Not many however talk about the problem with science...there are broad scale unconscious psychological reasons for that.
Neither do many talk much about the good aspects of anecdotals. Anecdotal experience is an unconscious process for the most part, which means predominated on a broad scale by instinct, and instinct is essentially a biological process. It's the wisdom of the body, the wisdom of survival.
Post industrial humans have in some measure, unfortunately, lost touch with instinct. "Science" is partly responsible for that, as is wishful thinking. We've bought into myths that are less than helpful in terms of health, and post industrial diseases continue ramping exponentially as a result.
What are the problems with the science of biology? It's an iterative process, especially when it comes to human biology (we are the least objective about ourselves). Models under test have to be continually refined, a process that can take decades. "Stable" knowledge emerges gradually, meanwhile there can be, typically are, many blind alleys. Reversals and revisions of "hard science" are the norm (in biologic research), not the exception.
Big pharma is connected in some way to most biological research, frequently hidden from view, but we call it hard science anyway. There are studies on this: where there is profit bias going in the conclusion almost always favors profit generation. Imagine that.
Most biological research has been "tainted" by this for years, so how do we know what to trust and which to view askance? It's not easy unless one is highly trained, so we rely on certain experts to interpret for us...but they are human, they may have biases also.
Big pharma is connected in some way to most biological research, frequently hidden from view, but we call it hard science anyway. There are studies on this: where there is profit bias going in the conclusion almost always favors profit generation. Imagine that.
Most biological research has been "tainted" by this for years, so how do we know what to trust and which to view askance? It's not easy unless one is highly trained, so we rely on certain experts to interpret for us...but they are human, they may have biases also.
Anecdotals can be brought to the level of statistical certainty, it has to do with time durability and distribution of phenomena (population).
Signal to noise ratios in biologic research would be raised exponentially if statistically significant anecdotals and epidemiological studies were blended (filters in series) with controlled studies. All three of these perspectives are relevant but different, none are perfect.
A useful perspective to acquire is that biological "science" is resistant to a broadening of scope, it's a turf battle kind of thing, sharing the glory that was previously exclusive domain...and protecting a heck of a good profit generation model.
Bottom line is biology is tremendously complex, there is a very reasonable argument by brilliant folks (Campbell et al) that we are likely to never understand it fully.
Some things in nature, many things probably, are more complex than humans are intelligent. This is an instinctual blind spot common to most animal species, a defense against overwhelm.
Resources are typically scarce in nature, when they are plentiful instead populations tend to expand at an exponential rate, whereupon all resources are consumed, and then population undergoes a rapid collapse.
As we humans developed technological leverage over resources, coinciding roughly with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, global human population began an exponential expansion that accelerated again with the advent of fossil fuels for energy.
We humans have the same "unlimited growth" blindspot of all species in the circumstances of seemingly unlimited resources. Collectively we unconsciously presume there is no limit to "infinite" expansion thru the agency of technological leverage...we presume a sort of "manifest destiny" over the principles of nature, essentially a hubristic delusion.
Science and technology have given us wondrous and amazing things, but there's a dark side - overconsumption of resources, destruction of the ecology, destruction of our health with toxic technological substances masquerading as foods that overstimulate our senses and overwhelm our instinctive sense of proportion.
Science and technology got us into this mess, and we assume more and greater science and technology will get us out of it. Meanwhile collective humanity does not see the approaching edge of the cliff.
I have no idea if we humans will be able to overcome "instinctual hubris" and develop instead the ability to be guided by "limit principles" of nature. A broad grassroots movement to adopt a whole food plant based diet is certainly a step in the right direction. Concurrent to that would be the collective realization concentrated substances concocted in test tubes is a step in the wrong direction.
Some things in nature, many things probably, are more complex than humans are intelligent. This is an instinctual blind spot common to most animal species, a defense against overwhelm.
Resources are typically scarce in nature, when they are plentiful instead populations tend to expand at an exponential rate, whereupon all resources are consumed, and then population undergoes a rapid collapse.
As we humans developed technological leverage over resources, coinciding roughly with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, global human population began an exponential expansion that accelerated again with the advent of fossil fuels for energy.
We humans have the same "unlimited growth" blindspot of all species in the circumstances of seemingly unlimited resources. Collectively we unconsciously presume there is no limit to "infinite" expansion thru the agency of technological leverage...we presume a sort of "manifest destiny" over the principles of nature, essentially a hubristic delusion.
Science and technology have given us wondrous and amazing things, but there's a dark side - overconsumption of resources, destruction of the ecology, destruction of our health with toxic technological substances masquerading as foods that overstimulate our senses and overwhelm our instinctive sense of proportion.
Science and technology got us into this mess, and we assume more and greater science and technology will get us out of it. Meanwhile collective humanity does not see the approaching edge of the cliff.
I have no idea if we humans will be able to overcome "instinctual hubris" and develop instead the ability to be guided by "limit principles" of nature. A broad grassroots movement to adopt a whole food plant based diet is certainly a step in the right direction. Concurrent to that would be the collective realization concentrated substances concocted in test tubes is a step in the wrong direction.
Filters in series that leverage biological intelligence, if we ever manage it, would be a great step forward in research on health and biology. We are not there yet.
As always, question everything, remain skeptical.
Caveat emptor.
Good advice in general! Thx
ReplyDelete