 |
|
Reply
| |
In science, content is supposed to be the what matters, assuming that the scientific method (the process) is followed, as almost all scientists assume. In at least some sociological studies, process is studied and content is viewed as too polymorphic to ever be resolved. In my own work, this was in fact my conclusion. That is, if sociology is to be "scientific," then it must focus on what can be known for sure. Arguing that a particular leader's belief system or policies are "liberal" or "conservative," for example, would require both a definition of these terms that just about everyone agrees upon as well as an arbiter of last resort who is acceptable to all (since disputes or grievances are bound to arise). However, it's possible to study the process of sociological acts, and today it is common to hear such "experts" talk about how an issue is "framed," as opposed to whether it is "good" or "bad," "conservative" or "liberal."
Science, on the other hand, is not supposed to have problems with process. The scientific method is supposed to be adhered to, regardless of whether what results makes certain people unhappy, for whatever reason. The reality is far different, as I've learned over the last several years. There seems to be at least as many problems with process in science today (at least in the biologically-related fields) as there is in politics, though at least in politics (in the USA) there is a two party system and a large percentage of "independent" voters, which allows for change. In some scientific fields, however, "experts" in charge of large federal agencies can "lord over" these agencies, acting to protect existing dogma and prevent alternative approaches from being studied effectively, even though the notions they support have been demonstrated to be failures. Decades pass, huge amounts of research money are spent, little if any success occurs (sometimes things get worse, in fact), and the scientific method is ignored or violated directly. The "essential fatty acid" claim, refuted directly in the 1940s, is just one example of this sad situation.
What are some of the characteristics to look for? Usually, there is no formal hypothesis stated for the claim. For example, those who argue that dietary PUFAs are essential for adult, non-pregnant humans need to specify how much PUFAs are needed and exactly what will happen if this amount of PUFAs are not in the diet (and how long will these "deficiency symptoms" take to appear). Obviously, there will be slight variations from one individual to another, but without some guidelines, it's impossible to test the hypothesis, and therefore it should not be regarded as "scientific." Secondly, there are usually few, if any studies that are "on point" and meant specifically to test the underlying truth of the hypothesis. Such studies should "follow up" on previous studies. In the case of the "EFAD" claim, the next logical study to do would be to use the design of the MIT studies from the 1940s on human subjects, but instead "EFAD" researchers have done things like write up their observations of people who were already very ill or had undergone traumatic gastrointestinal surgery, for example. This leads to the next common problem, which is a lack of proper controls. If a confirmation study is to be conducted, it should be direct (not about "markers") and it should control for all potentially relevant causative factors. In the case of humans said to "be infected with HIV," for instance, there is no reason not to study those who refuse to take the "medications, but such a study would have to determine for sure what other factors in their lives could account for "immune system failure," if that in fact occurs at some point.
In any case, what amazes me even today is how "sloppy" science can be (and so the process can be manipulated easily by those in positions of authority), but no matter how much failure it produces, the "medical establishment" is able to convince the majority of the public that "great strides are being made," that cures are "just around the corner," and the undeniable advances in the technology they use it probably at least part of the explanation. Another element seems to be that "medicine" has certain "religious" qualities to it, because unlike in the past, religious leaders (with a few exceptions) are no long in the "business of healing." Thus, content is ever shifting and often clearly wrong, because process is taken for granted and often violated. Claims about cholesterol are a good example, as people were first told to eat less cholesterol, then told that "markers" were more important (such as HDL to LDL ratio) and that "saturated fat" (which was never defined) was to blame, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Now that it's clear that only oxidized LDL is the problem in this context, and that LDL containing a lot of PUFAs are much more susceptible to oxidation, the faulty process is not "translating" that information into practical dietary advice for the "average" person. |
|
 First
Previous
2 of 2
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
I think the content in nutrition/medical science only matters if the results are quick and comprehensible to ordinary people like if you take a poison and die. Then the "experts" must stick to the facts. Otherwise they can play whichever game they like if they serve it in an interesting or dramatic manner to the public. Of course money is a big factor influencing the direction. Chronic diseases which take decades to develop and are also influenced by individual genetic susceptibility are the best targets with most ambiguity. Also what I am finding is that most of the scientists are just ordinary "drones" which follow the direction/dogmas a few leaders pointed out and never try to doubt them.
The only exception may be the antiaging research because most of the scientists in this field don't do it for money and they have to be concerned with long term results to have any success. If such a complex "disease" like aging is the main subject the researchers cannot focus on a single protein/process or set of markers but they must see the organism as a whole and study it from all possible angles and take into account all the processes interconnections.
The evaluation system based on the publication/citation index is also flawed especially in the modern computer age when it's so easy to copy-paste publish. With the huge number of papers produced many experts rarely read past the Abstracts and don't deeply understand the things they are making decisions about. Everyone around me is just hunting for the numbers of papers not concerned about the real contents and practical meanings. The only criteria for the results is to be accepted for publication what depends on the favor of a limited number of experts, the dogma makers ... |
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
