Science - what is it good for?

[baardmk]

In a recent thread I get into a science rant. Spiral replies this

Re: Excellent podcast on "Diet Cults"
viewtopic.php?p=449626#p449626

My post in that thread revolved primarily around the authority people following a WFPB place on science. They may say things like "science shows" this or that. But in reality this may not be true for various reasons. And why should you and me know better than the scientists who have devoted their lives in figuring these things out (and still get a big part wrong...,sadly).

I have questioned the merits of science before as well:
Re: Gluten Sensitivity Might Not Exist After All

You seem to be saying that the science isn't settled on some issues related to nutrition. Or that science will never be able to untangle some of these questions because studying free living human beings over a long period of time is too expensive and too complicated

Yes, in part this is what I'm getting at; that truth may be easier found by other methods than those being found by science's way of isolating factors and treating the patient and disease with the world-view that separates everything from everything else. I believe in common-sense and in experiences, feelings and testimonies, but of course also data. People will often confuse science and data, thinking they are the same. That's what many seem to think of when talking about science. For my response to that, see here. And lots of what I'm thinking has been inspired by "Whole" and thoughts by McDougall and others. I try to take my thinking one step further.

Other than that, Spiral, I said what I said and meant what I meant. I know and understand that science is a continuous process, and I don't meant my post to read like a semantic argument. I do want to reform science, sure, and we could have vastly improved results of the scientific endeavour. But it's not enough, and I think we should continue and improve our other faculties for finding answers, other than science. So I'm not totally against science, but in its current form and standing, being touted as the only and best way to gain knowledge, I disagree.

As evidence of my last point, in response to my post in the "gluten sensitivity"-thread, this was said:

Ultimately, the scientific method is the structure everything must be built on.

viewtopic.php?p=441751#p441751
This view of science seems to be a common view amongst many modern people. I could argue philosophically against this notion at length I suspect. This quote should sound a bit categorical and single-minded to you, I think. I believe other ways of viewing and interpreting the world outside the dogma of "The scientific Method" have been proposed and have their strengths without having many of the drawbacks that typically pseduo-science has. And if science is the perfect way forward, why aren't people more into it themselves, reading studies and figuring out the best way to deal with diabetes etc. Science isn't relevant to most of us, and blame the patient all you want, but the plain and simple answer is that most of us won't believe the science answer even when the study was very good etc. Although science has its strengths, we shouldn't blame people for going with their nature, gut feelings, and rationales. They make sense too, and often in a much more profound sense than science will ever get at.

Many other faculties at our disposal could lead us down a more healthy path towards answers and relevant/valuable knowledge, than relying on scientific dogmas and reductionism. I am thinking about wholism, systems-thinking and a new ethics applied to our earth. And hugging trees and that sort of thing isn't a bad thing, all things balanced, of course.

I have actually studied arguably the hardest science around, physics, and it did teach me that our concepts of the world gets fuzzier the more we want to fix them.

I'll wean off the bad-mouthing of science now. It's still better than many other things around. And though I feel, knowledge-wise, we are seeing diminishing returns from this endeavour, I agree that the results of science and its methods can be a catalyst for a lot of good, although the net sum right now is probably negative.

[Spiral]

You seem to be saying that the science isn't settled on some issues related to nutrition. Or that science will never be able to untangle some of these questions because studying free living human beings over a long period of time is too expensive and too complicated

Yes, in part this is what I'm getting at; that truth may be easier found by other methods than those being found by science's way of isolating factors and treating the patient and disease with the world-view that separates everything from everything else. I believe in common-sense and in experiences, feelings and testimonies, but of course also data. People will often confuse science and data, thinking they are the same.

Data must be interpreted by someone to have any meaning.

Last year, the Mediterranean Diet Study was published and the emails I received from my relatives fascinated me. They had been quiet about nutrition.

But my Aunt Paleo (grass fed beef, full cream in coffee, eggs fried in bacon grease) saw the results as supporting her idea that fat is nutrition. To her, the Med Diet Study showed that adding olive oil and/or walnuts improved health. The American obsession with low-fat diets is unhealthy. We need more fat!!

My Aunt Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian concluded that the Mediterranean Diet is a healthy diet, even though there were lots of adverse events among those who adhered to the diet in the Med Diet Study.

I saw the Med Diet Study as demonstrating, again, that red meat is unhealthy and fruits and vegetables as healthy.

The bottom line was that my interpretation of the data was different from their interpretations.

The way "real science" is supposed to work is a scientific study is released and all of the scientists and doctors interpret it the same way. The data "speaks for itself." In nutrition science, it doesn't seem to work that way.

When it comes to "marketing" the Whole Foods Plant Based Diet, maybe you are correct that more scientific studies aren't going to win over more converts. Esselstyn's latest study isn't going to convince many people (although I think it could convince some). So, when it comes to getting the word out, maybe science isn't the way to reach people. Instead, perhaps we need to appeal to peoples' attachment to animals and the environment.

But in some sense, I think that's wrong. There are a lot of people who were drawn to this diet via "The China Study," which relies on science and little on animal rights beliefs and little on environmentalist beliefs. So, I'm still going to have to put myself down as being a bit more pro-science than you.

[colonyofcells]

Without science, we probably would've outlasted other extinct human species like homo erectus, neanderthals, etc. Most other species (in bacteria, archaea, eukarya, etc.) are lasting quite long without science.

[baardmk]

The way "real science" is supposed to work is a scientific study is released and all of the scientists and doctors interpret it the same way.

Your view of science sounds naive/simplistic. Science on a daily basis is more about discourse(model-making, theories, discussions, analyses), in my mind, than doing one or twelve experiments that supposedly settles the issue. Even in the most objective of sciences there are "camps", rivalling theories and different interpretations on central issues. They will of course agree on the basics*, but data very often doesn't lend itself to this or that interpretation easily just by applying "real science", as you coin it. This happens even when egos may not be a huge part of the equation, I think.

* Though in quantum-physics for instance there are many different interpretations on what it really is telling us about the world, including the not-so-unpopular many-worlds interpretation where every alternative that possibly can happen, actually happens in alternate and infinitely many universes.

[Spiral]

The way "real science" is supposed to work is a scientific study is released and all of the scientists and doctors interpret it the same way.

Your view of science sounds naive/simplistic. Science on a daily basis is more about discourse(model-making, theories, discussions, analyses), in my mind, than doing one or twelve experiments that supposedly settles the issue.

I was intentionally simplifying "real science" because I think this is how most average people, when they attempt to determine the healthiest way of eating, believe nutrition science should work. They get confused when they read a New York Times story promoting the Mediterranean Diet one day and read about Esselstyn the other day and the advice regarding olive oil is different on those two different days.

You have hinted that at least one reason why the public received conflicting messages from the scientific community regarding what constitutes a healthful diet is that big pharma and big food are manipulating the science. This is undoubtedly true. But in addition to that, you do have difference of opinion even among doctors, nutritionists and scientists that don't have a financial stake in those big corporate giants.

I am guessing that this partially explains your disillusionment with science.

But another element of your disillusionment with science is that human beings are complex organisms and we aren't 100 percent rational. We aren't all identical. Thus, your comment about how we can rely not just on science, but on feelings too. So, you seem to be advocating that people not just turn to the McDougall diet because of the scientific evidence that Dr. McDougall has presented supporting his diet, but because after you try it for 10 days, you feel better.

I think this is Geo's perspective as well. He is interested in the scientific studies. But ultimately, it wasn't the studies that convinced him. It was his own personal experience. This leads us to your rhetorical question: Science - what is it good for?

Not much. If we end up only left with our isolated personal experiences to bet our life on.

Still, for me it was reading "The China Study," loaded with all of those scientific references and co-authored by Dr. T. Colin Campbell, someone who had been involved in nutrition science for decades, that convinced me to give the whole foods plant based diet a serious try. When I checked "The China Study" book out from my local library, I feared it was a book advocating animal rights activism, that it would discuss cruelty to animals but not much about nutrition science.

A few pages into the book and I realized that my concerns were misplaced. What I am saying is that if "science" pushed me over the edge, into the land of McDougall, than science is good for something. I know I am not the only one who made the jump based on science.

[baardmk]

Thanks Spiral for yet again finding it worthwhile to counter some of my arguments. I believe we can agree on many points, but those are easily set aside if we start to discuss them.

Without further ado.

I am guessing that this partially explains your disillusionment with science.

So you want to explain my anxieties, beliefs and rationalizations? That sounds a bit like a shrink.

But another element of your disillusionment with science is that human beings are complex organisms and we aren't 100 percent rational.

Here we go blaming the patient, just like doctors and many scientists often have a habit of doing. I'm NOT saying that science is bad because we humans just aren't up to the insight born from this faculty, or that human nature is so frail that we need to go 100% in the direction of some religion explaining all the wonders of life.

I'm not arguing that science won't give us any answers, or that an informed opinion of some of its results etc. shouldn't be an important part of the basis on which you decide what actions to take.

You say the science in "The China Study" convinced you. I've also read it, and I would think its pretty convincing for people open to the message. From FoK and miscellaneous I had already understood the gist of its message and had already changed my diet. If I want to tell someone about what has convinced me, I would use less of a categorical language. I would maybe use the words 'findings', 'data', or something in that vein. I believe that's also what scientists themselves would do. They won't equate science with truth or the data - most will think science is the best way towards truth, but they'd have the sensitivity to realise that matters are still open to interpretation, debate and of course, the perpetual need for more research. Also many are very sensitive to the fact that framing science in a particular manner is problematic, not only philosophically, but also because in reality A doesn't always lead to B, but sometimes C or D, without any apparent way to know in advance.

[Spiral]

I am guessing that this partially explains your disillusionment with science.

So you want to explain my anxieties, beliefs and rationalizations? That sounds a bit like a shrink.

Ha. I wasn't trying to be condescending. I guess it comes naturally to me.

You say the science in "The China Study" convinced you. I've also read it, and I would think its pretty convincing for people open to the message. From FoK and miscellaneous I had already understood the gist of its message and had already changed my diet. If I want to tell someone about what has convinced me, I would use less of a categorical language. I would maybe use the words 'findings', 'data', or something in that vein. I believe that's also what scientists themselves would do. They won't equate science with truth or the data - most will think science is the best way towards truth, but they'd have the sensitivity to realise that matters are still open to interpretation, debate and of course, the perpetual need for more research. Also many are very sensitive to the fact that framing science in a particular manner is problematic, not only philosophically, but also because in reality A doesn't always lead to B, but sometimes C or D, without any apparent way to know in advance.

Ok. Now, I think I understand your point. If we use the search and replace function and replace most uses of the word "science" with "data" or "findings" we improve the accuracy of our discussions and present more respect for "science."

I'll buy that.

Semi-related to what we are talking about here . . . . . . .

It was interesting, in my opinion, to read the attitudes of many commenters on this forum on the thread titled something like "Esselstyn study will be released in May." Many commenters were NOT waiting with baited breath for the new, larger Esselstyn study to be released. I'll go back to Geo here. He basically said, "You don't need more scientific studies. You just need to give this way of eating a try and you will see the results for yourself."

Others had a more skeptical attitude. What? No control group? The attitude was, "Well, Esselstyn's study might impress some poor, hapless vegans. But it won't impress scientists."

After the study was released, you have people wanting a specific definition of what, exactly, constitutes heart disease reversal. And whether the results can be broken out between those who were on statins versus those who were not on statins.

[Risto]

Yes, in part this is what I'm getting at; that truth may be easier found by other methods than those being found by science's way of isolating factors and treating the patient and disease with the world-view that separates everything from everything else. I believe in common-sense and in experiences, feelings and testimonies, but of course also data.

I feel like you and Spiral are talking past each other to some extent. By "truth", do you mean a scientific, physiological understanding of what different foods do to the human body, or is "truth" the meal plan that a given person should eat on a given day?

I don't think the first part is that hard for science, as we know it, to work out, and I say this as a working research scientist in the biosciences field. Of course clinical studies on human beings are difficult and expensive to do, but I don't think that figuring out what food is going to keep people generally healthy is that hard a problem, compared to, say, the hard problems in quantum physics that you mentioned. It's true that a lot of nutrition research is reductionist to the point of being meaningless to practice, and that food businesses use those kinds of research results to promote their business. Still, I don't think that's a reason to declare the scientific method useless. It's perfectly possible to use the scientific method to look at whole diets and human beings and their health. I do think it's a fact that we can arrive at the truth about physiological questions using the scientific method (not to say that there won't be a lot of misteps and false starts on the way).

As for the "what should I eat" part, I think that's always going to depend on some kind of advocacy, or evangelism, even. Some of that is probably always going to be more honest and science-based than the rest. It's about persuading people, who are not all that rational in their daily lives, and the majority of them are absolutely not going to read original research papers or be capable of judging their value. Nor should they be - eating is not that hard. They are going to depend on the aforementioned "feelings", dietary recommendations made by someone else, etc. And of course there is lots of money to be made, often by denying or misrepresenting the results of science (I'm looking at the grave of Robert Atkins).