If you’ve been paying attention for the past 20 or 30 years, you’ve probably noticed that “Science” keeps changing its mind about a lot of things. Also, if you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you’ve probably noticed that Galileo’s “problems” with the Catholic Church have been a recurring theme. It seems to me that the conflict between “science” and “faith” is at the center of a number of what might be called “modern problems.” Problems of the sort that Galileo had with the Church have, of course, occurred in a variety of ways over the years. In general, science has been “winning” the debate with old belief systems, but science has also been shooting itself in its (our) collective foot from time to time.
“Science” is, after all, a nominalization, an abstraction that cannot be put in even a very large wheelbarrow. Ordinary nouns, such as toasters, elephants, or even wheelbarrows, have specific referents in external reality, the “territory.” Because a nominalization has no external referent, each of us has our own complex equivalence for the word in spite of whatever definitions we’ve heard or read. It seems to me that the fundamental concept of science is to observe the territory and to base mental maps on the observations. The really good observations, such as those made by Galileo and Copernicus, hold up over time. They may get “tweaked” for improved accuracy as additional observations help clarify the observations, but they hold up in general even if a few particulars are rearranged.
In other words, science is a process rather than a “thing,” a verb rather than a noun. Ideally, science “carries” “knowledge” “forward.” That concept presupposes change. In diet and health, for example, you may have seen “scientific” studies over time that have flip-flopped faster than a politician trying to get in step with what the polls show the public wants. Eggs were good for you until they were bad until they are now good again. Shifting of evaluations for eggs and a variety of foods, supplements, and other products is common and is often based on who is conducting the study. You’re probably not shocked to know that studies being funded by those with a vested interest in the findings often produce exactly the results desired by those paying for the studies. Such studies are faux science rather than science. The territory is made to match the mental map, which is just the reverse of what should happen in “real” science.
Two of my areas of interest, Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) and Energy Medicine, are frequent targets of skepticism by those who present themselves as “scientific observers.” I can understand at least some of the skepticism. “Quick and easy” behavioral change (including weight loss and the elimination of phobias and anxieties) and healing (especially when serious illnesses are involved) are easy to claim. Selling “snake oil” is probably the second-oldest profession in the world. The skepticism of both NLP and Energy Medicine, however, is partly the result of painting all practitioners of NLP and Energy Medicine with the same brush while failing to recognize that not all physicians and psychotherapists produce equal results, either. In any professional category, including NLP and Energy Medicine, not all practitioners achieve equal results. Some produce better results than others. The other part of the skepticism is the result of badly designed and biased research.
One of the things about “science” is that it is just plain difficult to be “scientific” and unbiased when it comes to observations. We all—and that includes scientists—tend to see what we want or expect to see. Scientists hired by tobacco companies, for example, are a lot more likely to find no correlation between tobacco usage and cancer or heart disease than are scientists who receive federal grant money to conduct similar studies. Scientists—including medical doctors—funded by pharmaceutical companies tend to find fewer serious side effects than scientists whose funding comes from other sources. It may be, of course, that scientists with vested interests are simply seeing what they want to see rather than lying to make the data match their interests.
The principal problem, of course, is that those of us (you and me) who are the intended audience for messages based on the “scientific” findings have too little training in science to be able to evaluate data and sources. We are, to use a technical term, “bamboozled” by “science” as presented by “science writers.” This is another version of what my co-author Debra and I call “doctor hypnosis.” Most people are familiar with “White Coat Syndrome,” in which blood pressure tends to spike in the presence of someone wearing a white coat. “Doctor hypnosis” also includes both the placebo effect and the nocebo effect, or the tendency for people to respond physically for better or for worse to statements made by physicians.
However much you know about science, the principal rule for evaluating statements that claim “scientific” proof or evidence is, “Follow the money.” Who stands to gain as a result of what’s being said? Yes, it’s the same rule as evaluating anything a politician says. The second rule is, “Be suspicious if the money trail isn’t obvious.” If the source of funding research (or the advertising) isn’t clear, the chances are good that the claims are bogus. Be especially suspicious if the “paid for” statement refers to a group with a great-sounding name, such as “Citizens for Good Stuff,” that keeps its donors secret.
This kind of malfeasance is not actually science, of course. Science is above the fray. Bogus science may take center “stage” (which means lots of TV time and Internet coverage these days), but science will eventually win the day. Whether it will be quick enough to save us and Planet Earth from the hazards of bogus science, however, remains to be seen. That basically depends on our (you, me, and all of us) paying close enough attention to notice the difference between the real and the bogus. We need to get scientific about investigating scientific claims now, don’t we….
