I was raised with science. It is in my blood like iron and carbon. It is woven into my DNA and the synapses of my brain. I was born with science. Before I was old enough to be in a classroom my father was teaching me kinematics with falling pennies, optics with reading glasses and combustion with the campfire. I breathed science with electrical circuits and Legos. I was not taught religion, I was taught that reason and empathy were the orders of the day, and kindness was the best kind of logic in the world. I grew up and became a humanist. I took all my childhood training, science, ethics, and happiness and went into the world. I realized that humanism with the short term for what I had been taught in the backyard of my childhood. I am studying to be a celebrant (a humanist minister) because of my past. I am here today because of my past. I see the hurt that false things do. And those around me stand as a testament to the fact that you don’t need those beliefs to live a happy life. Humanity is not deadened by the loss of illogic. It is brightened, strengthened, made more beautiful. Perhaps I am delusional, but I believe I can make this world better by asking each person to look at their beliefs and why exactly they need them. I do not expect them to come to the conclusion as me, but I do intend to keep asking the questions. I believe we can be better than we are today. Perhaps that’s the humanist in me.
0 Comments
One of the claims that I hear leveled at scientists and science-minded people most often is that of scientism. Now, most people don’t use that word. Fair enough. Scientism can be one of two things, one is a legitimate belief, and the other is not. The first is that science is the best and most powerful way to discover things about the world. I agree with this wholeheartedly. Science is a very powerful tool to understand the wonder of the universe and I think the best thing that we have to do so. However, on the other side of the coin is the elitist notion that science is the most important thing and that scientists are above others (so we don’t have to explain things to non-experts or even care about them). This is very false, and damaging to everyone, expert and non-expert alike. It is easy, locked up in a lab with your knowledge and expertise and research, to forget how important the average person is. Even if you are not a scientist, but a scientific person, it is simple to devalue the other person through knowledge that the other person does not happen to possess. This elitism means that we can look down on people who are suffering for not being as knowledgeable as us. Nowhere is this more prevalent or problematic than when Americans look at other countries. It is simple to write off those in other parts of the world who do not have access to the same scientific knowledge as us, or to write off cultures who do not place the same importance on scientific discovery. We must be watchful to remember that intellectual or not, learned or not, people are people and we must help them. Not just educate them. Help them. Compassion rather than condescension must be the order of the day. Science must be used to help everyone on this planet, not be used as a tool to create an in-group and an out-group. This is our duty, as scientific citizens and as people. If I had to pick someone to write the preface to the first printed edition of the Qur’an, Martin Luther, father of the protestant Christian movement would not be first on the list. However, in 1543 that is exactly what he did, penning a short introduction (below) to a Latin translation published by Theodore Bibliander and Johannes Oporinus in Basel, Switzerland. It was the first translation of the Qur’an into a Western language. Luther found a translation of the earlier work from 1160 Lex Mahumet pseudoprophete (The Laws of the False-Prophet Muhammed). Luther hoped that a published Qur’an (along with other Muslim texts) would help Christians understand the continuing power of the other religion. Of course, this was not to nurture a relationship of understanding and compassion between them, the press of the Sultan was very present, but to better argue and refute the words of Muhammad. It is worth saying that in this preface, as well as other writings he did about “the Turks” in previous years, he takes a less aggressive position than many of his contemporaries. His focus, overall, is more about convincing Christians to repent of their sins (for which he believed the Muslims were a punishment from God) than advocating the continued fight against the enemies. Martin Luther represents a continuation of a trend that sets Christianity and Islam up as enemies. Certainly there is a political aspect to this position, with a long history of conquest and fighting since they first came into contact, however Luther put this into a moral context. While one can argue that this is to make the fight against the Muslims more palatable, but whatever the original reason this moral war of faiths continues. Political conflicts in the Middle East and beyond are translated into a moral battle with Christians viewing Muslims as misguided, or, even worse, tools of the devil. It is this view that is engrained within the broader Christian consciousness. It is not the intention to learn and grow from Islam, but rather to “defeat” Islam (while other faiths are spared this specific ire). To help to mend issues that plague much of modern human history we must consider this belief and evaluate the issues and conflict inherent within it. While Islam is a rapidly growing religion (possibly threatening the power that Christianity possesses) there is still much to learn and much peace to be made despite the legacy that Martin Luther propagated. News is a form of entertainment. This is perhaps not surprising in this day and age, but it is important to point out that news networks have to get ratings to stay afloat just like any other show. Not that this is inherently an issue, mind you. That is hardly the point of me bringing it up. The point is, science news, just like everything else that gets brought to our attention, is shined through the lens of glamor, spice, and excitement so that you as the consumer stop and watch. The intention of the news station has never been to promote real science. It is hardly a surprise, then, that the newest exciting thing in the world of pseudoscience comes out it is rarely examined critically. Take, for example, the 60 Minutes piece ran by CBS News in 2009 that brought the idea of cold fusion back into the light[1] (in direct opposition to the first and second laws of thermodynamics). Or perhaps, think about when in 2011 all the major news networks expounded the virtues of faster than light travel (thrilling sci-fi nerds everywhere, despite being a misinterpretation of the data collected by researchers at the Large Hadron Collider)[2]. It could be something as simple as having horoscopes in the back of the local paper. The truth is, misinformation about science, and deliberate misuse of science surrounds us on all sides. The reality is, we cannot as a community and a species escape belief in pseudoscience without cutting down on the messages that besiege us. News stations, with a skillful ability to show both sides of an issue even when scientists are almost unanimously in agreement, muddy the waters and make it even more difficult for people (particularly those without a scientific background) to find out the truth. Without the ability to separate what is true from what is fantasy, it is no wonder that many people continue to put stock in these disproven ideas. [1]http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/more-than-junk-science-50070729/?lumiereId=50070729&videoId=67210b47-8bdf-11e2-9400-029118418759&cbsId=4955212&site=cbsnews [2] Stephens, Ransom. (2015) “The Data That Threatened to Break Physics” Nautilus. <http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/the-data-that-threatened-to-break-physics> Ah the Food Babe, she is going to keep me in business for a long time. She is famous for arguing that not only should you not eat anything with an ingredient you can’t pronounce, you simply shouldn’t be eating chemicals at all (besides the fact that everything is a chemical). If you haven’t perused her site (foodbabe.com) I would definitely suggest it. It makes for delightful light reading. She came into the public consciousness in 2014 by bringing to light that subway uses a chemical in its bread that is found in yoga mats[1]. This chemical, called azodicarbonamide is used as a filling and preservative agent and, as the Food Babe readily pointed out, is linked to respiratory problems. However, the World Health Organization (who issued that warning) found problems only in factory workers who breathed in high concentrations[2]. There is no indication that this compound is in any way detrimental to people eating it. Now, we can argue whether we should be eating it if it is linked to health problems for manufacturers, however that was not the point that the Food Babe was making. She wanted it out because the bread wasn’t “fresh”. After a petition swept the public consciousness, Subway caved, changing their formula to remove the offending molecule. Soon after news came out that thousands of food products, including many breads, had the chemical, but no one was able to find any health issues associated with its presence[3]. Several stories have gone on a similar path in recent years, from GMOs (that is a whole article in itself) to the Starbucks controversy over the very same chemical Subway ditched. This is a troubling trend because it not only shifts focus away from very real issues in our food, but it creates a culture where emotions are what matters, rather than the facts. I am sure that Subway was very aware of how dangerous its chemical actually was when they changed recipes, and while I don’t blame them, the pseudoscience ultimately won. This is highly troubling for those of us who work to make sure that pseudoscience and knee-jerk fear do not affect policy or public outcomes. We can and should have real discussions about things like our food, but that is not the same thing as fear mongering. Soon I will have an interview talking about how pseudoscience and perception actually shapes research and development of technologies. Until then, let me know what you think. What companies have caved to the pseudoscience and what should we do about it? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHjm8lbgc3I [2] Cary, R., Dobson, S. Ball, E. (1999). Azodicarbonamide: Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 16. World Health Organization. [3] Aubrey, A. (2014). Almost 500 Foods Contain The 'Yoga Mat' Compound. Should We Care?. National Public Radio News. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/03/06/286886095/almost-500- foods-contain-the-yoga-mat-compound-should-we-care-keep I have a confession to make. I am a scientist and I don’t know what a toxin is. No, really. Okay, okay. I know what a toxin is. If you lick a poison dart frog you have got a toxin. Same as if you kiss a black widow. I know that lots of times synthetic chemicals get labeled as toxins even though toxins are specifically organically produced. Sometimes heavy metals buildup is lumped in with toxins. That seems pretty clear to me. But when someone thrusts me a kale smoothie (which I love, by the way) and tells me I need to detox, I don’t have any idea what they are talking about. Very rarely does the detoxing person know what they are detoxifying from, either. Many people that I have asked point to pesticides, pollution, sugar, and even GMOs as things we need to rid our body of on a daily basis. They claim buildup of harmful chemicals in your body need to be flushed out every once in a while. Apparently they believe that their livers don’t do well enough on their own, which is not the case[1]. The methods of this vary from juice cleanses (the veggie smoothie way to go) to the Master Cleanse (a cyan pepper, ample syrup, lemon juice and laxatives diet for as long as you can) to the colon cleanse (flushing you out in the most literal way possible) but the idea is the same: getting rid of stuff your body doesn’t need. The problem is, not only does the idea of flushing your body have no scientific basis[2] but these diets also can result in some real health issues including severe lack of vitamins, loss of lean muscle mass, (in the case of colon cleansing) bowel rupture, and a slowing of the metabolism. None of those things are ideal, and the dangers become more pronounced with the addition of preexisting health issues. With little benefit and potential risks, it is perhaps a bit surprising to see these diets continuing to sweep the nation. On some level, it is easy to see why. In a world of fast food, city skylines, and processed nutrition, it is calming to think that there is a single thing that we can do to flush out all the bad things we have done to our bodies in one fowl swoop. We just suffer for a couple of days taking laxatives without eating anything (no one said the Master Cleanse was supposed to be fun) and we can go back to our normal lives. Like any fad diet, it is a quick fix. However, just like those diets, it plays of fears and insecurities to promote something less than healthy. This is why we cannot allow these type of diets to continue. They promote harmful eating practices and do nothing to promote long-term health. What about you? Do you have any stories about detoxing? Have you ever tried a detox diet and what did you think? [1] Klein, A, Kiat H. (2014). “Detox diets for toxin elimination and weight management: a critical review of the evidence” Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics. PDF. [2] Zeratsky, K. (2014). “Do detox diets offer any health benefits?” Mayo Clinic Online. http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/detox-diets/faq-20058040
The placebo effect is a wonderful and fascinating effect of our minds. It gives us insight into the complexity of human powers of healing and the effect of our perceptions on our experience. That is not to suggest, however, that the placebo effect has no side effects. Some of the results are nothing if not dire.
Take homeopathy, for example. Besides one much disproved article in the scientific journal Nature[1] there is little credible research supporting the ideas of “like cures like” and water has memory, which are the central tenants of the system. These ideas lead to the practices of diluting something past the dilution limit (so that not even one molecule of the diluted substance remains in the solution) that in normal concentrations would provoke the symptoms the homoeopathist is attempting to cure. Blinded studies into homeopathy have determined that the benefits ascribed to the practice are indistinguishable from the placebo effect[2] (when patients see a benefit to a medicine with being unknowingly given an inert substitute). Homeopathy represents the most well-established brand of “natural” medicines, which purport to come from an earthy knowledge that has somehow been lost in our urban society. In the truest sense of the word pseudoscience, these claims borrow the trappings of science to promote a claim that has no backing in science that can as of yet be proven[3]. However, millions of people around the world turn to homeopathy to sooth their ailments, everything from aches to viruses to genetic disease. Many find relief from the practice, and stories about the miracles of homeopathy are not difficult to find. It is tempting, then, in the face of all this benefit, to write homeopathy off as something that might not be good science, but at least makes people feel better. However, this thinking suggests that there are no consequences to using a system that has no scientific backing. Besides the tendency to stretch the powers of homeopathy past the limits of the placebo effect (a sugar pill might cure a back ache, but it won’t cure sickle-cell anemia), there is a real danger of confusing science with pseudoscience. In a very apropos way for homeopathy, it dilutes the power of real scientific findings, while at the same time promoting a fear of science by billing itself as privy to a secret science is unable to grasp. This together makes people more vulnerable as they view medicine with suspicion and turn their backs on the breakthrough that, though far from perfect in many cases, might provide a solution to their problem. Permeating through our culture, this idea of scientific paranoia can lead to damning consequences such as the current movement towards anti-vaccination [1] Dayenas E, Beauvais F, Amara J, Oberbaum M, Robinzon B, Miadonna A, Tedeschit A, Pomeranz B, Fortner P, Belon P, Sainte-Laudy J, Poitevin B, Benveniste J (30 June 1988). "Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE"(PDF). Nature. 333 (6176): 816–818. [2] Linde, K; Scholz, M; Ramirez, G; Clausius, N; Melchart, D; Jonas, WB (1999), "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy", Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52 (7): 631–6, [3] Khuda-Bukhsh, AR. (2003). “Towards understanding molecular mechanisms of action of homeopathic drugs: an overview”. Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 253(1-2):339-45. Have you ever felt sad because something is disappearing around you? Know you will miss something before it is gone? Feel pain as your environment is pulled out from under your feet? Glenn Albrecht defines this feeling as Solastalgia. As an environmental philosopher he uses this term to understand the impact of the destruction of nature by focusing on how humans both affect and are affected by the changing natural landscape. His theory can be easily applied to the purely human that each of us live in – culture. The same loss and pain we feel when we lose a natural part of our environment can also be felt as the cultural environment we grew up with fade or change. We may cling to stands of that culture long after they stop being integrated within the broader scene, or we may decide to cling to something new, but that stands in direct opposition to the newest knowledge. In a word, pseudoscience. Of course, it is not that simple. Many factors go into someone’s choice in believing something over something else. However, the seductively simple answers for complex questions of life that pseudoscience provides are suggestive. One historical (now defunct) example of this is the belief in phrenology, which posits that areas of the skull can be used to determine the size of different areas of the brain (such as critical thinking or spite or religiosity). It was primarily created in support of Eugenics, it in itself a way of pushing against the social movements that advocated rights for marginalized groups. While Albrecht used this theory to advocate conservation, in the realm of pseudoscience there is no going back. However, an understanding of while believers cling to these disproved notions allows those on the outside work in reasonable ways to change incorrect perceptions. I am fascinated by interesting beliefs. Everything from a cult that says aliens made this planet last week and we have been living in an illusion ever since to whether Elvis is living in Maine as a McDonalds cashier. Not just the beliefs themselves, either, but the people who hold them. I am interested in what makes a person believe something outside the norm when everything from evidence to societal pressures try to convince them otherwise. Not that I would necessarily like them to give up their beliefs. If you want to believe that god is a blue raccoon, that is really fine by me. But I really do want to hear about what shade of blue she is and her opinions about how humans treat raccoons in our society. That being said there are some beliefs that hurt people. There are beliefs that kill and damage and make life worse for the world. And these are ideas that I cannot accept. Pseudoscience and bad science have repercussions far beyond just the practitioners, and have the ability to hurt both innocent people and society at large. This is not acceptable. We as a community must work to stop these things from happening. First the gap between “science people” and “holistic people” has to be bridged, rather than widened. We must find a dialogue to understand not just why people believe things, but how to communicate with them about their beliefs in a meaningful way. |
AuthorI am a student at the University of New Mexico working on a B.S. in Chemistry and a B.A. in Professional Writing. I am fascinated by why people believe weird things and how that impacts broader society. ArchivesCategories
All
|