10
Reasons You Should Stop Disrespecting Science
This isn’t an Elite Daily article; so, I will not be giving you a convenient
list for lazy eyes to skip over the meat of an article to catch the bullet
points. Why? The reason is twofold. First, science isn’t concerned with the
short route, but rather, the truest route. Secondly, skimming is the first
wrong in a list of issues when trying to bring forth the truth behind any
subject. To be educated is to understand, and to understand is to study, and
finally, to study is to put in effort.
Imagine this scenario: you are in a doctor’s office; you are sitting on those
scratchy, paper overlays on the doctor’s chair. You are there because you have
a problem, presumably, or you want to prevent a problem from occurring in your
future. You do not take your health lightly, especially when it is already
giving you issues. So, what do you do? You go to a person you and the community
respects, a person who has proven they can help people in your situation time
and time again. That much makes sense to you, otherwise you wouldn’t be here,
sitting in the doctor’s office, waiting for the doctor for 20, 30, 45 minutes –
you need their help and you expect them to deliver relief.
What is most telling is the fact that you went to your doctor for a health
issue, not your plumber or a random person walking by on the street. It is an
odd statement, isn’t it?
You’re likely thinking, “Well, of course I would go to my doctor!”
And you know why, you probably don’t overtly think about it, but you know why
you are going to see your doctor, and that reason is the crux for this entire
read.
Your doctor went to a school, and then another school, and then another for
practical experience. All of these schools are certified by national and world
standards in medicine. But why should you care? Well, these schools are a
melting pot of ideas, expressions, and facts from the brightest minds our known
universe has conceived. Now this is where this article is going to break into
two different personalities, a little like Dissociative Identity Disorder
(Psychology, 1).
The Past
These schools that your doctor has attended are institutions built from
the foundations of science compiled from a vast array of brilliant minds
extending hundreds of years in the past.
Without making this a book, and without getting into the debate on when science
began, we can look at the past, say, 500 years for the birth and rise of modern
science. Here is a minute taste of what was accomplished within these 500
years:
Heliocentrism (Astronomy, 2)
Applying Mathematics to Motion (Physics, Mathematics, 2)
Dualism (Philosophy, Psychology, 2)
Laws of Motion and Gravity (Physics, 3)
Ability to measure electricity, magnetism (Chemistry, 3)
Steam Engine (Engineering, 4)
Light bulb (Electrical Engineering, 5)
Invention of the Personal Computer (Engineering, 6)
The Internet (Computer Science, 7)
So, to put things in perspective, if you believe that humans have been around
for roughly 200,000 years then for 99.75% of that time, modern science did not
exist. During that time, humanity went from hunting and gathering to basic
agriculture, from nomadic to settlers, from stones to steel swords. Then, once
the scientific revolution took hold, we went from riding horses to flying in
the sky faster than the speed of sound (Aerospace Engineering, 8), hunting and
gathering our own food to having food delivered to an air conditioned house
(Engineering, 9), in less than 500 years (0.25% of our existence).
Now, all this is probably familiar to you in one way or another, but you don’t
see how this is getting you closer to finding out how anyone has been
disrespecting science. Well, to answer that and to see how the nature of you
going to the doctor is all related, we need to focus our attention on one
incredibly important scientific idea; the modern scientific method (10).
You see, the scientific method is the basis for all scientifically sound
experiments, and the basis for almost everything we test today (medicine, food,
etc). Your doctor, when he or she went to their many schools was taught information
(obviously). That information was all tested by the scientific method, so it is
considered foundationally sound, because that method, being used for over 500
years now, has given us a platform with which we can advance our ideas; and
more importantly, give a controlled,
measurable analysis of our ideas in a way that is open, honest, and above all,
repeatable.
What this all boils down to is the fact that this person (your doctor) you
trust with your life has spent time at an institution that bases all of its
information on a platform that has paved our way to our species’ sudden
heightened success in the last 500 years, and that is the fundamental reason you trust them over your plumber or
a stranger off the street when it comes to your health.
So, you trust your doctor, but is every doctor trust worthy? I think we can all
agree that humans are not perfect, and as such, people make mistakes. So,
should you rely on an expert in the field? In most cases, you’re safer doing so
than asking a stranger, but that certainty can take a hit. So, what to do?
Enter the peer review (Philosophy, 11) process.
The peer review process takes science out of the hands of the single
interpretation and opens it up to criticism from experts all around the world.
So, while a doctor is generally reputable for the reasons mentioned before, a
team of doctors from different origins across the world would make the science
far more reputable (I would feel safer, wouldn’t you?). Essentially, where the
faults of one would influence/bias one’s work, the melting pot of many creates
an air tight system of checks and balances.
To finish, science has not only proven its incredible influence on our world
through unfathomable advances in technology, medicine, agriculture, among
others, it has also provided a system for it to work in a flawless, unbiased
manner by implementing a platform to guard against faulty interpretation, pure
bias, and deceit.
The Present
You now understand why science is not something to be taken lightly when
finding the truth to any matter. It does not change; it remains stable,
steadfast, and always delivers results in the truest fashion possible. Why,
then, is it treated with little care by those outside of the scientific
community?
Let’s paint a new scenario: you are looking to lose weight and you look to the
internet to find some answers on how to go about doing that. You run across an
article that mentions eating spicy peppers will boost your metabolism,
effectively burning more calories, and as a result, you will lose weight. The
article makes sense as it relates the spicy peppers to a South American culture
and shows picture of that culture thin and happy consuming the same diet you
are thinking of starting. Not only that, the peppers need to be organic and straight
from a particular website, because the owners of that site import the peppers
directly from the South American culture you have been reading about. Again,
this makes a lot of rational sense; you’ve probably heard that organic food is
pure and healthy. Not only that, receiving the same peppers this culture uses
would be ideal as it has been working for them for centuries. You’re just about
sold, but you want to make sure you’re making the right investment so you read
up on the author and their background. They lived with said particular South
American culture for several years and prior to living there, they lived in Los
Angeles where they were unhappy and severely overweight. Intrigued and slightly
excited, you read on. Before moving, the author was 70lbs overweight, but after
moving to this village in South America and beginning this new nutritional
regime, they lost 80lbs looking far trimmer, more energetic, and above all,
happier! You are sold. You shell out the $40 and wait for your package. A few
weeks later, it arrives and you begin eating these peppers with some slight
adjustments to your daily food intake (more eggs in the morning, less pasta in
the afternoon, but more vegetables and leafy greens, and of course, peppers
with almost every meal!). Just as you anticipated, you begin losing weight -
ten pounds in the first two weeks! The peppers work!
Wrong.
And here is where you have dissed the scientific community. You have made many
mistakes throughout your reading that a person who practices the proven
scientific method could enlighten you on.
To name a few:
1. The article doesn’t have any sources.
2. If the article does have sources, you need to do your due diligence and check
them for respectability (Superfoodnews.com and the like are not respectable).
3. Always watch for author bias. If they have a stake in their selling point
and swear up and down it worked for them, it still does not absolve them from
scientific, educated reasoning explaining phenomenon.
4. Typically, a reader should be wary of absolutes unless, again, backed by real science.
5. You need to understand that although an explanation can sound rational and
well thought out, if it is not backed with controlled, peer reviewed studies;
it is just about worthless until proven otherwise in the correct environment
(scientific method, peer review).
Quickly, why did you lose weight
eating the peppers, then?
Based on actual evidence, it is more likely your change in eating habits lead
to weight loss (12), not the peppers themselves. The peppers were the guise for
the real reason, a scientifically, peer reviewed, and repeatable phenomena
being masked by a product.
This brings about another warning: taking things out of context.
Articles written by crafty, well-spoken writers can be convincing (maybe I’m
just mind fucking you right now), but even more so when they quote or
manipulate science for their own vice. If an author mentions that the president
of the United States Food and Drug Administration “admitted” beef is unhealthy,
you should read up on the quote itself and make your own mind up.
For example, the FDA mentions this on their website about GMO foods, “…Foods
from genetically engineered plants... that have been evaluated by FDA through
the consultation process… have not gone on the market…”
Without manipulating the words themselves, it is possible to break a sentence
up to make it sound worse than it is in reality. The above sentence sounds as
if the FDA do not approve GMO foods, but in reality, the sentence reads:
“Foods from genetically engineered plants intended to be grown in the United
States that have been evaluated by FDA through the consultation process have
not gone on the market until the FDA’s questions about the safety of such
products have been resolved.” (13)
Or, taking full sentences out of context can make the speaker seem
incriminating when they are not surrounded by the rest of the original source.
So, as much as science has given us, and as much as it proves time and time
again it is an accurate and reliable way of measuring our world for truth,
people can be scumbags and will manipulate the truth for their own conclusions
(almost literally the exact opposite of what the scientific method attempts to
do).
In conclusion, we now know science’s track record, we know that experts are
fantastic, but still aren’t as reliable as the scientific method or the peer
review process (especially in conjunction). We can experience the innovations
of science almost every second of the day (if you are reading this on a
computer or you printed this out..), and for that alone, we should have faith
that it will not fail you in your attempt to find the truth. However, there are
still people who are quite convincing and to the untrained eye, they can get
into your mind; so, that being the case, I know I promised no lists, but I want
people to benefit as much as they can from this, so here are a few rules to
follow when checking if a source is scientifically sound or not:
It may be an unsound article if…
1. If the title of the website or
book supports or denies the view the article is writing about as the two will
almost always be predictably congruent (for example: SaynotoGMO.com or
GMOsaveslives.com)
2. If the article is only substantiated by anecdotes.
3. If the article does not have sources (just like the ones linked to this
article)
4. If the article has sources, but the sources are not reputable (reputable
sources: peer reviewed journals.edu, government agencies.gov, university
websites.edu, pubmed studies.edu).
5. The article takes isolated quotes from seemingly reputable experts (for
example: The head of the CDC even stated, “Ebola is definitely… a disease of
epidemic proportions.”)
6. The author or the website is trying to sell you something (inherit bias).
7. The author speaks in extremes – now, this is not always the case, but it can
be a flag to watch out for (for example: “This is always the case”, “Corn
slowly kills you”)
8. Sometimes a gruesome picture is shown to elicit reaction (For example: pigs
with huge growths from their intestines attributed, according to the article,
to being force fed squirrel meat)
These are, of course, not the only things to look for, but they are a good filter
to use to at least escape the worst of articles.
In the end, you can be pretty certain that almost all, if not all, university,
government, and journals in your field of interest are accurate, reliable
sources to follow with confidence. Sometimes, certain people are respected for
doing their due diligence, but even in those cases, it is wise to check after
them from time to time.
You need to form your own opinion, but that opinion cannot form clearly in the
face of unreliable, deceitful literature and influence. I hope this article was
helpful to you, and be sure to check my sources!
Citations
(1) http://www.fortea.us/english/psiquiatria/history.htm
(2) http://www.friesian.com/hist-2.htm
(3) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528771/history-of-science/29332/Newton
(4) http://www.egr.msu.edu/~lira/supp/steam/wattbio.html
(5) http://energy.gov/articles/history-light-bulb
(6) http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-pc
(7) http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/invention-of-the-internet
(8) http://www.space.com/26204-chuck-yeager.html
(9) http://www.carrier.com/carrier/en/us/about/willis-carrier/
(10) https://explorable.com/who-invented-the-scientific-method
(11) http://teachingcommons.cdl.edu/cdip/facultyresearch/Historyofpeerreview.html
(12) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3432933/
(13) http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/ucm346030.htm
In full disclosure, these should be in APA format, but as this is my blog and not my professional site, I'll spare myself the hour of work :P
