Toxins

EvgeniZyntx

I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.

That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.

So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?

One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.

Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.

To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.

Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.

This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.

^very true and another good example. Thanks!

Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.

Meta-analysis are often poor science.

TheDevastator

I believe that eating right can remove all toxins from your body. The foods that support the liver are the way to go.

http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf

paperpudding

Was all over the news a couple weeks ago how our kids will be the first generation in decades NOT to live as long as their parents.

and de-toxing regularly (or at all) will reverse this trend???

cmeiron

Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.

If common sense were as powerful as people think it is, the concept of science wouldn't exist nor would it be of any utility to anyone. Science exists and is so incredibly powerful and useful specifically because common sense and human perception are such heavily flawed methods of truth detection.

:flowerforyou:

Matt_Wild

I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.

That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.

So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?

One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.

Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.

To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.

Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.

This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.

^very true and another good example. Thanks!

Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.

Meta-analysis are often poor science.

Based on?

professorRAT

I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.

That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.

So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?

One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.

Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.

To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.

Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.

This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.

^very true and another good example. Thanks!

Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.

Meta-analysis are often poor science.

Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).

_Timmeh_

Should I have my dogs do a cleanse? Cause of the pesticides and bad air and processed dog foods.
I really want to rid them of toxins!

EvgeniZyntx

I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.

That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.

So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?

One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.

Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.

To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.

Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.

This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.

^very true and another good example. Thanks!

Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.

Meta-analysis are often poor science.

Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).

Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.

professorRAT

I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.

That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.

So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?

One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.

Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.

To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.

Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.

This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.

^very true and another good example. Thanks!

Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.

Meta-analysis are often poor science.

Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).

Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.

No, you were right to take it literally and I should be punished for using it incorrectly and being so sloppy with language! I promise to work on this.:flowerforyou: I am actually glad you brought it up. Bad habits should be broken!

Zumaria1

I would prefer the truth to a happy medium, because a happy medium is intended to satisfy peoples' egos at the expense of an actual understanding of reality. The question still remains, which toxins are removed by what methods? If you are taking in some "toxin" from air pollution or whatever, how does "only eat lemons for a week" have any effect whatsoever on that?

Someone, anyone please name a specific toxin as well as what technique removes it. If not, what is all this hocus pocus supposed to do for anyone? There is nothing beneficial to any human being to just state a random superstition and demand compromise in the form of 'everyone should sorta believe me so I can feel good about myself.'

I agree with you that happy medium does NOT mean just tell someone what they want to hear. What I meant by that is there are two extreme sides in this issue, one side being eat whatever you want, your body will just clean it up for you, and the other extreme where there is a long list of things they cannot eat, or juice fasts where people don't eat for days, or having to regularly perform enemas.

In between these two extremes, is where the majority usually sits. Does our body, and particularly, our liver, do its job cleansing itself of toxins? Yes. Should we still try to eat as healthy as we can, and use healthy foods to cleanse our liver and help it do its job??? Yes.

Zumaria1

You really don't need to be a biologist or a chemist to know that the world we live in today has much more pollutants, chemicals, or dare I say it, toxins, in the air, water, food, cleansers, etc that we breathe, eat, drink, or use, everyday.

[/quote]

Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.
[/quote]

No disrespect taken at all, I agree that pollution was much worse in most large cities.

Zumaria1

I believe that eating right can remove all toxins from your body. The foods that support the liver are the way to go.

http://balancedconcepts.net/liver_phases_detox_paths.pdf

Thanks for the link, I bookmarked it.

professorRAT

You really don't need to be a biologist or a chemist to know that the world we live in today has much more pollutants, chemicals, or dare I say it, toxins, in the air, water, food, cleansers, etc that we breathe, eat, drink, or use, everyday.

Actually, you do. Pollution in the US (and other areas of the developed world) has improved. It still exists and there are still problems, but how much harmful pollution there is (or isn't) can not be determined by "common sense". Historically, it has been much worse than it is today: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/pollution/02history.html This is exactly why evidence matters, not non-expert opinions based on flawed human observations. I mean no disrespect to you, I am simply illustrating my previously made points regarding science and why it is important.

No disrespect taken at all, I agree that pollution was much worse in most large cities.

[/quote]
[/quote]

:flowerforyou:

Zumaria1

I would prefer the truth to a happy medium, because a happy medium is intended to satisfy peoples' egos at the expense of an actual understanding of reality. The question still remains, which toxins are removed by what methods? If you are taking in some "toxin" from air pollution or whatever, how does "only eat lemons for a week" have any effect whatsoever on that?

Someone, anyone please name a specific toxin as well as what technique removes it. If not, what is all this hocus pocus supposed to do for anyone? There is nothing beneficial to any human being to just state a random superstition and demand compromise in the form of 'everyone should sorta believe me so I can feel good about myself.'

I agree with you that happy medium does NOT mean just tell someone what they want to hear. What I meant by that is there are two extreme sides in this issue, one side being eat whatever you want, your body will just clean it up for you, and the other extreme where there is a long list of things they cannot eat, or juice fasts where people don't eat for days, or having to regularly perform enemas.

In between these two extremes, is where the majority usually sits. Does our body, and particularly, our liver, do its job cleansing itself of toxins? Yes. Should we still try to eat as healthy as we can, and use healthy foods to cleanse our liver and help it do its job??? Yes.

Zumaria1

I would prefer the truth to a happy medium, because a happy medium is intended to satisfy peoples' egos at the expense of an actual understanding of reality. The question still remains, which toxins are removed by what methods? If you are taking in some "toxin" from air pollution or whatever, how does "only eat lemons for a week" have any effect whatsoever on that?

Someone, anyone please name a specific toxin as well as what technique removes it. If not, what is all this hocus pocus supposed to do for anyone? There is nothing beneficial to any human being to just state a random superstition and demand compromise in the form of 'everyone should sorta believe me so I can feel good about myself.'

I agree with you that happy medium does NOT mean just tell someone what they want to hear. What I meant by that is there are two extreme sides in this issue, one side being eat whatever you want, your body will just clean it up for you, and the other extreme where there is a long list of things they cannot eat, or juice fasts where people don't eat for days, or having to regularly perform enemas.

In between these two extremes, is where the majority usually sits. Does our body, and particularly, our liver, do its job cleansing itself of toxins? Yes. Should we still try to eat as healthy as we can, and use healthy foods to cleanse our liver and help it do its job??? Yes.

EvgeniZyntx

I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.

That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.

So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?

One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.

Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.

To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.

Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.

This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.

^very true and another good example. Thanks!

Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.

Meta-analysis are often poor science.

Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).

Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.

No, you were right to take it literally and I should be punished for using it incorrectly and being so sloppy with language! I promise to work on this.:flowerforyou: I am actually glad you brought it up. Bad habits should be broken!

Back at you :flowerforyou:

mmapags

I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.

That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.

So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?

One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.

Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.

To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.

Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.

This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.

^very true and another good example. Thanks!

Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.

Meta-analysis are often poor science.

Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).

Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.

No, you were right to take it literally and I should be punished for using it incorrectly and being so sloppy with language! I promise to work on this.:flowerforyou: I am actually glad you brought it up. Bad habits should be broken!

Back at you :flowerforyou:

This is what i like best about both of you as my friends. Humility, honesty, the williningness to grow and progress based on facts and an inherently supportive nature. To say nothing of your intelligence!! You are examples to many others here. Glad you are both on my friends list.

CoderGal

I believe it's hard to find absolute truth in science.

That is correct. The way science helps us is by using meta-analysis to evaluate large bodies of evidence, we can find the likelihood that something is true. It is really about probabilities. If most evidence is pointing in the same direction, then odds are that is the right answer. If it is 50/50, then we don't really know yet. As new evidence is found, we add that to the pot and see where it stacks up. It is about where you would place your bets. That is why expert opinion and meta-analysis is most important in examining evidence.

So should we not make decisions until science proves it's okay? That's one of my biggest points. Do we have to wait for science?

One of the biggest things I talk about is learning from experience.

Not exactly. But we should not go around overstating our case when the jury is still out. This happens often in many areas of science. Think of it as placing a bet with lots of your own hard earned money. If you would not wager a large sum that something is true, then you should really temper how loudly you trumpet it as being true.

To have a high degree of confidence that something is true (that can be investigated via scientific method)? Well, yes, we have to wait. Some things we have lots of evidence regarding, some things we don't. It sucks that way. I also think sometimes we have a fair amount of evidence pointing in one direction, but people choose to believe an alternative view despite a lack of evidence supporting it. I am not sure why this happens, but it happens frequently.

Also, learning from experience can be problematic because it does not allow us to control for other variables. For example, often cutting carbs also results in cutting calories. People sometimes think the low carb diet is what allowed them to lose weight. They do not try to reliably and consistently eat the same calories with the lower carb profile and see what happens. That is what good science allows us to do (and with larger numbers of people involved in the "experiment"). Human brains look for patterns and will see them even in a known random series. Our brains will betray us that way. So, we need science to help us sort things out.

This happens to a lot of people with autoimmune diseases too. They cut out something, or start taking a pill, and their symptoms get better. So they think it was because of what they did (common sense). But autoimmune disorders come and go on their own, so it's very hard to figure out when you've really helped/hurt yourself, and when it was just a coincidence or a third variable.

^very true and another good example. Thanks!

Thankfully, meta-analysis can lead us to the most likely effective treatments for such things. They don't work on everyone, but they do work on the majority. So, it is your best bet. Probability is really all we get out of the deal.

Meta-analysis are often poor science.

Honestly, I am using the term less specifically than I should. I am intending to express that broad analysis of the body of evidence on a topic is very useful. Furthermore, consensus view of this evidence from a community of experts on the issue is also important. (The hope being that a large community has looks at results as well as weighed value of various studies based on perceived quality). Of course, no one approach to examining evidence is perfect, I just think this is likely to yield the best information. You are absolutely correct that meta-analysis is a more specific statistical approach and I should not have used the term here. (sloppiness on my part).

Ok, my fault for taking it literally. After years of having meta analysis studies disallowed from drug applications in Europe (along with conclusions that are not part of the hypothesis design) I sort of twitch at the use of that word. Thank you for your explanation. I agree 100%.

No, you were right to take it literally and I should be punished for using it incorrectly and being so sloppy with language! I promise to work on this.:flowerforyou: I am actually glad you brought it up. Bad habits should be broken!

Back at you :flowerforyou:

This is what i like best about both of you as my friends. Humility, honesty, the williningness to grow and progress based on facts and an inherently supportive nature. To say nothing of your intelligence!! You are examples to many others here. Glad you are both on my friends list.

*tear of joy* I did not expect to come into the toxin thread and see such a beautiful message

BurtHuttz

evry1 on this site is so mean. ^^^Look at these guys.

ArroganceInStep

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


Group Hug!!!!!




Wait...where'd everybody go???