Interesting article about Americans' declining trust of scientists & scientific journals

[Saddlemomma]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2014/07/13/bad-science-muckrakers-question-the-big-science-status-quo/

 

I also took a look at the website the article referenced, Retraction Watch.  It was pretty interesting.  Upon further investigation about the merits of the above article, I read this article from 2005: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124

 

Interesting....

[scootiepie]

I read this blog a lot.    He regularly takes on the "research" published in the field of medicine.     It's quite amusing to see how ridiculous much of the "studies" are.    

 

skepticalscapel.blogspot.com

 

 

 

[Joanne]

Thank you! I am teaching AP Psychology this year, and research is an important part of the content.

 

I will be using these in some way.

[SKL]

Yes.  I personally know all kinds of folks who have published scientific studies.  Many of them are well-meaning, respectable, humble people.  But some of them are whack jobs, whose bias is so obvious it is hard to stay in the same room with them.  Stupid immature comments and peevish tantrums and a complete lack of the understanding that "my brain thinks this" does not equal "this is the absolute truth."  Because obviously everyone else is stupid compared to them.  Yes, these people are published researchers who teach at popular universities.

 

I love science, but a true scientist will admit that scientific research has limitations. The cool thing about science is that the search for knowledge is infinite.  Beware of anyone who insists that "the science is settled" on a given point.

[Slartibartfast]

I am going to offer up my favorite quote by Donald Rumsfield,

 

""There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say, we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know."

 

For many years the peer review process was supposed to keep scientists in check. I want to know what is being done by the scientific community to repair the damage that has been done to that process and the trust that people put in that process. With so many articles being submitted with research having been supported by pharmaceutical companies or big oil it is hard to see how this can be prevented.

 

I like reading Skeptic as well.

 

 

[albeto.]

Saddlemomma, is it your argument that science cannot be trusted? Can you explain this a bit more in your own words? 

[mom31257]

I think what it comes down to is everything should be taken 'with a grain of salt'. Unfortunately, every scientist has an agenda and has to make a living, sometimes the two being one goal. The result is good science as well as bad science.

I am very skeptical of new research findings, and I will never fully trust any industry that makes huge profits for CEOs and stockholders.

[Mom-ninja.]

A lack of knowledge of statistics is prevalent in society. Even scientists can be jaded to not read what the numbers are really saying. How articles are worded makes a huge difference. Also, the crux of the problem (along with misunderstanding of stats) is confusion over correlation vs. causation.

 

Then add in pecuniary goals, status goals, and bias (which all humans have) and studies can be skewed. The "proof" of science (for lack of a better word) is in the ability for other scientists to reproduce the same results over and over and over.

[Halftime Hope]

I don't quibble AT ALL with the scientific method.  But I do have a deep seated distrust of being told that I should do this or that because of this study or that study. Here's a prime example why:

 

dh's cardiologist was adamant (emotionally so) that dh *had* to go on a statin.  He was cautious about putting dh on the brand-name that is named like a toothpaste  :-), due to its known side-effects, but he said it was the only one proven to reduce the size of plaques in the blood vessels, as that was the "holy grail"  (his words) for cardiological practice.   I went home to read through all the studies I could find on PubMed and Medline, and guess what?  

 

That expen$$ive, non-generic, bad-symptom producing drug showed a reduction of plaques by 0.5% in size.  Are you kidding me?  I don't know how that could even clear the margin of error for the testing.  And yet, he was pushing it.  This was one of the things we should really do.  

 

Maybe I should rephrase and say that some of the interpretation of "science" is not trustworthy, and that's assuming that the science is sound.  Yikes, as I think this through, there are multiple levels on which it can go south.

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

I read a book about the overuse of prescription drugs maybe six years ago. One thing the author pointed out was absolute risk vs. relative risk. If a drug reduced the risk of a heart attack by 50% per year but only 2% of untreated patients in the study had a heart attack, then it stopped one heart attack for every hundred patients taking it. It looks much less impressive to say that a drug will help 1% of patients per year (while the other 99% waste their money and/or have side effects) than to say it reduces the risk of a heart attack by 50%.

 

Considering the above, it's no surprise that doctors would be convinced that statins are helpful, even though all they do is cause nasty side effects in many patients put on them. Doctors should focus on treatments that help most patients with a condition, not just a few people.

[Caroline]

A lack of knowledge of statistics is prevalent in society. Even scientists can be jaded to not read what the numbers are really saying. How articles are worded makes a huge difference. Also, the crux of the problem (along with misunderstanding of stats) is confusion over correlation vs. causation.

 

Then add in pecuniary goals, status goals, and bias (which all humans have) and studies can be skewed. The "proof" of science (for lack of a better word) is in the ability for other scientists to reproduce the same results over and over and over.

I agree that a huge part of this is a lack of knowledge and understanding of statistics. And percentages.

[FaithManor]

A lack of knowledge of statistics is prevalent in society. Even scientists can be jaded to not read what the numbers are really saying. How articles are worded makes a huge difference. Also, the crux of the problem (along with misunderstanding of stats) is confusion over correlation vs. causation.

 

Then add in pecuniary goals, status goals, and bias (which all humans have) and studies can be skewed. The "proof" of science (for lack of a better word) is in the ability for other scientists to reproduce the same results over and over and over.

I agree. One of the really big problems we have is advice is given based on single studies without verification that the tests were repeated with the same degree of accuracy. The rush to publish, the rush to make snap judgments without reflection and confirmation is terrible. If the drug company published it, be prepared because the almighty profit means more than human life. I don't blame people for assuming that if the department of ag says x or the FDA says y, then you can't trust it.

 

I am a huge fan of carefully conducted, peer reviewed, reproduceable science. Huge fan! Unfortunately, I do think more and more junk "science" is slipping in the door through pressure from whom is funding what, and I find myself increasingly skeptical until about 10 or 20 years have passed and verification has been achieved. LOL, that says a lot coming from someone who adores teaching biology, chemistry, and physics!

[JumpyTheFrog]

Reproducable...that's what we need more of, especially in the medical area. Also, I'm tired of reading the abstracts for studies that showed that xyz cheaper or more natural treatment didn't help when they only used a very low dose, a form known to not be very well absorbed and/or converted in the body by many people, or a synthetic form not found in food that takes extra work for the body to process. Why can't these scientists study multiple dose levels or multiple forms at once? Maybe 500 mg of xyz doesn't help but 2,000 mg does. Instead, we just hear that xyz was "proven" to be useless.

[TranquilMind]

I read this blog a lot.    He regularly takes on the "research" published in the field of medicine.     It's quite amusing to see how ridiculous much of the "studies" are.    

 

skepticalscapel.blogspot.com

I tried to go to that site.  It says this blog does not exist. 

[albeto.]

Maybe I should rephrase and say that some of the interpretation of "science" is not trustworthy, and that's assuming that the science is sound.  Yikes, as I think this through, there are multiple levels on which it can go south.

 

I see this as unrestrained capitalism using a particularly convenient scientific study as a gimmick to sell their wickets. 

 

The problem isn't the science. It's corporate greed and legislation that protects and promotes it. 

[TranquilMind]

I don't quibble AT ALL with the scientific method.  But I do have a deep seated distrust of being told that I should do this or that because of this study or that study. Here's a prime example why:

 

dh's cardiologist was adamant (emotionally so) that dh *had* to go on a statin.  He was cautious about putting dh on the brand-name that is named like a toothpaste  :-), due to its known side-effects, but he said it was the only one proven to reduce the size of plaques in the blood vessels, as that was the "holy grail"  (his words) for cardiological practice.   I went home to read through all the studies I could find on PubMed and Medline, and guess what?  

 

That expen$$ive, non-generic, bad-symptom producing study showed a reduction of plaques by 0.5% in size.  Are you kidding me?  I don't know how that could even clear the margin of error for the testing.  And yet, he was pushing it.  This was one of the things we should really do.  

 

Maybe I should rephrase and say that some of the interpretation of "science" is not trustworthy, and that's assuming that the science is sound.  Yikes, as I think this through, there are multiple levels on which it can go south.

OR....your husband could go on a plant diet and decrease his cholesterol and tryglicerides tremendously and not need the overpriced, high profit drug. 

 

But that doesn't make anyone any money. 

 

Except in emergencies where you really don't have any choice (and I've even been burned there), I only listen to doctors who are interested in fixing problems, not medicating them on an ongoing basis, causing six new symptoms that also require a different medication for each.

Don't get me started.  Anyway, I hope your husband is fine and lives to 120.

 

[Cricket]

I tried to go to that site.  It says this blog does not exist. 

 

Haven't read any of it but I could pull it up.  Here is the actual link. 

[TranquilMind]

Haven't read any of it but I could pull it up.  Here is the actual link. 

Thanks!

[Cricket]

I see this as unrestrained capitalism using a particularly convenient scientific study as a gimmick to sell their wickets. 

 

The problem isn't the science. It's corporate greed and legislation that protects and promotes it. 

 

If this quote from the article is true, then there is also a problem starts long before capitalism enters the picture. 

 

Another major problem is that many study results cannot be reliable reproduced. Oransky cites a famous paper by Dr. John Iaonnidis, “Why most published research findings are false,†that shows the inherent biases and the flawed statistical analyses built into most “hypothesis driven†research, resulting in publications that largely represent “accurate measures of the prevailing bias.â€

[albeto.]

If this quote from the article is true, then there is also a problem starts long before capitalism enters the picture. 

 

Another major problem is that many study results cannot be reliable reproduced. Oransky cites a famous paper by Dr. John Iaonnidis, “Why most published research findings are false,†that shows the inherent biases and the flawed statistical analyses built into most “hypothesis driven†research, resulting in publications that largely represent “accurate measures of the prevailing bias.â€

 

That quote is misleading. Inherent biases exist. Humans are prejudiced thinkers. We are irrational thinkers by nature. We see patterns and assume our experiences confirm these patterns. The scientific method functions to weed them out of the process of discovery. The religious method functions to validate them. 

 

Let me ask you a question: If you think the scientific method cannot be trusted, or that it is less reliable than the religious method, can you share what scientific explanation has ever been replaced with a religious one?

[Tammyla]

Thanks for the links; I printed them and will read them a little later.

[Forget-Me-Not]

I tried to go to that site. It says this blog does not exist.

There should be an L in the word "scalpel". If you cut and pasted that might be your issue. I just added it to my Twitter feed. Here you go:

 

http://skepticalscalpel.blogspot.com/

[Cricket]

But that is part of the scientific method!

 

Someone publishes a paper with significant result X.

It cannot be replicated in further studies.

 

Significant result X is discounted by the scientific community.

 

You can't seriously be suggesting that publication only ever happens after replicability has been proven ?

 

Publishing a paper with sig result X is what leads to further studies, and the acceptance or rejection of X.

 

I might have misread albeto's post.  

 

Ha!  Looking back I did.  I thought she was saying something else. :laugh:  I think self-correction in science is a good thing too and didn't mean to imply that it wasn't.

 

That quote is misleading. Inherent biases exist. Humans are prejudiced thinkers. We are irrational thinkers by nature. We see patterns and assume our experiences confirm these patterns. The scientific method functions to weed them out of the process of discovery. The religious method functions to validate them. 

 

Let me ask you a question: If you think the scientific method cannot be trusted, or that it is less reliable than the religious method, can you share what scientific explanation has ever been replaced with a religious one?

 

I'm not really sure what religion has to do with the discussion but see above ^^^.  :001_smile:

[albeto.]

I'm not really sure what religion has to do with the discussion but see above ^^^.  :001_smile:

 

I'm gambling here. The scientific methodology is the most reliable means by which we can familiarize ourselves with the world around us, but there is a fear of it, a sense of distrust. This thread seems to have been created to encourage that mistrust. There are other means by which people have sought knowledge: astrology, conversing with the dead, reading hidden messages in things like tea leaves, crystals, or numbers, religions. The Christian religion is a popular alternative to science, especially in the United States where most WTM members live. It's your religion, if I'm not mistaken. If you think science cannot be trusted, it's not a risky gamble to assume you think religious insight is more reliable. That's why I asked the question. It's a follow up question to the implication the OP made, and continues to make on these forums, the implication that science cannot be trusted. 

[Halftime Hope]

OR....your husband could go on a plant diet and decrease his cholesterol and tryglicerides tremendously and not need the overpriced, high profit drug. 

 

But that doesn't make anyone any money. 

 

Except in emergencies where you really don't have any choice (and I've even been burned there), I only listen to doctors who are interested in fixing problems, not medicating them on an ongoing basis, causing six new symptoms that also require a different medication for each.

Don't get me started.  Anyway, I hope your husband is fine and lives to 120.

 

Or he could go back on a low-carb diet, with lots of low-carb veggies and reasonable amounts of salads and very small amounts of low-carb fruits--one serving per day--and moderate fat and meats.  That's what has yielded proven, measureable, glorious results in his body, time and time again, but unfortunately he cannot bring himself to eat that way over time.

[creekland]

Here's my favorite take on the issue:

 

 

Sad, but true.  And I'm one who is rather skeptical of many things I read - curious, but skeptical.  I need a bit of real, believable, proof to change my mind about things.

[Halftime Hope]

 

 

The problem isn't the science. It's corporate greed and legislation that protects and promotes it. 

 

I'm going to repeat myself from earlier, I have no problem with the scientific method. 

 

But there are multiple levels on which things can go south before studies, in the design, implementation, number-crunching, selection of candidates, implementation of protocol, and on and on.   There are numerous way in which things can go south after the science is finished, in the interpretation, in the recommendations that follow, and so on. 

 

So, you can say that the problem is not the science, and I'll agree with you, but I don't know that we can separate the science from the people that come before and after it.  Therefore, it is imperative that people read and think for themselves, or that they have someone they trust to get their information from. 

 

You said somewhere else that science eliminates bias, religion confirms it.   Re. the first part:  I wish it would.    (ETA:  what Creekland posted.)

[Halftime Hope]

Unless you are 'being told what to do' by reading all reputable science papers themselves, start to finish, on all available topics - don't blame the scientists for misleading you, blame the media.

 

I blame the medical establishment, most of it, and big pharma, for the area of misused "science" that really concerns me.  

[albeto.]

 

 

I'm going to repeat myself from earlier, I have no problem with the scientific method. 

 

But there are multiple levels on which things can go south before studies, in the design, implementation, number-crunching, selection of candidates, implementation of protocol, and on and on.   There are numerous way in which things can go south after the science is finished, in the interpretation, in the recommendations that follow, and so on. 

 

So, you can say that the problem is not the science, and I'll agree with you, but I don't know that we can separate the science from the people that come before and after it.  Therefore, it is imperative that people read and think for themselves, or that they have someone they trust to get their information from. 

 

You said somewhere else that science eliminates bias, religion confirms it.   Re. the first part:  I wish it would.    (ETA:  what Creekland posted.)

 

You, and creekland and the OP are raising a strawman fallacy. Science isn't unreliable because funding for research is in some ways corrupt. In many ways it is not, but you'll likely not be familiar with the many thousands of scientific journal articles published in a plethora of fields of study. You may or may not be aware of different details coming forth from the scientific community. People trusting only what they read and understand rely on those who simplify information for their own agendas. In other words, they're being duped by media that has their own financial reasons to stir up fear and gather a following. People trusting only what they read and understand results in preventable diseases increasing around the world after years of constant decline:

 

 

 

 

The interactive map gives a gut-wrenching tour of global outbreaks of measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and whooping cough from 2008-2014. These diseases -- all of which are easily prevented by vaccines -- can have dire consequences. The CDC estimates that 164,000 people around the world will die from measles each year, and it is experiencing quite a resurgence in the UK. The United States has recently seen a drastic increase in whooping cough, which causes around 195,000 deaths per year. The majority of these deaths occur in impoverished regions with very little access to vaccines. In the case of developed areas like the US or UK, they shouldn’t be happening at all.

 

 

 

link

 

The anti-intellectualism that is increasing in our society is cause for concern. Societies cannot maintain a competitive edge in a global economy when its citizens are simply unable to keep up with the progress other societies promote. There are so many things objectively correlated with education such as standard of living, health, less poverty, fewer criminals, and less corruption. Educators in most progressive societies are well educated themselves, they recognize the value of deferring to professionals with regard to detailed information. Yet here in the US, and right now on this forum (as this thread is a prime example), there is instead encouragement to distrust fields of study and rely instead on one's own opinion. The problem is, trusting one's opinion about information they simply don't have access to is like asking for a kind of Wild West mentality with regard to information. I have mine, you have yours and as long as you don't piss me off, we'll get along fine. Right? But that's not very civilized, and in reality it rewards the aggressive individuals, the ones who are willing to take advantage of others for their own gain. If you think medical research is corrupt, try a nation of uneducated people, dependent upon others to keep them safe. 

[Forget-Me-Not]

I blame the medical establishment, most of it, and big pharma, for the area of misused "science" that really concerns me.

 

The pharmaceutical companies are the ones that scare me for sure. Until the study registry came out, they'd just bury studies that didn't fit their agenda. And it seems like so many drugs are rushed through the FDA approval process and then yanked a year or two later for widespread problems. They're under-researching and using the public as their guinea pigs. It's shameful. I'm always leery of medications that are supposedly the latest and greatest thing.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Albeto, are you really comparing those of us who acknowledge the amount of fraudulent and poorly designed studies, especially in the medical field (the one many of us are most familiar with) and the skepticism that results with those who promote astrology? Pointing out that drug companies often hide studies with results they don't like, end studies too early before the real effectiveness or side effects are shown, or outright lie is not the same as throwing up our hands and reading tea leaves! Encouraging people to put more trust in studies with replicated results, especially done by parties without conflicts of interest, than in one time studies funded by drug companies is not promoting a "science is bad" mindset.

 

Please try to take this gently, but I have often noticed your tendency to turn posts about any number of unrelated topics and turn them into "religion is bad, science is good" threads. Nobody here has mentioned religion or anything related. Mostly, people have been voicing their frustrations with drug companies and doctors pushing minimally effective drugs on people that are usually better off without them. Can we please skip the part of the conversation where anybody who has experiencd anything supernatural or religious in any way is told that we are imagining it?

[JumpyTheFrog]

Let me also add that the public losing trust in science doesn't mean they are becoming more religious. In my opinion, the public may also be losing trust in any number of the following: organized religion, the media, the government, the schools, their neighbors, etc.

[Halftime Hope]

Albeto's comments at the left margin.  My responses are indented. 

 

 

(snip)  People trusting only what they read and understand rely on those who simplify information for their own agendas.  (snip)

 

In other words, they're being duped by media that has their own financial reasons to stir up fear and gather a following.

 

Please do not assume and paint me (or Creekland, or the OP for that matter) with broad brushes when you don't know how we educate ourselves or make decisions.  (I specifically mentioned going to the original studies on that medication and reading them for myself.)    For myself, consumption of popular media is almost nil.

 

I also did not tell you anything about the entire context surrounding that one medication detail, but suffice to say that the cardiologists (multiple) are impressed with the data-driven questions and discussions *we* initiated, and they've significantly altered the plan to be one that includes "gold standard" (data driven) treatment for dh rather than the most expedient, out of the box, insurance-compliant norm.   

 

I'm the researcher in the family, the one with the passion for healthcare, and yeah, that's because I'm ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. LOL! (See below.)

 

 

The anti-intellectualism that is increasing in our society is cause for concern. ( Granted.) Societies cannot maintain a competitive edge in a global economy when its citizens are simply unable to keep up with the progress other societies promote. There are so many things objectively correlated with education such as standard of living, health, less poverty, fewer criminals, and less corruption. Educators in most progressive societies are well educated themselves, they recognize the value of deferring to professionals with regard to detailed information.

 

1) This is useful in many cases, but not in others.  We homeschoolers are clearly deferring to the educational professionals.  :001_rolleyes: 

 

2) In the area of healthcare, professionals have made so many mistakes in my family's care (nearly killing my FIL twice, and causing him severe injury several other times), so I've learned to question, to make sure I understand, to ask healthcare professionals to double check their work, to research for myself.  When I'm in an emergency, I will have no choice but to trust. 

 

3) The answer to anti-intellectualism is not dependence/deference on experts, it is widespread renewal of a commitment to and valuation of a well-educated populace.

 

 

Yet here in the US, and right now on this forum (as this thread is a prime example), there is instead encouragement to distrust fields of study and rely instead on one's own opinion. 

 

That's not what I said:  I said that I went to published studies. That does not equate to relying on my own opinion.  I did say I (generally) distrusted the medical establishment and big pharma.  See #2 above.

 

 

The problem is, trusting one's opinion about information they simply don't have access to is like asking for a kind of Wild West mentality with regard to information.

 

But I do have access, both to studies and to people practicing.   Even better:  I think, and I ask good questions, and most of all, I cause the doctors I work with to think--so far that last part is really working well for us.  When doctors begin to think along with us, they switch gears and work with us in a different way, not the "off the shelf" way that is the minimum that many people will do for themselves.  (I can't tell you how many times we heard, "Yeah, people choose x, because they are up and running in a day.  We do way too many x procedures....")

 

.... try a nation of uneducated people, dependent upon others to keep them safe. 

 

In my opinion, a nation unable or unwilling to question "the experts", to think, to take responsibility for making informed decisions, is also a dangerous society, one that is wide open to manipulation.  

 

[albeto.]

Albeto, are you really comparing those of us who acknowledge the amount of fraudulent and poorly designed studies, especially in the medical field (the one many of us are most familiar with) and the skepticism that results with those who promote astrology? Pointing out that drug companies often hide studies with results they don't like, end studies too early before the real effectiveness or side effects are shown, or outright lie is not the same as throwing up our hands and reading tea leaves! Encouraging people to put more trust in studies with replicated results, especially done by parties without conflicts of interest, than in one time studies funded by drug companies is not promoting a "science is bad" mindset.

I'm not making that comparison. I'm saying that the OP implicates scientists and scientific journals as being untrustworthy because science itself is untrustworthy. Some comments in this thread further support this idea, and it is that idea I am disagreeing with. As a community of educators, I think it's a valuable thing to apply a kind of checks and balances to the ideas that stimulate learning, the kinds of ideas that inspire teaching. Kind of like what you and I are doing right now.

 

You can look online about the reaction to the article the OP links. Ironically, it's guilty of the same thing it accuses medical research of doing - misleading the public by taking a small point of data and portraying it as being of greater significance than it is. Here's one site that explains nicely:

 

He’s not really talking about all ‘research findings’, just research that uses the

 

"ill-founded strategy of claiming conclusive research findings solely on the basis of a single study assessed by formal statistical significance, typically for a p-value less than 0.05."

 

So the article isn't about all research findings, but we're being encouraged to draw that conclusion nevertheless. The comments in this thread further that stereotype. Science cannot be trusted because it's corrupt, scientists use one seemingly insignificant point of data for profitable reasons to themselves, consumers be damned. The hypocrisy is worthy of being called out here. 

 

For my part, science and scientific journals are not the issue here. Epistemology is. Do we rely on objective data, research, falsification, and peer review to understand the world, or do we rely on subjective experience and anecdotal stories from people we know? In short, how do we know what we know, and what will we do with this?

 

It's important to note that the scientific method has been created over the centuries to ferret out bias, to expose poorly constructed research, to thwart individuals from manipulating information for selfish reasons. In short, the reason we're skeptical of medical research is because the scientific method is doing its job! It's ferreting out bias. It's exposing poorly constructed research. It's thwarting the manipulation of information for selfish reasons. We're all the more aware of corruption in research funding because the scientific method is working.

 

I suspect you know this and that to some extent you agree with me. I suspect this because you don't advocate scrapping scientific knowledge. So why should we support the vilification of science if the real culprit here is not science but unrestrained corporate profits?

 

 

Please try to take this gently, but I have often noticed your tendency to turn posts about any number of unrelated topics and turn them into "religion is bad, science is good" threads. Nobody here has mentioned religion or anything related. Mostly, people have been voicing their frustrations with drug companies and doctors pushing minimally effective drugs on people that are usually better off without them. Can we please skip the part of the conversation where anybody who has experiencd anything supernatural or religious in any way is told that we are imagining it?

I disagree they are unrelated. The OP is an outspoken Christian who publicly puts her trust in the bible over scientific discovery. She offers these kinds of posts from time to time. I can't help but form the image in my head of a person picking up the first stone to throw at the accused (in this case, science) and quietly withdraws while the crowd revs itself up to pick up more stones. It's an interesting trend I see here from time to time. I think it should be exposed as a kind of fear mongering, as anti-intellectualism. If you disagree with me, and it's perfectly valid and cool to disagree with me, the appropriate thing to do is have a logical discussion about it. As educators, I think this is like being offered to attend mini cyber conferences whenever we see a subject of interest. It's not only interesting, it should provide us with new ideas to bring back to our workplace - our homes.

 

The alternative is to shake my head and keep quiet. That would support the public impression of home educators who believe that science and scientific journals cannot be trusted. I don't agree. I'm not alone in this. 

 

Let me also add that the public losing trust in science doesn't mean they are becoming more religious. In my opinion, the public may also be losing trust in any number of the following: organized religion, the media, the government, the schools, their neighbors, etc.

 

I agree with you. 

[Halftime Hope]

That's not what albeto said, so calm down with the outrage.

 

There are many Christians, both scientists and non-scientists, outspoken and not, who don't feel a need to set up some kind of a fake competition between science and God, and discredit science as part of proving that God wins.

 

Actually, that is exactly what Albeto said: 

 

"The OP is an outspoken Christian who publicly puts her trust in the bible over scientific discovery. She offers these kinds of posts from time to time. I can't help but form the image in my head of a person picking up the first stone to throw at the accused (in this case, science) and quietly withdraws while the crowd revs itself up to pick up more stones. It's an interesting trend I see here from time to time. I think it should be exposed as a kind of fear mongering, as anti-intellectualism.

 

What Albeto did not seem to notice is that the OP posted and simply said (and I paraphrase), "I found this article, read the study referenced, and thought it interesting."   She did not initially and has not subsequently explained why it piqued her interest.   It is Albeto that is jumping to conclusions and perhaps correctly, but perhaps incorrectly connecting dots. 

 

There is nothing in this thread that would indicate that anyone is trying to do what your last sentence implies.  It isn't even part of the original article.  Can we stay on topic?

[Halftime Hope]

Sadie,  you are misreading.  There is no outrage.  (Although I will cop to eye-rolling with sarcasm once.  :-)  )

 

I also am a religious woman, but I do not distrust all science--just some of the bad science.

 

In my opinion, science and God coexist quite nicely:  part of the beauty of science is that it has shown up to the party and is figuring out the hows and whys of the glorious creation God made.  Another part of the beauty of science is that, when it is done well, it is another manifestation of the traits that reflect God's image in mankind:  curiosity, creativity, and a love of and a search for truth.  

 

 

[albeto.]

Albeto's comments at the left margin. My responses are indented.

 

Your margins don't transfer when quoting. Could you please quote just the parts you want to respond to next time? It makes it easier and faster to reply, and easier for everyone to follow along.

 

Please do not assume and paint me (or Creekland, or the OP for that matter) with broad brushes when you don't know how we educate ourselves or make decisions. (I specifically mentioned going to the original studies on that medication and reading them for myself.) For myself, consumption of popular media is almost nil.

 

I also did not tell you anything about the entire context surrounding that one medication detail, but suffice to say that the cardiologists (multiple) are impressed with the data-driven questions and discussions *we* initiated, and they've significantly altered the plan to be one that includes "gold standard" (data driven) treatment for dh rather than the most expedient, out of the box, insurance-compliant norm.

 

I'm the researcher in the family, the one with the passion for healthcare, and yeah, that's because I'm ANTI-INTELLECTUAL. LOL! (See below.)

 

Sarcasm still aside? I'm not painting you with any brush. I'm making generalized statements. People are duped by unscrupulous media organizers that function to make profit. People who understand information are less likely to be manipulated, people who understand less are more likely to be manipulated. This does not accuse you or anyone here of anything. 

 

 

1) This is useful in many cases, but not in others. We homeschoolers are clearly deferring to the educational professionals. :001_rolleyes:

 

2) In the area of healthcare, professionals have made so many mistakes in my family's care (nearly killing my FIL twice, and causing him severe injury several other times), so I've learned to question, to make sure I understand, to ask healthcare professionals to double check their work, to research for myself. When I'm in an emergency, I will have no choice but to trust.

 

3) The answer to anti-intellectualism is not dependence/deference on experts, it is widespread renewal of a commitment to and valuation of a well-educated populace.

 

1) I suspect you do defer to professionals, from the most effective way to teach a child to read, to a comprehensive way of teaching math and science, we generally don't reinvent the wheel. 

 

2) I have no disagreement with this statement. 

 

3) If you don't depend on any experts in any fields of study to rely information you yourself haven't studied, how do you propose you are well-educated? How does a society commit to education if the most educated people aren't trusted to be reliable with regards to sharing information?

 

In my opinion, a nation unable or unwilling to question "the experts", to think, to take responsibility for making informed decisions, is also a dangerous society, one that is wide open to manipulation.

 

Do you interpret my argument as saying we should be unwilling to question experts, we should be unwilling to think, we should be unwilling to take responsibility for making informed decisions? If that's what you've taken out of my post, I would encourage you to read it again. That does not reflect what I said.

[albeto.]

An outspoken Christian must be anti-intellectual by definition? How ridiculous.

 

By whose definition? What definition are you going by here?

[albeto.]

 Can we stay on topic?

 

Not to beat a dead horse, but in the interest of clarifying...

 

I do think this is on topic. I've explained why in my posts above. I take no offense and will feel no ill-will for those who disagree. When you disagree with a particular comment, please continue to point it out so we can discuss it rather than assume some subtle implication. I think we've been doing that so far, and I think your other points in this post have been addressed. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you. 

[creekland]

You, and creekland and the OP are raising a strawman fallacy. Science isn't unreliable because funding for research is in some ways corrupt. In many ways it is not, but you'll likely not be familiar with the many thousands of scientific journal articles published in a plethora of fields of study. You may or may not be aware of different details coming forth from the scientific community. People trusting only what they read and understand rely on those who simplify information for their own agendas. In other words, they're being duped by media that has their own financial reasons to stir up fear and gather a following. 

 

 

FWIW, the comic I shared was on the wall next to a top university researcher's office when we went in to talk with him at one of middle son's college visits.  I commented on it mentioning it was cute to him.  He looked at me and said something to the effect of, "Sadly, there is more truth to it than fiction.  It's getting harder to get research dollars and if researchers don't provide positive results, then they don't get more dollars for other studies.  Companies equate positive results with "good" researchers, so if you're wondering why so many are suddenly falsifying data or other things - it's sad."

 

I seriously doubt he was convicting himself as his research had nothing to do with any specific medical (or other specific) advance.  He had discovered something new (in cells) and was merely exploring it at that point.  I believe his research was likely university funded or perhaps NIH.

 

I'll admit I never asked him what his religious beliefs were.  It really didn't occur to me.

 

In no way was I tying anything to vaccinations.  I've always been pro-vacc allowing for exceptions for those who need it or are suspected to need it due to genetics, etc.

 

I've nothing against those who simply choose to follow what the latest fads are (science based or otherwise).  Choose whichever soundbite one prefers.  Either can be right - or wrong.  I prefer to actually look at things and often with a skeptical eye (science based and otherwise).  When I'm looking at magazines, I prefer those like Nutrition Action that assesses multiple studies and allows no advertising.

 

We all have to make our own choices and for some of these things, in 20 - 30 years we might have an idea if we chose correctly or not.

[flyingiguana]

The PLOS research article is ONE bit of research. Is it reproducible?

 

There are a lot of assumptions that go into their number heavy hypothesis and conclusion. Does anyone read all those numbers? Wait, one of their hypotheses is that no one reads all those numbers....

 

Is there any actual data in that paper?

 

If the conclusion of the paper is true, than the conclusion of the paper is likely false -- based on their own conclusions.

[Cindy in FL.]

The Christian religion, as you call it, is not an alternative to science. There are scientists that are Christian. Your portrayal of Christians as anti-intellectual mindless people who follow their religion without thought gets wearisome.

 

I'm gambling here. The scientific methodology is the most reliable means by which we can familiarize ourselves with the world around us, but there is a fear of it, a sense of distrust. This thread seems to have been created to encourage that mistrust. There are other means by which people have sought knowledge: astrology, conversing with the dead, reading hidden messages in things like tea leaves, crystals, or numbers, religions. The Christian religion is a popular alternative to science, especially in the United States where most WTM members live. It's your religion, if I'm not mistaken. If you think science cannot be trusted, it's not a risky gamble to assume you think religious insight is more reliable. That's why I asked the question. It's a follow up question to the implication the OP made, and continues to make on these forums, the implication that science cannot be trusted.

[Alexigail]

 I agree that the scientific method is one of the most important human advances and that when followed properly, the knowledge gained is usually reliable (barring any unrecognized variables).  I think that the current system of funding can both encourage solid research and encourage faulty research.  

I don't agree that all scientists always have the best interests of the public at heart.  I don't agree that pointing that out is creating a strawman.  I don't believe that this discussion has anything at all to do with whether religion or science are more reliable, or about whether people who practice a religion are able to have an informed view of scientific research. 

 

I just want to point out that the only "fear mongering" I've seen in this thread is this quote posted upthread:  

 

 

The interactive map gives a gut-wrenching tour of global outbreaks of measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and whooping cough from 2008-2014. These diseases -- all of which are easily prevented by vaccines -- can have dire consequences. 

 

 

The thing is, I agree with what's posted above.  I'm a believer in vaccines and I vaccinate my own kids. I have no regrets about vaccinating my son who turned out to be on the autism spectrum, because there is no solid research to suggest that the two are related.  But words like "gut wrenching" and "dire" are exactly the kind of emotional red flags that come up in conversations like this.  Appealing to emotion and then accusing others of doing so doesn't make for a very compelling argument.  

 

[Lady Florida.]

- don't blame the scientists for misleading you, blame the media.

 

 

But that is part of the scientific method!

 

Someone publishes a paper with significant result X.

It cannot be replicated in further studies.

 

Significant result X is discounted by the scientific community.

 

You can't seriously be suggesting that publication only ever happens after replicability has been proven ?

 

Publishing a paper with sig result X is what leads to further studies, and the acceptance or rejection of X.

 

Once upon a time, scientists would publish their results in respected scientific journals and with few exceptions, those journals were only read by other scientists. Their studies were replicated, published, and the original conclusions were falsified or not. Some time in the 1970's television began reporting results of original studies as soon as they were published and we've never looked back. Now many studies are online in the blink of an eye. Of course some will be falsified. That's how it has worked since scientists began doing it this way. It's just that now we hear. "This is true." "No it isn't." and we think there's something wrong with the scientific method or the scientists themselves.

 

What's wrong is the media, as Sadie pointed out. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The anti-intellectualism that is increasing in our society is cause for concern. Societies cannot maintain a competitive edge in a global economy when its citizens are simply unable to keep up with the progress other societies promote. 

 

I said this in another thread some time ago, though I no longer remember what the thread was about. Anti-intellectualism is on the rise and it scares me. It's particularly disturbing when I see it in elected leaders. 

 

I'm not just talking about Christians or other religious people either. I know many non religious, liberal people who show an anti-science bias. Many of the anti-vaccine crowd are liberals and either not religious or not Christian.

[Laurie4b]

Once upon a time, scientists would publish their results in respected scientific journals and with few exceptions, those journals were only read by other scientists. Their studies were replicated, published, and the original conclusions were falsified or not. Some time in the 1970's television began reporting results of original studies as soon as they were published and we've never looked back. Now many studies are online in the blink of an eye. Of course some will be falsified. That's how it has worked since scientists began doing it this way. It's just that now we hear. "This is true." "No it isn't." and we think there's something wrong with the scientific method or the scientists themselves.

 

Not only this, but when we make choices based on what we have read of the research, and those choices turn out to have an impact, then it makes the shifting sands even more apparent. For instance, I have always tracked with health and nutrition data. So in the 80s and 90s, I was following the advice of what I perceived to be scientific findings: "We eat too much protein. We only need x per day." "Fat makes people fat. Very low fat is the way to go if you want to lose weight." Unsurprisingly (now), I ended up not riding the pregnancy weight gain very well and ended up heavier than my friends who were following the "quack" Atkins diet. 

 

There are also phenomena like the guy who first discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria. He was labeled a quack by the general medical community until he went to the extreme result of infecting himself with h. pylori.  I am old enough to recall a friend of mine in college with stomach ulcers who was told that she had too much anxiety. She was beating herself up about that. Incidents like that get recorded in people's brains in a way that make them more salient than blah blah blah findings.

 

My masters work was done in the social sciences. The beliefs there "based on research" can swing quite wildly. Many people working in the field usually keep their head down and see whether something blows over or not. But it does engender a certain amount of skepticism when a "new" idea is being presented at a workshop and some old timer mumbles under his breath, "That's what they were telling us 20 years ago, then we were told that was all wrong and x was right, then y, now we're back where we started."

 

So when quacks sometimes turn out to be right (and it has actually affected your life or the life of friends) and when some fields of science blow back and forth, it's harder to keep people blindly trusting in Science. (Capital intended.)

 

And I think that is actually where the change is. When I was young, science was viewed as infallible. If Science said it, well then it was true. It was the age of more and more progress: antibiotics and vaccines were eliminating so many diseases, we put a man on the moon, etc. Now I think we are in a transition in which science is falling from that status and that is a good thing. The transition may be bumpy, but I believe in the end, it will even out and lay people will end up with a healthier understanding of science.

 

[Halftime Hope]

Your margins don't transfer when quoting. Could you please quote just the parts you want to respond to next time? It makes it easier and faster to reply, and easier for everyone to follow along.    I'm sorry, Albeto.  For some reason some of the quoting features have never worked on my computer.  I can't cut and paste multiple quotes into the same post.

 

 

Sarcasm still aside? I'm not painting you with any brush. You had just responded to my post and specifically named me, Creekland, and the OP in one sentence, and followed it up with a "generalized statement."  I don't think I'm the only one who would interpret your remarks as painting with a broad brush, i.e. making a (not applicable) generalized statement, at least about me. 

 

 I'm making generalized statements. People are duped by unscrupulous media organizers that function to make profit. People who understand information are less likely to be manipulated, people who understand less are more likely to be manipulated. This does not accuse you or anyone here of anything. 

 

 

1) I suspect you do defer to professionals, from the most effective way to teach a child to read, to a comprehensive way of teaching math and science, we generally don't reinvent the wheel.   Yes, I do, but only to some professionals, after I've weighed their "expertise" and decided whether I think their approach has merit.  On the other hand, I can think of many, many experts to whom I do not defer. That is being responsible.  It's that broad brush again, a civilized society defers to experts.  I guess we have a philosophical difference.  My general conception of a civilized society is one in which people, by and large, self-govern and self-discipline, and their reliance on experts to tell them how to conduct their daily lives is the exception rather than the norm because common sense rules. 

 

2) I have no disagreement with this statement. 

 

3) If you don't depend on any experts in any fields of study to rely information you yourself haven't studied, how do you propose you are well-educated? How does a society commit to education if the most educated people aren't trusted to be reliable with regards to sharing information?

 

That broad brush again; the fallacy of over generalization.  I never said that I do not rely on anyone for anything.  For example, I clearly rely on my mechanic, but that's for specialized things like computer modules and repairs for which we don't have tools; the basics we get ourselves.  

 

Do you interpret my argument as saying we should be unwilling to question experts, we should be unwilling to think, we should be unwilling to take responsibility for making informed decisions? If that's what you've taken out of my post, I would encourage you to read it again. That does not reflect what I said.     No, you did not say that.  I was simply adding on a related thought, at the end of my post, verbalizing something that is important to me when we are thinking about what makes a civilized society that is mature enough to, largely, individually self-govern.  But I don't want to go down that road much, as it takes us off topic. 

 

[Halftime Hope]

 

I'm not just talking about Christians or other religious people either. I know many non religious, liberal people who show an anti-science bias. Many of the anti-vaccine crowd are liberals and either not religious or not Christian.

 

On a related note, not really on topic, it was eye opening for me when I was a young mom that the liberal midwifery crowd I worked with found me an object of curiosity as I was "so conservative", while the conservatives I knew (in my faith) thought I was "so liberal" for my choices on birthing and feeding.  LOL!  I will always bless my mother's memory for her support and her modeling that one could do/be both happily.

 

[Halftime Hope]

Not only this, but when we make choices based on what we have read of the research, and those choices turn out to have an impact, then it makes the shifting sands even more apparent. For instance, I have always tracked with health and nutrition data. So in the 80s and 90s, I was following the advice of what I perceived to be scientific findings: "We eat too much protein. We only need x per day." "Fat makes people fat. Very low fat is the way to go if you want to lose weight." Unsurprisingly (now), I ended up not riding the pregnancy weight gain very well and ended up heavier than my friends who were following the "quack" Atkins diet. 

 

There are also phenomena like the guy who first discovered that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria. He was labeled a quack by the general medical community until he went to the extreme result of infecting himself with h. pylori.  I am old enough to recall a friend of mine in college with stomach ulcers who was told that she had too much anxiety. She was beating herself up about that. Incidents like that get recorded in people's brains in a way that make them more salient than blah blah blah findings.

 

My masters work was done in the social sciences. The beliefs there "based on research" can swing quite wildly. Many people working in the field usually keep their head down and see whether something blows over or not. But it does engender a certain amount of skepticism when a "new" idea is being presented at a workshop and some old timer mumbles under his breath, "That's what they were telling us 20 years ago, then we were told that was all wrong and x was right, then y, now we're back where we started."

 

So when quacks sometimes turn out to be right (and it has actually affected your life or the life of friends) and when some fields of science blow back and forth, it's harder to keep people blindly trusting in Science. (Capital intended.)

 

And I think that is actually where the change is. When I was young, science was viewed as infallible. If Science said it, well then it was true. It was the age of more and more progress: antibiotics and vaccines were eliminating so many diseases, we put a man on the moon, etc. Now I think we are in a transition in which science is falling from that status and that is a good thing. The transition may be bumpy, but I believe in the end, it will even out and lay people will end up with a healthier understanding of science.

 

Laurie4b, this is beautifully written and succinctly captures what has been my experience.  Thank you. 

 

[Halftime Hope]

Albeto, it occurred to my subconscious brain during the night that you are the first real person I've encountered whose belief in science appears to have many of the same qualities as religious belief.  You're the first person who has articulated the puzzle pieces in such a way that it all clicks for me.

 

 

 

 

 

[albeto.]

Albeto, it occurred to my subconscious brain during the night that you are the first real person I've encountered whose belief in science appears to have many of the same qualities as religious belief.  You're the first person who has articulated the puzzle pieces in such a way that it all clicks for me.

 

What qualities are that?