Mostly science, though partially you and I as well. For many years, the cardiovascular disease controversy has been fueled both scientifically and nutritionally, I'd dare say, by butter and margarine. Mainstream authoritative opinions have radically shifted from laying the blame for the increasing rates of cardiovascular disease on either saturated or trans-saturated fats. Negations of previous statements and the embracing of opposites, all in an environment sprinkled with both confidence and doubt, have done nothing but diminish the public's trust in science, scientists and their recommendations.
This loss of credibility has had quite a big impact on the way in which many people approach scientific discoveries nowadays. When telling someone that sugar is detrimental to one's health, it is not uncommon to hear the following response: 'Butter was once bad. And then it wasn't. Just give sugar enough time to make a comeback.' Now, although it's no breaking news that sugar is harmful for all of us, butter's evolution still gives it a chance for redemption. All the studies regarding sugar that have ever been published can be rendered null just because they might have been mistaken about one or two things and possibly the whole picture.
Don't get me wrong. Distrust in things presented to you as facts is far from being bad. It's actually a great and desirable human quality. I mean, where had we been now if we still thought the Earth was flat and never dared to challenge this idea? However, as it happens, we mostly place under scrutiny those opinions that contradict our deeply internalized understanding of reality, our preferences, wishes and desires. At this level, distrust in science, rather than being a rational and logical undertaking, takes closely after the path of creating excuses for one's behavior. After all, would you distrust evolution if you weren't a creationist? Or would you doubt that the Earth wasn't in the center of the universe unless you were a 16th century clergyman? I'm hoping the answer is no.
You see, for most of our history, science has advanced more through accident and trial-and-error than through intentional pursuits. Sildenafil, for instance, popularly known as Viagra and a relatively recent addition to our pharmaceutical conquests, was not an intentional creation. The truth is that sildenafil just happened to be a fortunate byproduct of an otherwise unsuccessful attempt to treat hypertension and angina. In spite of the fortuitous character of science, we are closer than ever to properly direct it towards specific questions and towards finding those answers that we've been always looking for. Of course, there will be reasons to doubt scientific outcomes. But the good part is that there will be many reasons to take pride in the offerings of science as well. The bottom line is that we need to be understanding and empathize with this very admirable attempt of uncovering the mysteries of the world and which, when done in the best of faiths, it's on a par with the mysteries that it aims to reveal. It would be a great pity if some mistakes here and there blinded us from recognizing and appreciating the truth or, at least, the road leading to it.
So, let's be honest with ourselves and with each other and distrust science properly. Here are some rough guidelines, though don't place your full trust in me either:
1. Before you jump to any conclusion, read and inform yourself about your topic of interest and possibly adjacent ones.
2. Be critical of the things you read and try to assess the validity and reliability of studies and experiments.
3. Correlate information.
4. Analyze your biases and preferences and ask yourself it there is any personal reason for which you are unhappy with the results.
No comments:
Post a Comment