.gif "IP Gear")
OuchThatHurts
Moderator / Psy, Ret.
Staff member
Moderator
Kilo Klub Member
Registered
Verified Customer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 10,566
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of times I see someone say, "Do you have any studies to back up your claim?" My own world is based heavily in science so I understand the question. The question is asked to solicit verification that what someone is telling you is true. It's somewhere between "Prove it!" and "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Twenty years ago, the statement "Studies have proven that..." might have meant something. Today, I take most all with a grain of salt. I listen to anecdotal evidence almost as much as any scientific assay these days.
Don't worry. I'm not going to launch into some diatribe about pseudoscience and the recent merging (or perhaps confusion) of science and philosophy. I'm just seeking to clarify some things so that many of us can better understand what we are getting today with a "study".
There is very little pure research today - science purely for the sake of science. Research and studies cost money. In fact, studies cost big money. In all likelihood, a corporation or other entity heavily commissioned any study or article you read today. This research is subsidized with the intention of getting back a study (or scientific confirmation, or article) that, combined with their product or service, will pay dividends. What?!? Oh yes. And this is where the problem lies. In order for a research facility or even a lonely scientist to continue to receive funding by entities with the budget to afford such studies is to produce results consistent with what that particular entity is looking for in the conclusion. The truth is that the facility's (or the scientist's) future can sometimes depends on it. Add to the problem that the entire research industry has become so politicized that any scientist or facility that produces and/or publishes results inconsistent with what might be considered "politically correct", is banished to the fringe and discredited heavily by the community (e.g. the scientific community, the media, etc.).
Sounds crazy doesn't it? Nonetheless, it is very true. And it's happening all around us today. Can you imagine the bias created when you have a scientist working in a facility paid for by ABC Pharma to conduct studies and testing on a drug slated for production by ABC Pharma? The poor hapless scientist's salary, his lab coat, his spectrometer, his office, his toilet, his break room, his car are all paid for by ABC Pharma. And now ABC Pharma wants him to conduct a safety study on their latest, greatest money maker! Uh oh. I see a recall on the horizon. Hmm…
This is what happens when you combine politics, capitalism, and science. All three work together in tandem to ensure their mutual survival - completely without regard and exclusive of what may be in the best interest of the public. When I see Al Gore talking about climate change and the impending dangers with virtually no true scientific evidence (unbiased scientific evidence), it seems reminiscent of Trofim Lysenko with Stalin talking about vernalization. It is insanity and worse, it happens right in front of your eyes. I'm getting off topic but you get the idea.
So if someone comes at you frantically waving a study in front of your face, you are well within your rights (if history has been any primer) to be as skeptical as you like. Conversely, if someone approaches you with a product or service with no scientific study and only anecdotal evidence, you have every right to be just as skeptical. My point? My point is that no matter what the case, for your own sake and the sake of society as a whole, be extremely skeptical. Decide carefully what you spend your dollars on and judge for yourself and only listen to those you trust but listen more to your common sense. Stick with what has worked over time and if you want to take a chance on something new, then by all means, go ahead. But go ahead knowing full well that you are taking a risk in one form or another whether financial or health or whatever (or all of the above).
I've thrown enough quotes at you good people over the years so why break precedent now?
"When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase
Enjoy your weekend.
OTH
Don't worry. I'm not going to launch into some diatribe about pseudoscience and the recent merging (or perhaps confusion) of science and philosophy. I'm just seeking to clarify some things so that many of us can better understand what we are getting today with a "study".
There is very little pure research today - science purely for the sake of science. Research and studies cost money. In fact, studies cost big money. In all likelihood, a corporation or other entity heavily commissioned any study or article you read today. This research is subsidized with the intention of getting back a study (or scientific confirmation, or article) that, combined with their product or service, will pay dividends. What?!? Oh yes. And this is where the problem lies. In order for a research facility or even a lonely scientist to continue to receive funding by entities with the budget to afford such studies is to produce results consistent with what that particular entity is looking for in the conclusion. The truth is that the facility's (or the scientist's) future can sometimes depends on it. Add to the problem that the entire research industry has become so politicized that any scientist or facility that produces and/or publishes results inconsistent with what might be considered "politically correct", is banished to the fringe and discredited heavily by the community (e.g. the scientific community, the media, etc.).
Sounds crazy doesn't it? Nonetheless, it is very true. And it's happening all around us today. Can you imagine the bias created when you have a scientist working in a facility paid for by ABC Pharma to conduct studies and testing on a drug slated for production by ABC Pharma? The poor hapless scientist's salary, his lab coat, his spectrometer, his office, his toilet, his break room, his car are all paid for by ABC Pharma. And now ABC Pharma wants him to conduct a safety study on their latest, greatest money maker! Uh oh. I see a recall on the horizon. Hmm…
This is what happens when you combine politics, capitalism, and science. All three work together in tandem to ensure their mutual survival - completely without regard and exclusive of what may be in the best interest of the public. When I see Al Gore talking about climate change and the impending dangers with virtually no true scientific evidence (unbiased scientific evidence), it seems reminiscent of Trofim Lysenko with Stalin talking about vernalization. It is insanity and worse, it happens right in front of your eyes. I'm getting off topic but you get the idea.
So if someone comes at you frantically waving a study in front of your face, you are well within your rights (if history has been any primer) to be as skeptical as you like. Conversely, if someone approaches you with a product or service with no scientific study and only anecdotal evidence, you have every right to be just as skeptical. My point? My point is that no matter what the case, for your own sake and the sake of society as a whole, be extremely skeptical. Decide carefully what you spend your dollars on and judge for yourself and only listen to those you trust but listen more to your common sense. Stick with what has worked over time and if you want to take a chance on something new, then by all means, go ahead. But go ahead knowing full well that you are taking a risk in one form or another whether financial or health or whatever (or all of the above).
I've thrown enough quotes at you good people over the years so why break precedent now?
"When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase
Enjoy your weekend.
OTH
)
