Using science to argue your case

Options
12357

Replies

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    People respond with "Just science" because it becomes an effort to dig up studies 50 times a day for ignorant people.

    This...if people are worried about it and really wanted to know they would do the leg work themselves. It's not my job. If people don't know what the laws of thermodynamics are then that's on their ignorant *kitten*. Really, a vast majority have no interested in actually knowing or understanding science...they just want whatever they think to be right parroted back to them so they can feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves. If they wanted to know they would be doing a lot more than just asking a bunch of randos on a forum.
  • PBsMommy
    PBsMommy Posts: 1,166 Member
    Options
    images12_zps6ef58fb0.jpg
    tumblr_m3sv7gbSbD1rpo93qo1_500_zpsa60f94fc.jpg
  • MzPix
    MzPix Posts: 177 Member
    Options
    Interesting thread.

    (Too bad it was preposterously contradicted in the OP when Wikipedia was quoted as the primary source. LOL.)

    My area of expertise is Sociology and I have had papers published through the peer review process, and it was a big bunch of bologna and politics. I found the entirety of grad school and post to be nothing more than a huge indoctrination process into the “important people” clique. That being said, it could very well be a social science phenomenon. They have to do something to justify their arrogant existence.

    I encourage people to use well rounded reasoning. Look at the science, but do understand that the process is flawed in profound ways. Also look at anecdotal evidence, but understand it is personalized. Also look at the metaphysical, but understand it only exists with faith and belief. And look at common sense!
    If someone keeps an open mind and looks at things in a well-rounded manner, they will usually find the solution that works best – for them. And that’s what’s important, individuals finding answers that work for them, and allowing others to do the same.

    It really is an interesting thread. I haven’t really delved much into these types of discussions since I left the rat race.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    Also, if people could just stop saying "Because science" as as answer that would be great :)

    This is where the person is expecting the poster to actually utilize Google. Usually when people answer that way it's because it's something that has been so widely published that people ought to know by now.
  • mrmagee3
    mrmagee3 Posts: 518 Member
    Options
    I encourage people to use well rounded reasoning. Look at the science, but do understand that the process is flawed in profound ways. Also look at anecdotal evidence, but understand it is personalized. Also look at the metaphysical, but understand it only exists with faith and belief. And look at common sense!
    If someone keeps an open mind and looks at things in a well-rounded manner, they will usually find the solution that works best – for them. And that’s what’s important, individuals finding answers that work for them, and allowing others to do the same.

    I honestly wish I had written that. I'm not sure I've seen a better paragraph anywhere on the internet, ever.
  • willdob3
    willdob3 Posts: 640 Member
    Options
    You can find a study to support just about any claim.

    Bottom line is that we are all different & different things work for different people. There is no one best way to do things. The "my way is the one best way that works for everyone & all other ideas are worthless" posts/threads are ridiculous & I generally stay out of those closed-minded conversations.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    Snark aside, I am a neuroscientist and I am genuinely curious why the general public does not trust science/peer review, and what you trust instead. It makes me sad to see that people basically think that my life's work is worthless.

    Also, serious offer, if anyone on here wants help with reading and interpreting any particular research article, please PM me, I'm happy to help. Sometimes if you only read the abstract, that's not helpful. The most important sections are the methods and results.

    I think we have the media to thank for the mistrust. The media outlets lie about studies all the time.
  • ElliInJapan
    ElliInJapan Posts: 284 Member
    Options
    I think this sums it up very well

    phd051809s.gif
  • DragonSquatter
    DragonSquatter Posts: 957 Member
    Options
    The bottom line is that most people, especially when it comes to nutrition, don't want to put in the work to really understanding anything. If it's not something that can be boiled down to "eat this not that" and "do this not that," most people don't want to bother. The public at large has this problem. It's a product of dumbed-down media that makes everything into a slogan-sized argument.

    Compound that with the arrogance of those who are married to their nonsense, and you've got the gist of most of the arguments on here.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    when you're a kid you get told science is 'hard' maths is 'hard'.
    I'm not sure that telling kids that something is easy when it actually is hard would be useful, because they will figure out fairly quickly that you are lying to them. However, it might be useful to convince them that it is fun, which has the benefit of being true . . . :)

    I'm glad no one told me this as a kid; I might have believed them. I always loved math and appreciated science except when I had a crappy teacher.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    The bottom line is that most people, especially when it comes to nutrition, don't want to put in the work to really understanding anything. If it's not something that can be boiled down to "eat this not that" and "do this not that," most people don't' want to bother. The public at large has this problem. It's a product of dumbed-down media that makes everything into a slogan-sized argument.

    Compound that with the arrogance of those who are married to their nonsense, and you've got the jist of most of the arguments on here.

    I :heart: you! :flowerforyou: :drinker:
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    I think this sums it up very well

    phd051809s.gif

    LOL...agreed.
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    4. Science can't prove everything, or at least not yet. Why do holistic approaches to medicine still work when there is no evidence that they do? Why do some children with autism that have changed to an organic diet have less problems with their autism? Maybe I just haven't done enough of my own research on stuff like that, but there is a lot of weird stuff in our world that science has not been able to prove and I don't know if it ever will.

    Holistic approaches work because of faith. People believe they work and want to see evidence of it, therefore, they will recognize any positive result as proof that it works and disregard all else. Which is fine... if that works for some, then that is awesome. But that doesn't mean science has lost all credibility or that the findings of a controlled, peer-reviewed study should be completely disregarded because somebody might have tainted it with bias.

    In some cases, science simply hasn't caught up. In the last decade, I have seen a larger number of studies proving some holistic approaches to be valid. And of course, there have also been old wives tales that have been debunked. There are still a few things that haven't been studies yet, so we still can't say for a fact.
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    In for the inevitable disbelief in science.
  • hafbreed02
    hafbreed02 Posts: 28
    Options
    excellent observation....you take ANY of the "scientific" studies, have ten people work that exact program, and maybe half will get good results, one will get an awesome response, and two to three it will not do much for. Other than starting out with a basic strength training program, the real secret to fitness is to get the basics down, then find what works for you as an individual as we are all different....besides, "SCIENCE" is there to make you fall for the "next" big thing or buy the latest gimmick...there's no $$$ in telling people the truth, it's all based in marketing!
  • ThickMcRunFast
    ThickMcRunFast Posts: 22,511 Member
    Options
    My 0.02, coming from my field (geobiology)

    1. people who mistrust science often see peer-review as some sort of science circle-jerk, where we all just pat each other on the back to re-affirm the status quo (think, creationists or anti-vax crusaders...anyone who claims science is some sort of 'club' intent on tricking you out of your money). Peer-review is more like being asked to give a coherent talk while other scientists try to stab you in the kidneys. Can it be biased? Of course, I have had reviewers try to reject a paper for the oddest reasons, because my conclusions went against their theories. But it is better than nothing. Every single paper I have published is better for having gone through the peer-review process.

    2. The general public is not properly taught how to recognize good science from bad science from pseudoscience. Everyone hears NASA's announcement of arsenic-based life, but doesn't see the absolute *kitten*-storm that follows as people critically read that paper. This is partially the fault of science journalism, which is just woeful, and part the fault of science education, which makes me want to weep. The number of mistatements, wrong interpretations, and just flat out falsehoods I see on this site on a daily basis would turn me into a bitter person if I gave it more thought.

    3. Science on the edge is tough. You come up with the best hypothesis to fit the observations you have. In good science, the observations stand the test of time, while the interpretations may change (you add new data, you get a better understanding of the world).
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,229 Member
    Options
    In for the inevitable disbelief in science.

    Dude! You're late to the party!
  • poohpoohpeapod
    poohpoohpeapod Posts: 776 Member
    Options
    I did this a.ll through school, why do it again? Ugh and even studies can vary from time to time, So none of it is truly empirical.
  • hafbreed02
    hafbreed02 Posts: 28
    Options
    I think this sums it up very well

    phd051809s.gif

    LOL...agreed.


    hehehe.....nail on the head!
  • DragonSquatter
    DragonSquatter Posts: 957 Member
    Options
    My 0.02, coming from my field (geobiology)

    1. people who mistrust science often see peer-review as some sort of science circle-jerk, where we all just pat each other on the back to re-affirm the status quo (think, creationists or anti-vax crusaders...anyone who claims science is some sort of 'club' intent on tricking you out of your money). Peer-review is more like being asked to give a coherent talk while other scientists try to stab you in the kidneys. Can it be biased? Of course, I have had reviewers try to reject a paper for the oddest reasons, because my conclusions went against their theories. But it is better than nothing. Every single paper I have published is better for having gone through the peer-review process.

    2. The general public is not properly taught how to recognize good science from bad science from pseudoscience. Everyone hears NASA's announcement of arsenic-based life, but doesn't see the absolute *kitten*-storm that follows as people critically read that paper. This is partially the fault of science journalism, which is just woeful, and part the fault of science education, which makes me want to weep. The number of mistatements, wrong interpretations, and just flat out falsehoods I see on this site on a daily basis would turn me into a bitter person if I gave it more thought.

    3. Science on the edge is tough. You come up with the best hypothesis to fit the observations you have. In good science, the observations stand the test of time, while the interpretations may change (you add new data, you get a better understanding of the world).

    I also think that science is moving at a faster pace than ever before, and our thinking as a society hasn't quite caught up to it.

    Good points, all of them.

Categories