scientific field, but the lack of general scientific understanding is staggering. Just my opinion. Most definitely a part of the problem. But how do you fix that? Say a person who is already out of college wants to learn more. I guess they go to Google, who knows what they will find and how do they know who or what to trust? Like I said there is a study for everything. It is the same for other fields too. Ask two different financial advisers what to do and you will get two different answers. Same for lawyers, doctors, CPA's, etc. etc. Impossible for one person to be an expert in everything. The OP's area is a a field where it is easy to take advantage of people. If Pfizer has a new pill coming out it is pretty easy for them to get a study out then get the media to tell everyone to take it or die. Same as the scientist who takes their car to the mechanic, knows nothing about it and gets taken for a ride on repairs. I'm not talking about someone who knows about it all but has the faculties to be able to critically understand what they are reading. Just take the general definition from WIKI. According to the United States National Center for Education Statistics, "scientific literacy is the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity".[1] A scientifically literate person is defined as one who has the capacity to:
|
|
|
|
|
 | Important Scientific Poll Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
| |||
| |||
| What Christmas traditions do you practice and enjoy Pages: 1 2 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK