A Willful Ignorance of Science

This is something that has been swimming around in my mind for a while.

At worst, most humans are willfully ignorant of science. At best, most humans only trust science when it tells them something they already know.

This is kind of a broad thesis, so let me give an example.

I recently adopted a puppy. I want to be a responsible dog father, so I wanted to do some research about what kind of food I should feed her. Following are actual quotes from people on a dog forum, regarding a ``raw food'' diet that has become popular with rich white people:

Ummm excuse me? Can I interject some reason into the debate?

Most people missed the point:

Other people were a bit upset when I asked for some sort of scientific evidence that expensive pet food was actually worth the money:

Now, what are we to make of this?

1.) People distrust experts when they don't reinforce their preconceived notions. Here are three people discussing why their vets are wrong about dog food, in spite of the fact that the vets actually went to school to learn about animal physiology.

2.) Not only do people distrust experts, they willfully disregard conclusions reached by science if those conclusions conflict with their own opinions. This is not a bunch of ``knuckle dragging creationists'' voting on new textbooks in Kansas. These are people from all over North America and Europe, complaining that their vets (who had to go to graduate school) know less about their dogs than they do.

In my experience, this is something that people as a whole all have in common---we seem to lack any ability to critically analyze our own (subjective) opinions against objective facts. I say ``we'' and ``our'' because I feel that I can't always lay my opinions aside when looking at contradictory evidence.

This isn't just one part of the population---this ignorance is widespread, and far-reaching, affecting people of every education and income level. Another example is the debate about ``organic food''---in spite of all evidence to the contrary, some people still claim that organic food is more nutritious than food grown using traditional farming methods. People still believe the Earth is 5000 years old. And people still believe that oil is a renewable resource.

What's truly frightening about this is that everyone votes. I guess I can cross my fingers and pray that the ignorant people on both sides of the debate tend to cancel each other out, but what if this isn't the case? What if there are more ignorant liberals than ignorant conservatives? What if the opposite is true?

So what do you think, Sci? I challenge you to look at your own opinions, and see if there's not some degree of truth to this thread. Am I the only one who finds these things irksome beyond belief?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So: you've never been lied to by an "expert"?

You've never been a victim of the expert delusion du jour, in which a whole posse of the most learned men in a field honestly believe (and attempt to enforce on you) something that simply isn't so?

Scientists in general, taking into account the passel of them that simply aren't that bright or are personally insecure etc, are not nearly as humble and considerate when dealing with the ruck as they are when dealing with each other - where there are consequences. And that's the honest ones - scientists are easily bought, bullied, etc.

This, for example, is bullshit:

"Evidence"!? From whom - Monsanto's pet scientists? That goofy study you posted in another thread that had almost nothing to do with the conclusions you drew from it?

Briefly: contrary to your propaganda-addled vocabulary, modern industrial food production is not "traditional" - it was invented recently, and has not been time tested or carefully studied in realistic circumstances. "Organic" agriculture is traditional - time tested for thousands of years, and a lot of bugs worked out (as is common with such significant innovations). You are using the word "traditional" to describe mile wide monocultures of atrazine-resistant genetically engineered hybrid maize destined to be mechanically processed and chemically engineered ingredients in a formula (not a recipe) for food "product" to replace former nutritional staples in the human diet - or maybe gasoline, depending - almost all of which process was invented within the past generation. That's your "traditional". You are not just talking nonsense, but obvious nonsense.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence of nutritional superiority (outside of quantity of calories) for industrial food, and some evidence of its inferiority in comparisons of equivalent diets in certain circumstances. There is plenty of evidence that the people producing it and most familiar with it, who are in the best position to spot trouble etc, have no real concern for the health and wellbeing of the people eating it, and cannot be trusted. You know that. Yet you refer to the judgments of caution and wariness regarding industrial food (all of them, regardless of backing or argument) as some kind of ignorant and inexplicable foolishness.

You have just demonstrated one major reason why people don't trust "scientific experts".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You just reminded me of the entire two hours I spent arguing with a doctor about how much protein and what kind to give a patient with nephrotic syndrome.

Why do people think doctors know anything about nutrition?

I suggest you get a small breed puppy food and look for a label that says “Meets the nutritional requirements of puppies established by the
American Association of Feed Control Officials (AAFCO).”

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"A Willful Ignorance of Science"

then why are you going to a forum to learn what to feed a puppy?

 

i know what to fee a puppy.

funny though- dont ever give a puppy peanut butter.

 

Aside from the main point of this thread, this is incorrect. The statement ``There is no evidence that organic food is more nutritious than food produced by conventional means'' is true, and scientifically proven.

Either way, if buying organic food makes you feel better about yourself, then by all means---go buy organic food.

And I think that you are proving the thesis of this thread

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The study I posted disagrees with your mindset, so you disregard it---case closed!

 

Why would I think that someone who spent four years in college and four years in med school would know what's better for my diet than someone with a website and a book to sell? Call me crazy...

Sure, but lots of dog foods meet this criteria.

I was asking an honest question: is there any scientific evidence, anywhere on the internet, that compares (objectively) the virtues of different dog foods? Please re-read the quotes above.

 

What virtues are you looking for? Based on limited experience all I can tell you is that most breeders I know make their own. Unless you have a dog with a fussy or delicate constitution, any general small breed puppy dog food that fulfild nutritional recommendations should be fine.

I would advise experimenting with small packets of different flavours to find out which one your dog eats without fussing. Our dog likes lamb and will eat chicken or venison only reluctantly. You may need to mix the new type with the old one for a couple of days as some dogs do not adapt easily to a completely different flavour [no idea why, but this is generally what I have seen]. This will avoid any false readings of rejection in case the dog is just not sure what you are feeding her.

Once you figure out the meal of choice you can get the large 40 lbs sacks and and a spare jar for weekly portions so you don't open the sack too often.

You also need treats, some canned wet dog food and some chewy stuff [though there are "made in China" things to consider here] for some added variety for those dog days

 

You want to read that statement carefully, and ask yourself what scientific "proof" if it would be - what it means, in practice, to have proof of no evidence, for example.

The context is a world in which last week's newspaper brought us the information that atrazine is showing signs of being nutritionally harmful in much lower doses than previously suspected - apparently these dosages are just now being investigated in realistic circumstances.

And then realize that the people trying your patience with their mistrust of "science" as it is presented to them, have one interesting feature or characteristic: they might be right.
btw:

I didn't disregard it. I showed you how and why it failed to support your contentions (dealt with a limited array of nutrients, failed to make accurate comparisons, etc) There is a big difference between disregarding something and taking it apart. And another poster filled you in with some background info, showing its source bias and invalid methods.

Your study was shwon to be agenda driven garbage, and your conclusions didn't follow from it even if it had been valid. Now, about the "disregard" aspect of human reaction - - -

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ben,
IIRC Asimov wrote an essay back in the 60's (titled Cult of Ignorance or something like that) in the same vein as your original post. Ever read it? The problem has been around for a while.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps I chose the wrong word: the only statement for which there is any scientific support is that ``There is no evidence that organic foods are any more nutritious than foods grown by conventional means.'' I guess I should have clarified.

Sure, and this is something that I had underestimated. There was this business a few years ago in the UK (I think) where some scientists showed that the MMR vaccine was correlated with an increase in autism. The science was shown to be faulty, and as a result, cases of measles, mumps, and rubella are on the rise in England.

I'm not saying that turning a skeptical eye towards something that sounds fishy is a bad idea---of course, things would be much better if we were all a bit more skeptical about things. But there is a difference between some skepticism about some scientific result and outright hostility towards science. For example, even after several new studies found no correlation between MMR and autism, there are still people claiming the opposite.

The statement is that ``There is no evidence to support the contention that organic foods are more nutritious''. You're saying that you have evidence to the contrary? All of your counterpoints in that argument (up until I got bored with the conversation) involved statements about pesticides and farming practices. Of course, pesticides have nothing to do with the overall nutrient content of the food. To that end, I recall spending a lot of time looking at MSDS sheets of common agricultural pesticides, and deciding that the FDA set tolerances were significantly below the toxicities in all of the cases that I could see.

Anyway, there was a link to an article in the Financial Times, posted by someone else. The article is a report of a meeting between a FT columnist and someone who disagrees with the study from some other European agency, called the Soil Association. The Soil people seem to attack the methods of the original study, as opposed to the bias. Other than that, I saw no other links.

You did (I think) convince me that there is something to the practice of organic farming.

I'm sorry but I can't see where this is the case. In fact, I see very few instances where you (or anyone, for that matter) actually cited any evidence to back up their claims in that thread. To say that the study was ``shown to be agenda driven garbage'' is an overstatement at best.

 

This would be using anecdotal evidence to support a thesis describing 'People'.

As long as we are using anecdotal evidence, I would like to chime in and say that most of the doctors I've met, including my child's pediatricians, had delightly poor knowledge of nutrition. It is simply not the focus of their education and they tend to have ideas hysterically influenced by mainstream and outmoded ideas about nutrition. It would not surprise me vets were similarly misinformed.

There is a very good chance that at least some of the people who feel their pets alternatively are using other experts, just as humans may use experts other then their doctors for nutritional advice. And, again, my experience says it would be wise to.

Most people are choosing organic food, I would guess, because the idea is that less and less harmful pesticides and herbicides have been used in its production. People are doing this for selfish and non-selfish reasons - the latter in relation to the potential damage to the environment. This obviously is a tangent fitting that other thread, but before the large agribusinesses got into the organic game, you had small organic growers choosing seeds NOT because the vegetables could be transported half way around the globe, NOT because of the uniformity of the look of the product, but much more along taste and nutrition lines. At that point organic veggies and fruits certainly tasted much better and richer, and given the prioritization of the genetic choices being made, I would guess they were more nutritious also. One can still find these products if one goes to organic markets, small co-ops, etc.

I really wish the scientific community would come out as a whole critical of the way our societies depend on oil, but they seem to deprioritize this as much or perhaps more than other groups.

Oh, of course there is merit to your position in a general way. I would like to say that alternative foods, processes, and health care always are scrutinized by a head-shaking skeptical scientific community that for years, for example, dismissed concerns about things like mercury fillings as so much witch doctory.

If corporate america approves of something, skepticism takes longer.

I think that would be a good place to start. What is seen as somehow neutral?

 

ah. in that case then afa i can tell you are over analyzing.i ascribe to the 'luck of the draw theory'. it is very doubtful that one brand of puppy chow over another would show any significant advantage vis-a-vis longevity of the subject.

 

that said, we can devise ways to supercharge the pooch for some kind of athletic competitions and short term advantage but afa long term benefits- doubtful. try giving him\her one raw egg every other day. not basing that on anything more than a theory i have, which i will elaborate on IF someone asks me.

 

for the example

this is a group doing research on modified foods and the impact on many fronts (i don't do conspiracies even if the article leans on them)

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/7/3/9/5/p73958_index.html

because you feel your knowledge and foundation is of the highest order (but remove humility to new evidence, unless others observe it and approve of it first)

the ideology is exactly what is found in the religions (complacent until their ORDER confirms)

as well some believe a macro scale anology of the 2nd law applies in the micro interactions of mass and energy itself...... (and most of them are the physicist)

that is my case to the thread; often the people who claim the evolution have their hands tied to the law (practically religious) to a belief

i say, both camps are a weeeeeee bit off

but in the middle of them, often a few rebels keep up the duty of maintaining that scientific integrity, even if the 'community' likes to discount what is true to retain their own beliefs and conditions of being 'the man'

 

here is another item with ideas on the GM food

http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html

as i see it, evolution works thru most items of what is best via time

altering food for consumption that runs thru all levels of biology and the global health, just so 'more' and the margins can be increased

does not make the best sense (to me)

 

from what i can tell, the issue is a matter of sloppy semantics.....

But last week, the parents of yet another child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) were awarded a lump sum of more than $810,000 (plus an estimated $30-40,000 per year for autism services and care) in compensation by the Court, which ruled that the measels-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine had caused acute brain damage that led to his autism spectrum disorder.

The family of 10-year-old Bailey Banks won their case quietly and without fanfare in June of 2007, but the ruling has only now come to public attention. In the remarkably clear and eloquent decision, Special Master Richard Abell ruled that the Banks had successfully demonstrated that "the MMR vaccine at issue actually caused the conditions from which Bailey suffered and continues to suffer."

Bailey's diagnosis is Pervasive Developmental Disorder -- Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS) which has been recognized as an autism spectrum disorder by CDC, HRSA and the other federal health agencies since at least the 1990s. (link link)​

is there any merit to that line of reasoning? lets resolve this issue here

 

Being wilfully ignorant of Science and questioning a scientists/physicians credibility/competence are two different things, no?

You don't have to become a vet to learn about your dog's physiology, needs, etc.

 

We used the evidence you provided, more than enough, in your link, to make arguments.

You claimed the study showed industrial food to be equally as nutritious as "organic" food. It didn't, and we showed why. You then extended that misinterpretation of the study to make wide and unreasonable assertions about organic food and those who regard it as superior. You were called on that, including by a poster who provided you with cause for distrusting the study itself as suspiciously invalid, and by people like me who pointed out that there was some reason to believe organically produced food was on average more nutiritious (as well as having other benefits) - not excellent, confirming reasons, but plenty of common observations not countered by the kind of bogus "study" you linked. In other words, the preponderance of evidence that does exist - shallow and lame and indirect as it is - argues for nutritional superiority for organic food.

You still can't see where that is the case, yet you malign others for their mistrust of what you regard as "science". My point is: it is not always science itself that is being mistrusted, willfully defied, etc.