Scientific Process

When it comes to nutrition, scientific process is important for a number of reasons, some good, some not so good. We know the benefit of science and technology in our general lives, it has created, and continues to create, much of our human environment. We no longer have to deal with the harsh elements of nature, and lifespan has been greatly extended. There are too many benefits to even begin to count here.

Let's talk about the limitations of scientific process for a moment, because I think it relates to much of the information we are presented with concerning nutrition. First, a disclaimer - I am not a scientist. But I am a technologist of sorts, in my previous profession, and as an amatuer. I'm an interested observer, let's say, and the following are my opinions.

What is scientific process? It can be said to be objective process, whereby aspects of the physical world can be examined for repeatable pattern by constructing a model that can be brought into laboratory and observed under dynamic conditions. But problems can crop up that create erroneous conclusion, which is most of the reason, if you've noticed, scientific "truth" seems to change quite a bit over time.What are those problems?

First, and primarily, testing models are reductions of very complex reality. Best efforts are made of course to accurately identify the relevant dynamic elements. That is not always accomplished however. When we are looking for repeatable pattern under lab conditions, models for testing are designed according to theory - what we think may be happening. We may be, frequently enough are, incorrect in our assumptions, on the margins of dynamic envelope, or at the core of it. When incorrect at core, repeatable pattern will not be found and conclusions cannot be reached.  But when at the margins, pattern may well be found, but it may not result in accurate conclusion. Why is that?

Reality is dynamic and continually self-changing on an endogenous basis, but models of reality are static and only changed exogenously (by re-design). It's a little bit like the grammar of language, which compared to a living language, changes slowly. The need to find certainty in this complex and uncertain life contributes to a kind of flipping effect of priorities, where the model becomes more important in some ways than the dynamic reality. In school we are taught to speak "correctly", according to a model many years old. I won't argue this sort of societally imposed structure has no good function, but that's another discussion. Suffice it to say, most kids leaving the classroom revert immediately to the colorful living language of their peer group. This analogy serves to illustrate how static models of reality might operate "on the margins" - most of the model is accurate, but important parts are not identified for one reason or another, leading to partially erroneous conclusions where an accurate study of dynamic reality is the goal.

It's not easy to study dynamic reality, it's complex, and it may be changing in real time in ways that are difficult or impossible to identify.

There is another problem with controlled studies called expectancy bias. This is where, going back to model design, a favored "pet" theory (invented here, it has to be good) is the dominant reason for going into controlled study phase to begin with. This may be especially relevant when a potentially commercial outcome is at stake. New drugs that cure difficult disease for example can (and do) also create billions of dollars income for the developer group. But that is only the most obvious example, favored theory status is always conferred to one degree or another, with status of public recognition more than sufficient motive.

Expectancy bias is a problem that manifests as potentially incorrect conclusions when conditions at the margin of the dynamic envelope are not sufficiently defined, or simply not identified to begin with.

But we don't throw scientific process out, baby with bathwater, as a result. On whole it's a very valuable process, we only have to look around the room to see the proof of that. Why is it so important?

Placebo effect and the unreliable nature of anecdotal experience is the very reason scientific process was needed, and why it was developed (necessity mother of invention), and why it works so well, when it does. If we don't like the idea of living in primitive conditions, scientific process is a very good thing, it's the one thing that makes this difference in our lives. So, and perhaps I should have said this earlier (better late than never:), it is a very good thing! Blessed are the searchers, and the re-searchers, of the truth. (In the first instance, we also need the searchers - the thinkers, the poets, the philosophers, and even the rebels and misfits, to ask the questions that lead to new theory.)

So anecdotal experience is an obvious phenomena on one level, but complex on another. It's where mind and body intersect and overlap. It's where dreams become real and the real becomes dreams. It's where art happens, and where we live our daily lives. The problem with using anecdotal experience as measure, or should I say, precise measure, is best illustrated perhaps talking about placebo effect. This is where, when we think something is going to happen (expectancy bias again), the probability it does happen becomes greater in some measurable way. There are many many examples, here's a hypothetical: in a double blind controlled study of a hair restoration formula, the control group is given a fake, which could in no way have any effect on hair growth, and the test group is given the real stuff. Both groups grow more hair by the same amount. Since the test group did not grow more hair than the control group, the effect is not greater than placebo, and the formula is a failure.

As an aside, this kind of thing may well make us wonder if we are asking the right questions - if the placebo effect is so powerful and consistent, why don't we find ways to put it to consistent methodical use? The answer is if method is too transparent, if we can see behind the curtain, we no longer believe "the magic". But placebo is used consistently in less transparent ways - every health care professional, credentialed or not, is imbued with this power if we trust them. In fact everyone we perceive to be of higher power than us is imbued with this "magic" power, to one extent or other. This is why we say children are equal in dignity but not power, and as adults we must endeavor to remain cognizant of this so as to minimally damage. And this is why as adults, IMO, it is good to question authority and the established order, and what passes as "truth", which may be no more than a grammar that is past its "use by" date. Modern democracies are founded on the principle of the importance of preserving the right to question the established order, unfortunately that right is being eroded... but I digress.

Placebo has obvious limits. It will not save you if for example you are given a powerful toxin but simultaneously assured by a trusted source that it is Vitamin A, you have a deficiency shown on your recent blood work, and you need Vitamin A to heal a health problem you've been experiencing. Seeming miracles do happen and I believe in them, but I would not also expect an individual to be protected from toxicity in the above scenario, in a controlled study or otherwise.

Science not only has it's place, in many ways it IS this place, the environment created by industrialized man, our brothers and sisters. We have become so dependent on it, in so many ways that we are mostly unconscious of, that it can give one pause... for example, how many of us could really survive, not to mention thrive, if for some hypothetical reason, there were suddenly no grocery stores? Kinda scary to think about isn't it?

Reality IS anecdotal experience, as messy and unfocused, and dreamy, as it is. We are spiritual beings at core, one with nature, and we must, in my humble opinion, endeavor to remain conscious of that transcendent fact. Ultimately we learn to trust our own experience above all - it's all there really is in the final analysis, on the most foundational level.