I wrote up a post on another newsgroup about a person's claims regarding eating fish or taking fish oil supplements, which I'll post below because the methodological issues are relevant on this thread:
QUOTE: I am writing this post for others, not Matti Narkia, because his mind
seems to be as "closed" as one could possibly imagine. Let's start at
the beginning:
1. Science is divided into three assertions: claims, hypotheses, and
theories. Anyone can make a claim, but a hypothesis should have at
least some strong supporting evidence.
2. There is no "proof" - that is for math and logic (or in a U.S.
court - "proof beyond a reasonable doubt).
3. There is, however, demonstration via experimentation as well as
evidence that appears to support an assertion.
4. Recently, the scientific establishment, generally-speaking of
course, has become laden with "models" and statistical "correlations,"
"links," "associations," etc. - this is not science, in that it is not
subject to the scientific method.
5. What is the scientific method? A claim is tested experimentally.
All potentially causative factors are controlled in the experiment
(s), in an attempt to establish causation.
6. If all evidence supports a hypothesis but none contradicts it, it
is then a "theory." It can never be "fact" or "proven," because it's
always possible that an experiment was flawed or that a causative
factor was not examined, for whatever reason.
7. Generally-speaking, it is much easier to invalidate or refute a
hypothesis (or claim) because there only needs to be one piece of
contradictory evidence, if it is "direct" or "on point" evidence.
Let's say someone claims that a certain dietary substance is
"essential." If we then feed a group of animals a diet missing this
substance, and the animals are fine, then that claim has been directly
refuted. It would be consistent with the underlying methodology of
the scientific method for another researcher to repeat the experiment,
to make sure it was not flawed, but there is no central agency with
the responsibility to make sure this is done.
Now, let's turn to Matti's presentation. Is he even making a claim?
I don't see one here, except, perhaps, implicitly. He appears to be
arguing that if everyone supplements their diets with a lot more fish
and/or fish oil, they will be much healthier and/or live to an older
age. He presents us with what he feels is "evidence," but none of it
can be subjected to the scientific method because so many factors are
not controlled in these "studies." Moreover, there is no reason for
this lack of adherence to the scientific method. The kinds of studies
that would be required to validate such claims have been conducted
many decades ago. The reason such direct, on-point experiments are no
longer conducted involves expense, time requirements, funding source
dictates, and a reliance on assumptions that were never demonstrated
to be accurate in the first place (such as the "essential fatty acid"
claim), and possibly some other factors.
This is why I am willing to pay for such experiments to be done, but
only if I am wrong. I should not have to use my own money to
demonstrate that I am correct when billions of dollars are being spent
on nonsense "studies." Now let us compare my claims with Matti's. I
am making a specific, succinct one, which is to assert that a diet
that almost all "nutritional experts" of today would consider very
unhealthy would be healthier and allow animals like humans and dogs to
live longer, healthier lives than if they follow advice such as
Matti's, which is to supplement one's diet (or to replace some items)
with fish and/or fish oil. I am not claiming that a baby rat needs or
does not need particular dietary fatty acids, and so those studies he
cites are irrelevant.
I am claiming that once a human or dog (or several other kinds of
mammals) reaches full maturity, that my diet would be much healthier
than a "typical American diet" which is modified in ways that Matti
recommends. This claim is very easy to test, and would cost several
thousand dollars. One way to do this is to obtain 50 dogs of the same
breed and gender that have reached adulthood and feed them the two
distinct diets. 25 of them would be in each group. Their health
would be monitored and the ages of death recorded. This would be a
direct, on point study. Matti, however, doers not seem to comprehend
the difference between the "studies" he cites and direct evidence.
Fortunately, I've taught the history of science for years and I know
how to deal with people like Matti, who appears to be some sort of
fish industry shill (notice that he has yet, to my knowledge, stated
that he is not affiliated, in any way, with fish or fish oil
companies). UNQUOTE. |
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
