We live in a society saturated by science, and every year we hear alarming reports that unless we educate more scientists, America will lose its position as number one in research and technology (some experts believe we've slid out of first place already). Yet it's not often observed that people suffer from "science shock," a numbness to the flood of data that assaults us almost as if it's in the air we breathe. We've all heard someone greet a new study by saying, "It doesn't mean a thing. These studies are always contradicting each other." The more science rules, the greater the resistance to it.
Take the link between cell phones and brain cancer. Just last week, a long article in the New York Times outlined the 12-year research, heavily funded and involving thousands of subjects, that tried and failed to find such a link. The results were not quite conclusive, though, leaving a margin for doubt about as slender as a thread. If the data was crunched a certain way, it turns out that regular use of a cell phone may actually decrease the incidence of brain cancer, while very heavy use seemed to increase a specific, rare type of tumor. Yet that isn't really the point, because for millions of laymen, the connection between cell phones and cancer has become part of common belief. The more the link is disproved, the stronger their faith.
One volume of The Lord of the Rings is titled "The Two Towers," and it's as if science lives in one tower while popular belief lives in another. The two camps are separate and aloof; they communicate only with the greatest suspicion. If you visit one tower, you will meet firmly held beliefs like the following:
Cell phones cause memory loss in older people.
Aluminum pots and pans are the cause of Alzheimer's disease.
Autism results from childhood vaccinations.
Mega vitamins prevent all kinds of diseases, from the common cold to cancer.
Needless to say, scientists scorn such beliefs as superstition, and they feel immense frustration when, for example, juries hear abundant evidence that silicone leaks from breast implants do not cause disease, only to award millions of dollars to the women who believe that they have been harmed. (The opposite frustration arises when science detects a real danger, such as the link between smoking and lung cancer, but then has to wait decades before the rate of cigarette smoking significantly declines.) The net result, as viewed from one tower, is that the other tower is rife with ignorance, irrationality and superstition. Yet that isn't really the issue.
Science shock is also an expression of human nature, just as valid as reason, devoted to emotions, hope, anxiety about death and the impulse not to face our mortality. This side of our nature runs after laetrile as a cancer cure, or coffee enemas or having your blood "cleansed" in some obscure clinic in Mexico. As much as science might want to eradicate irrationality, the fact is that a planet ruled by science would be hell on earth. The objectivity of research is a valuable enterprise, but when devoid of emotion and all forms of subjectivity, what happens? We get the rise of atomic weapons, mechanized death in wartime, biological and chemical agents, chemical carcinogens and many other forms of diabolical creativity. I fully realize the howls of protest that such comments incite. Science wants to equate objectivity with having clean hands.
In fact, the two are very different things. No doctor wants to take personal responsibility for the side effects of drugs, iatrogenic disease (illness created by medical treatments) or the rise of super germs that are increasingly ravaging hospitals. Much less do they want to consider the enormous suffering that cancer patients go through during chemotherapy and radiation -- as long as the overall mortality rate drops by one-tenth of a percent, that's all that counts. The reason that the two towers exist isn't that one side of us is rife with superstition. It's that we have a healthy skepticism about science. We've heard too many claims for "promising" cures while watching AIDS and cancer essentially remain a mystery.
I am not science-bashing here. My deepest desire is to see the two towers join together, which means arriving at a science of wholeness, an expanded science that will accept that reason is compatible with imagination, hope, morality, emotions and every other subjective experience. Because ultimately people live for their experiences, not for science and its data. Science serves experience, and it has no right to consider that numbers are superior to feelings. It is certainly true that human nature is prone to superstition and false hope, but it is equally true that man doesn't live by data alone. Keeping ourselves whole is all-important.
Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra
That rather gets to the heart of faith now, doesn't it?
Irrationality, ultimately, has no purpose. So what use is there in having it around? I disagree with the notion that when emotions are "removed" that everything becomes evil, and diabolical.The impetus for evil, is usually emotional. Utilitarianism/Humanitarianism are the result of the "removal" of emotions, not callousness, and destruction.
"not for science and its data. Science serves experience, and it has no right to consider that numbers are superior to feelings."
Numbers superior to feelings? In this equation feelings have been given a numerical value greater than that of "numbers" Arguing superiority against something while using it's system is a bit strange. "Numbers", or conversely what is better for the greatest good for the most people can be argued to be of equal importance to that of "feelings". Sure, feelings are important. However, they don't exist outside of the vector of the individual. Where as the effect of utilitarianism are tangible to a group/society/humanity as a whole. Feelings are selfish; numbers are altruistic.
Why would we blame the gun for killing someone? Is science bad? Or is it science in immoral and/or unethical hands? Science simply assists us in explaining the universe around us without the use of superstition.
-------------
Oh! How I wish that that were the case.
First, the author, illustrating his version of the confused consumer:
“Cell phones cause memory loss in older people.
Aluminum pots and pans are the cause of Alzheimer's disease.
Autism results from childhood vaccinations.
Mega vitamins prevent all kinds of diseases, from the common cold to cancer.”
What I believe the message to the public should be:
Cell phone radiation may conceivably harm the health of some users. Cataracts are one example. We do not know which users may be harmed. To minimize your risk, use headphones or a speaker phone.
Aluminum pots and pans leach aluminum into food. Aluminum has been found in Alzheimer’s plaques. We do not know what this means. To minimize risk, cook and store in glass.
Vaccinations may cause harm to some children. We do not know which children will be harmed. To minimize risk, spread out and minimize the vaccine schedule, and choose formulas that contain minimal toxins.
Some mega vitamins may prevent some diseases in some people. Vitamin D is an example. To hedge your bets, take a multivitamin.
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
A research organization
There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. Suggesting otherwise is false. Vaccinations carry risk, but so does every activity your child will be involved in from eating to riding in a car. The question is whether the risk of vaccination outweighs the risks of injury. The results of that is a resounding yes. There is no evidence whatsoever that spreading out the vaccine schedule will reduce the risk of harm from vaccination.
"Cell phone radiation may conceivably harm the health of some users. "
Except there is no evidence to support such a claim. There are a lot of claims that are conceivable. It's conceivable that ethanol would kill cancer cells. If I took a cancer cell line and grew it in ethanol, the cells would die. However, that doesn't imply that if I drink 3 cups of whisky every day I can cure my lymphoma. The fact is that there is no good evidence that cell phone use increases the risk of brain cancer or has other deleterious effects.
Your comments are simply about feeding into individuals incorrect views of science and evidence. That isn't a viable solution to a lack of scientific understanding found in this country.
You said: “There is no evidence that vaccines cause autism. Suggesting otherwise is false. Vaccinations carry risk.”
Who said anything about autism? You seem fixated on it. The Rmakovitz comment said vaccines carry risk. So did you. You read into that comment your own bias, and proceeded to comment on it. This is one of the worst kinds of research error. We call it “ass squared research.” Make an assumption, and then assume the assumption is correct.
Next, you said: “The fact is that there is no good evidence that cell phone use increases the risk of brain cancer or has other deleterious effects.”
The Rmakovitz comment did not say anything about brain cancer. It mentioned the possibility of cataracts and cell phone radiation, on which there is plenty of research. You made yet another kind of research error, known as the streetlight effect. The same error made by the researchers looking only for brain cancer, while ignoring other health effects. Here is one of many studies on cell phones and cataracts: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694600/
Then of course, you constantly use the refrain of those that are desperate to make their point. It starts with: “There is no evidence that …. “ When I see someone using that nonsensical argument, I know they have no formal training in scientific research.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney
I used to think people believed crazy thing simply because they were ignorant. Why smart people believe weird things, is the one chapter title in Sheremer's book that I'll never forget and a subject that I'll always find fascinating.
Mooney's book, "storm world" is well worth reading too.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dan_kahan_the_american_culture_war_of_fact/
The technology created by science is epiphenomal, and not the thing itself. The notion that science and technology are the same thing is absurd. Franklin didn't raise up his kite to power his toaster, but out of human curiousity. Our scientific aspirations have never been to make better TV sets, or even to cure disease, but to discover the secret connections of things in the world into which we have all been born.
Excellent point: there are many cultures in history having rich traditions in technological development with a dearth of science and vice versa. For example, the ancient Greeks pursued science but frequently did not apply their scientific findings and the early periods of Islam featured technological development without significant investigations into science.
If people actually understood science - if they understood the Method and were educated enough to tell good research from bad - we'd live in a significantly better world. A world with far less smoking and far more vaccinated children. A world where we were taking real action to stop climate change and weren't fighting the latest pseudoscientific boogeyman instead.
I want to live in the world ruled by science. It has less suffering and more joy.
We've been taught to expect easy simple answers, but we are complex and live in complex times. We're addicted to comfort, but the truth isn't always comfortable. So the most important skill is gaining experience in looking into complexity with an open mind.
www.healthjournalistblog.com
"As much as science might want to eradicate irrationality, the fact is that a planet ruled by science would be hell on earth."
"I am not science-bashing here."
This article is at best giving equal credence to medical research and its antithesis, subjective beliefs. Conflicting results of correlative studies causing "science shock" is due to media misrepresentation. These types of studies are notoriously wrong and in no way should be used to criticize more accepted research methods like randomized controlled trials. By lumping it all together (as CAM advocates like to do), critics are not promoting "a healthy skepticism about science"-they're just promoting skepticism about science.
Nice article though. I think that more people might be able to distinguish between superstitions/myths/conspiracy theories and legitimate science if the details behind scientific sources were more accessible to everyone. I think some people may refuse to believe certain extensive scientific studies simply because they don't understand how to review it themselves, and they may not trust someone else to simply tell them the answer.