Using science to argue your case
Replies
-
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
you! :flowerforyou: :drinker: 0 -
I think this sums it up very well
LOL...agreed.0 -
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.0 -
In for the inevitable disbelief in science.0
-
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!0
-
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).0 -
In for the inevitable disbelief in science.
Dude! You're late to the party!0 -
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.0
-
I think this sums it up very well
LOL...agreed.
hehehe.....nail on the head!0 -
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.0 -
In for the inevitable disbelief in science.
Dude! You're late to the party!
Story of my life. :grumble:
0 -
Just kidding.
0 -
Wait, I can sum up better:
Science is:
while anecdotes are
0 -
There is a lot of crap in scientific journals too, and peer reviewed ones at that.
Quacks have their own journals with very convincing looking 'studies'.
Most studies in peer reviewed journals can't ever be repeated.
Yes. The public at large doesn't seem to grasp exactly how messed up the peer review process can be.
And yet it's leaps and bounds above bro science, conspiracy theories and other crap that hasn't been reviewed AT ALL. I'll stick with peer reviewed over anything else everyday, all day.0 -
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.
Laypeople also think that, just because one study is later shown have led to erroneous conclusions, that makes it "bad science." It doesn't. My dad (a retired geology prof) taught things early in his career that have now been shown to be patently false or untrue. Was the science bad? Was he a poor teacher for passing those things on? No! His understanding of things at the time was based on the best information available at the time. As more information because available, however, conclusions changed, and so he changed what he taught. That's the essence of science.
So, in nutrition, the fact that at some point "science" was supporting or decrying certain things and now has reversed itself doesn't mean the earlier stuff was "bad science." It was good science, and now it's even better. That's the process. Can it be confusing or frustrating to be told to take this vitamin or eat/avoid this food, now don't, now do, now don't? Of course! But recommendations change as more information comes in; that's a fact of life that I wish more people understood.0 -
And yet it's leaps and bounds above bro science, conspiracy theories and other crap that hasn't been reviewed AT ALL. I'll stick with peer reviewed over anything else everyday, all day.
I never said that the alternatives were better (and have said the opposite several times). I object to the idea that a study being peer reviewed automatically makes it a strongly supported study, or that the conclusion is "truth", which is what the general public seems to think that it means.
People read too much into individual studies.0 -
Laypeople also think that, just because one study is later shown have led to erroneous conclusions, that makes it "bad science." It doesn't. My dad (a retired geology prof) taught things early in his career that have now been shown to be patently false or untrue. Was the science bad? Was he a poor teacher for passing those things on? No! His understanding of things at the time was based on the best information available at the time. As more information because available, however, conclusions changed, and so he changed what he taught. That's the essence of science.
So, in nutrition, the fact that at some point "science" was supporting or decrying certain things and now has reversed itself doesn't mean the earlier stuff was "bad science." It was good science, and now it's even better. That's the process. Can it be confusing or frustrating to be told to take this vitamin or eat/avoid this food, now don't, now do, now don't? Of course! But recommendations change as more information comes in; that's a fact of life that I wish more people understood.
And that's also the difference between science, superstition and pseudoscience. The scientist will accept change as new information becomes available whereas the superstitious and psudoscientists won't change even in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to their beliefs.0 -
But everyone knows that science is controlled by the New World Order, Illuminati, George W. Bush, Freemasons, Al Gore, the Rothchild family, Walmart, Lord Zedd and Scientology in order to form their dream of a global communist fascist banana repuiblic dictatorship.
I know this is true because Alex Jones told me.0 -
Unless it's something I care about with a passion, I'm not going to write a dissertation on an MFP forum; sorry. Even then, I'll be hard-pressed. Truth is, if it's an argumentative subject, some pansy will report it and the thread will get locked anyway, thus wasting my time.
TL;DR, if you expect me to conduct professional research on a public forum, I charge by the hour.
ETA: Not saying I refuse to produce a link or 3, just not going to write every thought/feeling on a subject with sources cited... ain't nobody got time for that.0 -
TL;DR, if you expect me to conduct professional research on a public forum, I charge by the hour.
Yeah, pretty much this... if you think I'm wrong, then go dig it up yourself!0 -
TL;DR, if you expect me to conduct professional research on a public forum, I charge by the hour.
Yeah, pretty much this... if you think I'm wrong, then go dig it up yourself!
Boom. I almost typed pretty much exactly this. Put those fingers to good use and consult the google machine!0 -
But everyone knows that science is controlled by the New World Order, Illuminati, George W. Bush, Freemasons, Al Gore, the Rothchild family, Walmart, Lord Zedd and Scientology in order to form their dream of a global communist fascist banana repuiblic dictatorship.
I know this is true because Alex Jones told me.
I, too, quote Alex Jones at every possible juncture.
The man is practically a deity, so full of wisdom.0 -
But everyone knows that science is controlled by the New World Order, Illuminati, George W. Bush, Freemasons, Al Gore, the Rothchild family, Walmart, Lord Zedd and Scientology in order to form their dream of a global communist fascist banana repuiblic dictatorship.
I know this is true because Alex Jones told me.
I, too, quote Alex Jones at every possible juncture.
The man is practically a deity, so full of wisdom.
Jesse "the body" Ventura is also a reliable source.0 -
Perhaps there is some bull**** in peer-reviewed journals, but it's so much better than getting your information from Yahoo News, Huffington Post or, god forbid, Fox.
The studies in peer reviewed journals can be replicated and often are. That's why they list their methodologies in excruciating detail. If there's a discrepancy between the original study and repeated studies, perhaps the methodologies and thus results are flawed. But almost all scientific studies CAN be replicated.
And "because, science" is still a better answer than "because I think so." Sorry. Just because you think it's true doesn't make it a fact.0 -
But everyone knows that science is controlled by the New World Order, Illuminati, George W. Bush, Freemasons, Al Gore, the Rothchild family, Walmart, Lord Zedd and Scientology in order to form their dream of a global communist fascist banana repuiblic dictatorship.
I know this is true because Alex Jones told me.
I, too, quote Alex Jones at every possible juncture.
The man is practically a deity, so full of wisdom.
Jesse "the body" Ventura is also a reliable source.
I trust him unequivocally. He used to be my governor; I am well aware of what an honest man he is.
(As a true Minneostan, I feel obligated to include this disclaimer clearly identifying my sarcasm)0 -
TL;DR, if you expect me to conduct professional research on a public forum, I charge by the hour.
Yeah, pretty much this... if you think I'm wrong, then go dig it up yourself!
I don't have a problem with that, provided people don't give their unsupported opinion as fact, with vague references to "science" to make themselves seem legit. This is particularly true when people are suggesting going against a doctor's orders, or are castigating someone for what he/she is doing, simply because that person chooses to do something different.
There are lots of people on these forums looking for people to say what they want to hear, or looking for answers but without the education/experience to separate the advice wheat from the advice chaff, so to speak. That's why I think that people that don't include legitimate sources should make suggestions as suggestions based on personal experience, rather than "Truth," and add disclaimers like "I heard X, so you might want to research this further...."0 -
Also, if people could just stop saying "Because science" as as answer that would be great
Nope.
Because science.
0 -
Never thought of that! Good observation:)
Some areas of study have very strong scientific research, use the scientific method, actually rerun experiments to see if conclusions can be reproduced.... Diet has not really been like that. It's been what 50 years of 1. throw out butter and eat margarine and trans fats instead - followed by 'whoops' 2. Eggs are bad - followed by eggs are good, etc...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.
People do not trust diet science because we have gotten years of bad science or bad conclusion pushed on the public that did not work. That doesn't mean all science is bad.0 -
As is Terry Hogan!But everyone knows that science is controlled by the New World Order, Illuminati, George W. Bush, Freemasons, Al Gore, the Rothchild family, Walmart, Lord Zedd and Scientology in order to form their dream of a global communist fascist banana repuiblic dictatorship.
I know this is true because Alex Jones told me.
I, too, quote Alex Jones at every possible juncture.
The man is practically a deity, so full of wisdom.
Jesse "the body" Ventura is also a reliable source.0 -
Listen to your own body, it's your best advicer and decide for yourself what's best for you!
Erm, demonstrably false, for many people on here. How do you think so many people got to be obese, and needed to get onto a health web site to track what they eat?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions