The difference between good science and Pseudo Science Rant

First we tackle the basics, the definitions.

                         3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or
                         the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through
                         scientific method

taken from: Merriam-Webster online dictionary © 2000 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
[ http://www.m-w.com/ ]

taken from:  Skeptic's dictionary online [ http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html ]

Empirical: Function: adjective

                         3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or
                         experiment <empirical laws>

taken from: Merriam-Webster online dictionary © 2000 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
[ http://www.m-w.com/ ]

Alright, now to the rant, or rather the information session at hand. First I want to point out that the definition of pseudo science is USUALLY in reference to things like biorhythms, dowsing, dianetics, parapsychology and the like. (please see link above for more info). In this case however I am using it to describe "studies" in which controls are not met, studies are poorly done or studies which have obvious bias and therefore should be considered "junk"

Something I should point out here is the reason I am writing this, or more accurately, the long reason as to why I am writing this. You see, I often participate in discussions, debates, etc. on vegan and nutrition forums. I often run across people who in their defense of eating animal products say that my reasoning regarding the health issues is flawed because the studies I use to back up my beliefs about animal products are biased (If these accusers were to actually read the studies and look a little deeper they'd see most are done by uninterested 3rd parties, most often often meat eaters who if they had ANY bias it sure wouldn't be towards veganism).

The only reason these people give for  making these statements is that the study supports the health benefits of veganism and so MUST hold some hidden agenda. They point to studies that say eating meat is good for you , or at least is not bad for you. However they never actually put their studies to the test by looking at the controls used, where the funding is coming from (this can make a BIG difference in the results a study produces) the size of the study, etc. They very rarely examine themselves and their beliefs as thoroughly as they examine me and mine. Then when confronted they say, "well, ALL science is the same, you can get any answer you want if you look through enough studies, what does science prove? nothing." Thus proving their own "evidence" false and worthless as well as "mine" but of course they wont admit to that.

Well, they are wrong and I intend to shed a little light on things right now. As linked to above there is a great little definition of pseudo science on the skeptics website. Without their permission I intend to use their formula to explain some things about science. I know that that is the lazy way to do things but I'm tired and I think this will make it easier on you the reader as it fits perfectly. (though I'll probably end up sued). the purple sections are direct quotes from the site, the yellow are the parts I have modified. Italics are mine.

Please note that they grey text indicates a link and that links will be added periodically that are appropriate for specific sections of this rant (translation: check back often as I add more studies, etc.)
 

                   A pseudo science is set of ideas based on theories put forth as scientific
                     when they are not scientific. A theory is scientific if and only if it
                     explains a range of empirical phenomena and can be empirically tested
                     in some meaningful way. Scientific testing usually involves deducing
                     empirical predictions from the theory. To be meaningful, such
                     predictions must, at least in theory, be possible to be false. This quality
                     of scientific theories was called falsifiability by Karl Popper. A
                     pseudoscientific theory claims to be scientific, i.e., be falsifiable, but
                     either the theory is not really falsifiable or it has been falsified but its
                     adherents refuse to accept that the theory has been refuted. [as you ill
                     see this is the most common problem with the people I come across]

                     Pseudo scientists claim to base their theories on empirical evidence, and
                     they may even use some scientific methods, though often their
                     understanding of a controlled experiment is inadequate. Many
                     pseudo scientists relish being able to point out the consistency of their
                     theories with known facts or with predicted consequences, but they do
                    not recognize that such consistency is not proof of anything. It is a
                     necessary condition but not a sufficient condition that a good scientific
                     theory be consistent with the facts. A theory which is contradicted by
                     empirical facts is obviously not a very good scientific theory, but it does
                     not follow from that fact that a theory which is consistent with the facts
                     is therefore a good theory. For example, "the truth of the hypothesis
                     that animal products are good for you is not established by the correctness
                     of  the deduction that many people that eat meat are considered
                     of average health."

                     Several characteristics of those that do not understand what pseudo science
                     and science are about seem to be:

                         1. "The tendency to propose theories which are put
                          forth as scientific, but which cannot be empirically
                          tested in any meaningful way; that is, the theory is
                          consistent with every conceivable empirical event
                          and no deduced prediction from it could ever falsify
                          it. Or, the theory is couched in terms of
                          non-empirical entities. ...."

                          2. The dogmatic refusal to give up an idea in the face
                          of overwhelming evidence that the idea is false, and
                          the use of ad hoc hypotheses to try to explain away
                          contrary evidence. E.g., The idea that nutrition has little
                          or nothing to do with health; The assumption that all
                          information one is given on diet in ones life is accurate
                          and positive  (i.e.; "drink your milk it's good for you",
                          "you can't have any pudding if you don't eat you meat").

                          3. The selective use of data: the tendency to attend
                          only to confirming instances and to ignore
                          disconfirming instances. E.g., " Well the FDA says...",
                          "but the food guide pyramid says"
                          " Well what about the atkins diet, all you are supposed to
                          eat is meat and you loose all that weight, it MUST be healthy"
                           / "Well, that says veganism is good, it must be biased"
                          "All vegans are really just Animal rights activist using health
                          as a front for getting people interested in veganism"
 
 

                          4. The use of personal anecdotes as evidence. E.g.,
                          "I eat meat 3 times a day and I'm healthy" "my
                          grandfather never ate a vegetable his whole life and
                          he lived to be 80!" " my family is big on meat and we're just fine"
                          (yes but did you notice many of you are also obese, suffering
                          from heart disease, high cholesterol, irritable bowel syndrome,
                         get cancer, have severe colds, diabetes, asthma, allergies, etc.)

                          5. The lack of concern over the absence of evidence
                          in support of one's theory. E.g., The atkins diet, the Zone diet

                          6. The use of myths or ancient mysteries to support
                          theories which are then used to explain the myths or
                          mysteries. E.g.,  Our ancestors ate ALOT of meat (this is
                          false, please take a anthropology 101 course). God made
                          us to eat animals (please read genesis again. Adam and eve
                          were frutarians (ate only fruit i.e.: the fruit of the TREES) and
                          biblically speaking humans were vegetarian (most likely vegan
                          until after the flood (when Noah made his animal sacrifice after
                          he and his family came out of the ark, god told them they
                          could eat meat- I have a a hypothesis on why this was done if
                          you are interested)

                          7. Gullibility, especially about  protein and iron, B12 , calcium and
                          other nutirional/diet related, weight loss, and disease, claims. E.g.,
                          vegans/vegetarians don't get enough protein (false), the best source
                          of calcium is milk (false), vegans are thin and frail (false) vegans
                          don't get enough nutrients (false)
 

Ok, now that you have an idea about what junk science is understand this: If you really want to know the truth about nutrition, go to science, science has been studying humans for a very long time. If you want the truth about health, make sure you put that wet slimy thing in your cranium to good use (that would be your brain folks) it's not that difficult to understand, what you put in your body determines what you get out of it.

Open your mind to the possibility that YOU ARE WRONG, that everything you've been taught since childhood is WRONG, forget everything you've learned and start over, challenge everything, not just the things that challenge you. Start putting your OWN beliefs to the test, not just those of others. If you were to take a good look at yourself, your evidence, your notions of health and nutrition (and of life) would you pass your own standards? Would your sources make the grade? I've done this, I am always doing this, I will forever challenge my assumptions. PLease, before you argue with me about it, do the same for yourself.
 
 

If you would like your rant  posted here please e-mail me at kaitmoon@yahoo.com and I'll do it.!