The zealously religious often express mistrust and disdain for academia. They direct ire toward scientists. Why? Because these people are too head-oriented. They are removed from the truth of a god “in their hearts.” Or wherever else that truth may reside. Maybe the spleen.
Me, I certainly heed the hunches of my feelings and allow them to guide my behavior, like a personal advisor might suggest a course of action. But when it comes to making decisions in which I have the time and information to do so consciously and deliberately, I rely on my head.
For example, as a rule I don’t gamble. When I break that rule I do it fully knowing I am paying to entertain myself. If I am willing to shell out a few bucks to generate some excitement, fine. The reasoning section of my brain understands, fortunately, that gambling is a losing proposition. Feeling lucky? Take a cold shower.
I also choose not to gamble with what I believe about the universe. The cold showers to which I subject my craving for knowledge consist of books, websites, magazines, courses, presentations, and discussions with knowledgeable others.
On the subject of gods, the human experts of the known — scientists — have found no evidence of The Big Guy. None. Zero. Those who claim they have evidence mean to say they have inferences, and there is a difference.
Are scientists biased, not looking hard enough? Are they fudging the numbers so Satan has a comfy home in the university lab? I don’t think so. Finding credible evidence of a god, in data that could be verified and validated by other experts, would be bigger than big. The scientist or group of scientists who did would be awarded the Nobel Prize and more. Scientists are human. In other words, they are motivated by recognition and reward.
Why are no teams of serious experimenters working on a god-detector? Why aren’t engineers planning and building a device for tracking down the tracks of The Almighty? Certainly human ingenuity and technology are up to the task. Heck, physicists have positively confirmed the existence of particles called “neutrinos.” These subatomic particles can pass through walls of material thousands of miles of thick without so much as causing a squeak. Nonetheless, cunning engineers have found a way to pry their existence out of background noise and a previous void in the data. Not even the Crossing Over guy can detect neutrinos. But scientists have.
Why do the vast majority of scientists leave gods out of their research? Because they full well know that all previous gaps in our knowledge have been filled with naturalistic mechanisms. All. And they see no reason why that won’t be the case in the future.
When a god’s batting average is a perfect zero, it’s time to pull him from the field of play.
Word choice. So important. Not just to advertising companies and politicians. Scientists and science writers should likewise pay attention to the words they use. Not because they want the most bang for their syllables, but because words can be misleading. Inaccurate. They can slant and spin the issue. And no good scientist wants that. Does she?
Two recent news releases about research into religious matters set off the language-police siren in my mind. Oh sure, the perceived mis-use of language may seem slight . . . but the smallest turn of a vehicle steering wheel can add up to a big influence. By “vehicle,” I’m talking public perception.
The first I encountered over at ScienceDaily: Doctors’ Religious Beliefs Strongly Influence End-of-Life Decisions, Study Finds
The finding, as worded in the lead . . .
Atheist or agnostic doctors are almost twice as willing to take decisions that they think will hasten the end of a very sick patient’s life as doctors who are deeply religious, suggests research published online in the Journal of Medical Ethics. [emphases added]
Interesting.
Word choice question #1: Why take decisions and the the customary make decisions? Seems to have more radical connotations to me.
Word choice question #2: Why the following switch-a-roo with terms?
And doctors with a strong faith are less likely to discuss this type of treatment with the patient concerned, the research shows.
I thought the variable in question was religious belief. Why the use of strong faith? That term seems to have slightly different connotations. Will it steer people’s perceptions away from the bedrock of the more scientific elements? I wonder.
In the following sentence we do not see the same type of verbal polish applied to the other extreme:
But irrespective of specialty, doctors who described themselves as “extremely” or “very non-religious” were almost twice as likely to report having taken these kinds of decisions as those with a religious belief.
Why not refer to these individuals as “doctors with fully naturalistic worldviews” (or some shorter alternative)? And why was the adverb extremely applied only to the strongly non-religious? Why not extremely religious? Hmm. Extreme seems to have negative connotations.
The final sentence pulls yet another verbal switch:
The author concludes that the relationship between doctors’ values and their clinical decision making needs to be acknowledged much more than it is at present.
Wait. I thought we were talking religious beliefs and lack thereof. How did values get in there? Granted, they probably do play a role. But good science and science writing plays no such shell games; it makes clear when it has veered away from the research results into a more speculative area.
As for the values and decision-making, I can hear some folk spinning the finding now. Non-religious doctors, you know, atheists, do not value human life like religious doctors do, thus they are more likely to pull the plug and or let their patients die.
That would be quite a spin. For another possible interpretation might be: Non-religious doctors feel freer to heed the wishes of their patients and/or to help ease their suffering by allowing a quicker, less painful death. Or something.
Yet another spin: The beliefs of strongly religious doctors cause them to ignore the patient’s needs and suffering at end-of-life.
Words. How you use them makes a world of difference. They can paint a picture that may inaccurately reflect the complex truth of an issue.
The second article a ran into over at EurekAlert — Study: Generation X more loyal to religion. Notice in the following how the choice of just one word can have such important connotations.
As Generation X continues to grow older, this loyalty may translate into a more stable nation in terms of its religiosity, he said.
A stable nation. Stability is good, right? What if the word had been static? What if the the words were, “may translate into a less dynamic nation”? Or “less progressive”?
Okay, I’ll shut down my verbal radar and quiet the siren. For now. Maybe the above is much ado about little. But then again, maybe it isn’t.
[recycled post, with a few text edits; original here]
Hmm. Was I wrong in concluding that St. John’s Wort was little more than placebo? (Mind you, I have been wrong before and will be wrong again.) I had come to that conclusion after encountering and reading a well-designed and controlled study conducted in the good ole U.S. of A.
So I was a bit surprised when my eyes hit upon this headline: St. John’s Wort Relieves Symptoms Of Major Depression, Study Shows. The article states:
New research provides support for the use of St. John’s wort extracts in treating major depression. A Cochrane Systematic Review backs up previous research that showed the plant extract is effective in treating mild to moderate depressive disorders.
“Overall, we found that the St. John’s wort extracts tested in the trials were superior to placebos and as effective as standard antidepressants, with fewer side effects,” says lead researcher, Klaus Linde of the Centre for Complementary Medicine in Munich, Germany.
Hmm. The “new research,” was a systematic review of previously conducted research. In other words, the new research wasn’t a meta-analysis, which itself would necessitate a grain of salt to accept. It was a “Chochrane Systematic Review.” What, pray tell, is that? As far as I can tell it is a methodological review of research findings contained in the Chochrane database. The method employed depends upon the author. Interestingly, nearly all of the positive studies were conducted in Germany. Why is that?
Alright, so maybe I’ll refine my conclusion. St. John’s Wort may be effective, but the jury is still out.
Here are a couple questions I have.
1) Does it matter that the reviewer is from the “Centre for Complementary Medicine in Munich, Germany”? (Maybe?)
2) How is this complimentary medicine? Rename St. John’s Wort as, say, hyperizoft (i.e. tag the extract of the active ingredient — Hypericum perforatum — with a pharma-sounding name, and would one continue to believe this type of medicine belongs in a distinct category?
Corporations have power. And they are guided by human beings — animals notorious for their propensity to be selfish (for good and bad). Add power to ordinary selfishness, and you’ve got a very big bully on your block.
No, corporations are not evil by nature. Yes, they may be dangerous by nature, due to their size. Clashes occur when the self-interest of a powerful few threatens the interests of many. The pharmaceutical industry may provide a good case-in-point. The selfish incentive provided by bottom-line profits has led to developments that do little good for consumers of a number of pharmaceutical products, yet generate a lot of cash. For the corporation.
This topic came to my attention recently in the form of a news release of the science sort – Pharmaceuticals: A market for producing ‘lemons’ and serious harm
Author of the study, Donald Light, came to this conclusion -
Three reasons why the pharmaceutical market produces “lemons” are: Having companies in charge of testing new drugs, providing firewalls of legal protection behind which information about harms or effectiveness can be hidden, and the relatively low bar set for drug efficacy in order for a new drug to be approved.
While the above makes a lot of sense to me — and perhaps even strikes a chord of my prejudices — I wondered about the source of the information upon which the conclusion was based. I learned -
Light’s paper, “Pharmaceuticals: A Two-Tier Market for Producing ‘Lemons’ and Serious Harm,” is an institutional analysis of the pharmaceutical industry and how it works based on a range of independent sources and studies, including the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the Food and Drug Administration, and Prescrire International.
Hmm. What’s an “institutional analysis”? I think I’d need access to the entire paper, and perhaps be a near-expert in the field, to evaluate the legitimacy of the finding. My hunch tells me it’s likely legitimate. But I await further information and education before I feel confident in the conclusions.
In any regard, I am hearted by the fact that there are individual Davies out there attempting to keep the corporate Goliaths in check.
[recycled post - first appeared here]
That sound you just heard was millions of dollars of future vitamin revenues being flushed down the toilet. Well, if people bother to read the science news, that is.
Antioxidants Are Unlikely To Prevent Aging, Study Suggests
You mean I can’t just buy some friendly sounding pills at my local health food store or supermarket and effectively treat what ails me and even cheat death? A little background:
In 1956, Denham Harman proposed the theory that aging is caused by an accumulation of molecular damage caused by “oxidative stress”, the action of reactive forms of oxygen, such as superoxide, on cells. This theory has dominated the field of aging research for over fifty years. But now, a study published online today in the journal Genes & Development suggests that this theory is probably incorrect and that superoxide is not a major cause of aging.
In the developmental psychology text I use they still mention this theory. I wonder if it will be erased from future editions.
Here is my favorite passage from the article:
“The fact is that we don’t understand much about the fundamental mechanisms of aging,” says Dr David Gems from UCL. “The free radical theory of aging has filled a knowledge vacuum for over fifty years now, but it just doesn’t stand up to the evidence.”
If nature abhors a vacuum, the human mind seems downright repulsed by one. And thus we rush to fill gaps in our knowledge with supernatural mechanisms and neat and tidy yet half-baked theories.
Patience. The scientific attitude is one of patience.
New research into male infidelity has produced an intriguing finding that comes with a big but. (Pun intended, not delivered.)
In Men more likely to cheat if they are economically dependent on their female partners we learn -
[M]en who were completely dependent on their female partner’s income were five times more likely to cheat than men who contributed an equal amount of money to the partnership.
An interesting statistical correlation. Yet in the very next sentence we run smack into a huge but . . .
The relationship between economic dependence and infidelity disappeared when age, education level, income, religious attendance, and relationship satisfaction were taken into account.
Yowza. The touted relationship between economic dependence and infidelity disappeared when other variables were controlled for! So it may be only superficially true that the two are related.
About those other variables, study author Christin Munsch said this -
“One or more of these variables is impacting the relationship.”
Which one? Unknown at this point.
Unfornately, many readers don’t get into the “fine print” of the actual body of an article. They like to stick to the big font headline for their info. And that’s a problem. I can already hear the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the actual scientific findings already . . . groan.
The research did yield these other noteworthy findings -
An average of approximately 3.8% of male partners and 1.4% of female partners cheated in any given year during the six-year period studied.
That’s a lot less than I would have expected. Interesting
Ironically, men who make significantly more than their female partners were also more likely to cheat.
Again, is money/income truly the issue here, or only superficially so?
The study also found that women who were financially dependent on their male partners were less likely to cheat than women who made the same as or more than their male partners.
These study results are certainly thought-provoking. As a critical thinker, however, I’d refrain from buying into elaborate speculations as to why the results were as they were. There are just too many buts involved.
