Scientific illiteracy/ignorance in the US.

2014-06-29T15:25:47-04:00

As someone who travels a lot, I'm often shocked and saddened by the level of willful scientific ignorance in the US. I don't see this in most other countries (US and the middle east are the 2 biggest offenders in science denial). The sad part is that it's willful, not incidental. There are 23 MILLION articles on PUBMED, and 500,000 new articles published yearly using the same, peer reviewed and scientific standards. Yet the only articles ever questioned are:

1) Global warming/climate change
2) Homosexuality
3) Autism/vaccines
4) Evolution

A few facts:

- Science is not a collection of knowledge, it's a method. Science is the act of collecting data, vetting data, and verifying data to provide insights into our physical reality.

- There is NO POSSIBILITY of a conspiracy in science. Everything is peer reviewed and results are replicated. If they can't be replicated, they are discarded. Even the data that is published is analyzed by independent sources to assure that it is done properly.

I find it amusing that when science deniers go to the doc with diabetes or heart disease or a tumor or anything else, science works just fine. It's only when PERSONAL beliefs are involved that they suddenly think that there's some kind of "conspiracy". Science deniers are just like 9-11 truthers - they willfully ignore facts and deny reality so that they can continue with beliefs that science doesn't support.

The scientific method has provided everything around you. Why do you think that in just a few areas - namely those you disagree with - we're somehow in concert together just to run a scam?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2014 3:34 PM

2014-06-29T15:34:02-04:00

I think it just takes a while for the military to accept things due to trends and some things that seem a sure thing tend to fizzle out later.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jun 29 at 2014 4:40 PM

2014-06-29T16:40:54-04:00

Very well said MAJ Dews, I owe you a thumb! Your first fact says a lot. I see it with my kids in school. My oldest is going into 8th and so far everything is more about history and fact than about why we do it. Its more about book learning than actual experimentation and self exploration. I know you get more into that in later grades but its definitely something to look for. Great advice!

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2014 5:11 PM

2014-06-29T17:11:02-04:00

Data just like polls can be manipulated for specific outcomes. Peer review can only be quantified by the peers doing the reviews. For every peer review there are opposing peer reviews also. I've seen both sides of several of your arguments. The problem comes when political agendas propagate one review over the other.

For example, Global Warming: Algore's hockey stick graph was charted using manipulated data that was found to be misleading because they omitted certain weather data in Siberia and "scientists" were conveniently placing temperature monitoring stations near roads that absorb heat. The "climategate" conspiracy exploded when email was found that told "peers" to "hide the decline" by the leading "global warming" scientist, Michael Mann.

Scientists are humans also and fallible. They also get their funding through lobbying governments. With fake data, they can easily manipulate officials to fund their ideological goals.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 30 at 2014 12:01 PM

2014-08-30T12:01:33-04:00

I think the big problem isn't the illiteracy itself -- most people aren't all that knowledgeable about most things -- but the alignment of opinions about what should be purely scientific questions to positions in politics.

When politics is about opinions, we can agree to disagree and at least all be working toward a common good. When politics trumps evidence, dysfunction runs amok.

1) AGW is thoroughly accepted by the scientific community at large, and even more so by those best suited to judge the evidence. The opposition is well-funded by special interests, though, and tries to appeal by sowing doubt in the public with stunts like the collusion of weather and climate. It's also relevant that the denialist organizations are largely the same groups that denied the harms of smoking for decades, in order to stretch out the period of making profits on the harms they did. The economic libertarian bend of the republican party have taken denial of AGW as a shibboleth, because taking the evidence seriously morally necessitates government intervention.

2) Homosexuality was considered a medical disease for a long time, which has helped give this one staying power. The fact that the medical diagnosis was based on religious paternalizing (since the evidence didn't yet exist for the causes of homosexuality) doesn't matter to those who still want to see others not like them as somehow less than human. The alignment here hits politics mostly because the religiously-conservative elements in society most likely to cause a problem over it are aligned with the Republican party for other reasons.

3) Autism/vaccine denial falls somewhat on both sides of the political spectrum. Recent surveys have shown that it is stronger on the right than the left (contrary to popular opinion), and that the denial is for different reasons (the left for "natural" fears and the right for "freedom at the expense of the rest of the world's health" and religious reasons). Only one party has main-streamed the denial to be a significant part of the politicians, though, and that's the right.

4) Evolution is as close to a fact as just about anything science has weighed in on. The denial of it is basically purely religious, and while the denial itself can be seen in a certain percentage of pretty much every segment of society, the religious ties make it strongly tied to the right.

There are, of course, other items that are so tied to political views that are anti-scientific. For example (and to be at least somewhat fair since all four of the unscientific views above lean notably Republican), the left has significant anti-GMO and anti-Nuclear-Power views. I suppose we should feel lucky that at least those have not been picked up as policy planks of the Democratic party itself the way those other items have been by the Republican party.

I think the political polarization is one of the chief reasons for the scientific illiteracy itself, but also for turning that illiteracy into actualized harm by voting based on unscientific opinions one picks up by their politics.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 29 at 2014 10:05 AM

2014-10-29T10:05:41-04:00

Since all science is definitive, we should be seeing cures for Cancer, HIV, and Ebola fairly soon then. That's great news!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 11:59 AM

2014-10-29T11:59:19-04:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member, I have to admit that I am a little taken aback by your post. Don't get me wrong, I do not disagree with a single thing that you posted, I was just surprised at how blatantly honest you were. It is an admirable trait, and I appreciate all that you had posted.

To be quite honest, sir, I believe a lot of it stems from the atmosphere that we are raised in. We are raised in a world of fear-mongering and idocracy-worship. If you need some examples, please watch just 30 minutes of any local news network. Within that time-frame, you will see some, if not all, of the following:

1) Celebrity that is famous for no reason whatsoever going through a scandal of some sorts.
2) A new disease that will kill you if you don't do something.
3) A violent act happening somewhere that is a direct result of angry music, video games, or terrorism.
4) New sex tape/nude photos leaked.

Take all of that, couple with the fact that the US hasn't been at a time of "peace since the early 1900's (if even then), and a lackluster public education system, and you get a society of ignorance and fear. As a result of this, we are destined to need an easy answer for everything, and therein lies religion. It is a lot simpler to accept divine intervention than pure luck of the draw and evolution. With that as a acceptable answer, science is therefore viewed as an enemy of religion since it is trying to "disprove" God. Causality is a son of a gun, am I right? And this doesn't just apply to the US, but the middle east as well.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong though.

NOTE: I am not, in any way, shape or form claiming that a belief system is wrong. Please do not think that I am the devil incarnate. I am merely stating my view on the situation. I am more than willing to discuss this issue opening if those personnel are willing to do so in a professional manner.

Response by PO2 Jonathan Scharff made Oct 29 at 2014 2:26 PM

2014-10-29T14:26:59-04:00

I don't think it's necessarily science vs. religion or even science vs. politics. Science has been corrupted by both quite often in history. I think it has more to do with the liberalization of our education system. Yes, I know that no sweeping generalizations are correct. My three boys are now grown and educated at very fine schools starting with our local high school in NJ. One got his undergrad and masters at Steven's Institute of Technology in Hobokin, NJ. The middle one, his undergrad at Drexel University in Phili, PA and now he is in his last year of law school at Rutgers School of Law, NJ. My youngest, a 2LT now, a graduate of Penn State, PA and he is beginning his graduate work online. I say this not to toot my own horn, although I am very proud of them albeit broke, but because I am at the end of witnessing 25 straight years of education in this country. And expensive ones at that.

I am shocked at the liberalization of our education system. One of the unfortunate results of that is a lack of critical thinking. Most enter a discussion with a preconceived notion and have no desire to learn anything new. They would rather just stand on a soap box and yell at the top of your lungs their opinion. It usually rarely has no basis in fact and you easily end up where we are today. On top of that, if you question that person you are attacked by the liberal left majority for not letting this person "express themselves". I believe this is one of the reasons why a lot of conversations on Rallypoint quickly dissolve into personal attacks. I'm not sure what happened to peaceful disagreements. They don't seem to exist much anymore. Again, just one humble man's opinion.

Response by SPC Greg Burnett made Oct 29 at 2014 8:06 PM

2014-10-29T20:06:53-04:00

You post is that of a stupendously, egotistical buffoon. Having read some of your posts and seeing this, it is clear that you do not believe in the scientific principals you believe you do. You are not interested in having any discussion.
Science is about learning and discovering by looking at all sides and considering all information given to you.
You are clearly not interested in considering any position with which you do not agree.
Again, the idea of calling people with whom you disagree is based on the desire to connect them to people that deny the holocaust and the murder of millions by the Nazis. The people that started it wished to drill into the zombies that follow them that people that are skeptical of human cause for climate change want to murder people using climate change. Your instance on using it to describe people indicates that you either buy into that idea or are not, in fact, intelligent enough to realize that you are a tool.
Your "science" superiority complex and just trying to shut down dissent is actually pitiful to those that believe in the idea of science and what science actually is.
But hey, you go on with your scoffing and belittlement, since that seems to be what floats your boat.
I, for one, an done with your snooty-shit attitude,
Greg R Burnett

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Oct 29 at 2014 8:56 PM

2014-10-29T20:56:35-04:00

A bit of background: Navy Nuke, BS in Physics (Cosmology / Particle Physics), Born-Again Christian.

Major, I agree wholeheartedly that "science" is a process, not a collection of facts and results (hence the "scientific method" is perfection, "science" is incomplete). Herein lies the problem with some of the topics you pointed out. All theories remain theories, unless PROVEN to be a "law" (e.g., the three "Laws of Motion" and the three "Laws of Thermodynamics"). As theories - whether they are well-supported or not - they cannot be treated as irrefutable.

But why not? Because all that's required to posit a refutation is to find ONE instance where observation does not match the hypothesis. Such ideas are relegated to status as a theory - not as a law - and therefore still subject to modification. And yet, we treat theories as laws unless proven otherwise!

We often hear "[insert hot topic here] is a fact." Really? For example, can we really say that 100 years of research and data make human-generated climate change irrefutable? A true follower of the scientific method has to "No. At least not yet!" And this is not the same as proving a negative (which is, as has been stated, essentially impossible). Every time a theory is questioned, it's the theorist's responsibility to DEFEND the theory, not to deny the question outright.

The problem today is that people/groups/organizations have based their reputations (and funding) on RESULTS rather than the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. The scientific method demands that when observation is clearly contradictory to theory, the theory must be reviewed, modified or abandoned. This does NOT happen with climate change, evolution, sexual orientation, etc. Too many people are too heavily invested on BOTH sides. So arises the name-calling.

When Einstein questioned quantum mechanics, Heisenberg and Schrodinger didn't denounce Albert as a "quantum denier" - they actively and professionally answered his questions about the theory. That does NOT happen today.

These theories you mentioned are not debated by scientists - we have scientific experts who defend their theories like vultures defend their carrion.

And finally - in response to your conspiracy point: Theoretically, you're right. Practically, see my comments above. We've all heard - or said - "When all else fails, manipulate the data..."

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 9:06 PM

2014-10-29T21:06:14-04:00

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 29 at 2014 11:13 PM

2014-10-29T23:13:10-04:00

According to Lee Smolin (the Problem with Physics)

is an American theoretical physicist, a faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo and a member of the graduate faculty of the philosophy department at the University of Toronto.

Smolin is best known for his contributions to quantum gravity theory, in particular the approach known as loop quantum gravity. He advocates that the two primary approaches to quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity and string theory, can be reconciled as different aspects of the same underlying theory. His research interests also include cosmology, elementary particle theory, the foundations of quantum mechanics, and theoretical biology.

"This is in many ways the crux of our story. For is it a story of several PROPOSED UNIFICATIONS, some of which have come to be strongly believed by SOME scientists. But NONE of them have achieved CONSENSUS by ALL scientists!"

Smolin dropped out of Walnut Hills High School in Cincinnati, Ohio, and was educated at Hampshire College. He received his Ph.D in theoretical physics from Harvard University in 1979.[2] He held postdoctoral research positions at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara and the University of Chicago, before becoming a faculty member at Yale, Syracuse and Pennsylvania State Universities. He was a visiting scholar at the Institute for Advanced Study in 1995[5] and a visiting professor at Imperial College London (1999-2001) before becoming one of the founding faculty members at the Perimeter Institute in 2001.

I cannot teach you to be open-minded, rather you revert to a political chess match thinking that you may saving the world. That part is commendable but what is particularly offensive is the equation of so-called deniers with people who may or may not believe in God. You have a right to your opinion, as do I, wrongly or rightly. When you go over that line, I will invariably counter.

Fact. An isolated piece of information about nature. It can be simply a measurement. Sometimes related facts are called "data".

Hypothesis. A proposition about nature that is testable, but not yet tested to the point of general acceptance.

Law. A statement describing how some phenomenon of nature behaves. Laws are generalizations from data. They express regularities and patterns in the data. A law is usually limited in scope, to describe a particular process of nature.

Theory. A model (usually mathematical) that links and unifies a broader range of phenomena, and that links and synthesizes the laws that describe those phenomena. In science we do not grant an idea the status of theory until its consequences have been very well tested and are generally accepted as correct by knowledgeable scientists. This meaning is very different from colloquial use of the word.

This falls most conclusively under a Theory. Lots of science but also a lot of disjointed facts and observable phenomena which may or may not be conclusive, except those who believe in Bigfoot or even black holes in our own universe.

It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

Response by SrA Marc Haynes made Oct 29 at 2014 11:52 PM

2014-10-29T23:52:36-04:00

Unfortunately I think that it is going to get worse. We are cutting funding to our education system & yet sending taxpayers money to other countries. We need to put the needs of legal citizens first and foremost. Sorry got a little side tracked there.

I work in the field of medical research and every week I get an email notifications from the NIH about new research funding and occasionally they post the names of investigators that have faked research data. Funding is being cut to research projects throughout the U.S.

As the middle class and working poor class (?) continue to decline economically so will kid's chances of going to college. The more that corporations & special interest groups control or government the less the majority of Americans thrive. How many of us on RallyPoint feel this country is declining on numerous levels?

I love my country. I want to see the U.S. return to its former greatness. I believe that this begins with a well educated population.

I'm Marc Haynes and I approved this message.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Oct 30 at 2014 12:18 AM

2014-10-30T00:18:03-04:00

Science is not definitive for the simple fact that as technology improves we are able to further test past observations and determine a better understanding of the universe. For example if science is settled why did we switch from a geocentric view of the solar system, to a heliocentric? Science is rarely settled as experiments are conducted and new discoveries are made.

You cite our poor understanding and literacy of science, and a lack of "conspiracies" in science. Let's see first how many times do you see a study's results that are announced on the news that doesn't really cover the details of the study or who sponsored the study. Those studies are usually sponsored by an organization that would benefit from the results of that study. Even the media will make the mistake in reporting science by not looking at the study and the details behind it like the sample size, and the conditions affecting the outcome of the results.

I can point to big conspiracy in science where corporations conspired to taint science to claim that Lead in gasoline was not harmful to the population since the mid 1920's it wasn't until the 70's that people started taking the dangers of lead seriously, and it wasn't until last year that global use of leaded gas was eradicated.

With science you are correct that literacy is important but you must also examine closely the methodology, sample size, sponsorship, to see if the study was genuine.

Response by SPC James Mcneil made Oct 30 at 2014 10:14 AM

2014-10-30T10:14:52-04:00

You said, "There is NO POSSIBILITY of a conspiracy in science. Everything is peer reviewed and results are replicated. If they can't be replicated, they are discarded. Even the data that is published is analyzed by independent sources to assure that it is done properly."

There is the rub. There is no possibility of a conspiracy in real science. However, much of what I see is a group of people gathering around patting each other on the back and doing what they can to make sure the dollars still flow by somehow ensuring that what their benefactor already believes is true. This is not science. And no lab coat or official title is going to make it science.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Oct 30 at 2014 10:20 AM

2014-10-30T10:20:22-04:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member Sir, I welcome your post and concur with the advocacy of scientific method. I recognize your confusion about people's beliefs on some issues, particularly ones that seem to be hot button political issues with strong findings on one side of the debate and weak findings on the other. I would recommend reducing the personal nature of the language, it seems a lot of people often take offense at many of your posts.

I really don't have the time to become conversationally intelligent about most topics of heavy scientific debate. I sincerely doubt that anyone on this forum is actively engaged in original research on any of the issues at the highest peer reviewed levels either. Therefore we are all choosing to place our trust in others. It is the process of how we choose others to believe that merits some examination. What relationships, biases, education systems, thought processes do we imbue with trust as a proxy for our own understanding?

As an example: I'll trust an Marine Corporal who has seen combat to tell me about the personal experience of war before I trust a PhD Professor who has carefully studied books like The Red Badge of Courage and The Forgotten Soldier. The Cpl has the markers of personal experience that in this case supersede training and method. But I will trust a LtCol Dave Grossman, PhD. to tell me about a broader description of the average personal experience of war more than that Corporal. He has been in the military, and rigorously studied the scientific Psychological method and interviewed countless Veterans, he can expand beyond the individual and do so with his methods, and communicate them effectively to a broader range of people. He has every marker I trust.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Oct 30 at 2014 10:29 AM

2014-10-30T10:29:37-04:00

Also, some members on this post seem to be following the cognitive fallacy: that if there are studies on both sides of an issue that makes it undecided. Studies don't have to be unanimous to be convincing. A preponderance of the evidence can get us moving in the right direction. A good bit of media to consume on balancing the competing opinions and scientific disagreement in climate change is this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

And on evolution, this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate (HBO)

John Oliver hosts a mathematically representative climate change debate, with the help of special guest Bill Nye the Science Guy, of course. Connect with Las...

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Oct 30 at 2014 2:05 PM

2014-10-30T14:05:14-04:00

We've been here before, but here we go again.

There are people in the world who use their own spin on scientific results to produce a desired result. I have a very special issue with people who use "science" and pretended neutrality in order to advance a particular agenda. It happens frequently on every side of every issue.

Now I may not have as much personal research experience as you do, but I have enough experience to see how easy it is to skew a supposedly non-biased study from the design stage to publication to media reporting of the findings. It's up to the person reading the write-up to determine how the findings are supported by the data generated and if the study is actually valid. In reality, if they even read the original publication at all, most people just skip the the Results/Discussion and go from there. More often than not, findings are mainly reported in a highly paraphrased form in popular media.

Then there's the people who get shunned by the academic community because their findings and conclusions go against the status quo. Heaven forbid new research should cause a paradigm shift...

No possibility of a conspiracy? I will say that you are probably right in that there's not a willful conspiracy in the scientific community as a whole. But is there a possibility that people are going to resist a paradigm shift because new findings suggest something radically different?

Oh yeah...it's happened before, and it will happen again.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Oct 30 at 2014 4:27 PM

2014-10-30T16:27:13-04:00

I found this to be an interesting read:
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/06/dan-kahan-climate-change-ideology-scientific-illiteracy

This article speaks to how we look at different opinions of science and why they may be denied, not through ignorance, but through a belief system.

On the subject of man made climate change, the comments on this are interesting:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

For climate change itself, I am still not sold either way, but I do tend to drive a more fuel efficient car, recycle, etc due to wanting to live in a nicer area without smog or trash heaps and wanting to save money more so than man made climate change. I am inclined to believe the many people who are reporting one way or the other for grant money (see Al Gore) and if we get a huge swing in the Senate and the White House in the next few years and the Conservatives are the driving force, will it now be the cool and profitable thing to deny climate change from a scientific perspective?

After being around for millions (billions?) of years, I doubt this planet would get beaten by a species that performs opposite of its own self interest. We will likely extinct ourselves long before the planet suffers immensely from our self destruction.

Conservatives don't deny science because they're ignorant. They deny it because of who they are.

A provocative new study claims that conservative climate skeptics actually know plenty of science.

Response by CDR Thomas Gatliffe made Oct 30 at 2014 4:43 PM

2014-10-30T16:43:24-04:00

Within the American Statistical Association, we have a saying "Without verifiable data, you are just another agenda-driven S.O.B. with an opinion."
However, I do take some issue with the assertion that "There is NO POSSIBILITY of a conspiracy in science." Based on personal experience, I think that is a somewhat naive belief in the spotless character and integrity of scientists and scientific publications. As one who has both been peer reviewed and been a peer reviewer, I would only agree with that statement if one is assured that the peer reviewing is both totally independent and totally impartial (both qualities are as rare today as honesty in a "successful" politician). It is difficult to keep one's own ideas and understandings from biasing your review either in unduly supportive or adversarial interpretations. It is orders of magnitude more difficult if your own research funding would be potentially impacted. I have been witness to at least one instance where all the "peer" reviewing was performed by other members of the same department at a university that depended heavily on continued government grants that were (unstated but known) highly predicated upon demonstrating the desired result. Often the raw data is withheld as being proprietary to the funding agency and not available for independent verification/replication. Granted, eventually the "truth" may become known but the "conspirators" count on that occurring after the funding stream has gone away.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 30 at 2014 6:38 PM

2014-10-30T18:38:46-04:00

Maj Dews...agree and the goes for history and geography...yet there is more than one kind of Scientific Ignorance....consider the many people with Doctorates who cannot write a coherent sentence, who cannot convey a simple message, and have zero respect--or knowledge--of other unrelated disciplines. I saw that with distinct personality groups at the Corps of Engineers, with Space and Missile and now with EPA. Only NASA scientists seem to understand how important it is to explain how tax dollars are being spent, and why. They strive to communicate to all publics in ways that everyone can understand; those publics include all taxpayers and elected officials. I've had a few lofty scientists tell me that they have to "sound" like a PhD; or the famous rationalization for not speaking in English: "you want me to 'dumb' down science?" that sounds rather arrogant....and so on to the point where you wonder who will keep paying them if no one understands the relevance of what they are doing.

Response by LCDR William Johnston made Oct 30 at 2014 7:07 PM

2014-10-30T19:07:37-04:00

Major, I must disagree with your premise here. I think you have painted the picture with too broad a brush. There is most certainly the possibility of a conspiracy in science just as in any other discipline. The reason for this is that scientists are nothing more than ordinary people with different skill sets. If you reexamine your statement that, “Everything is peer reviewed and results are replicated,” you will see that you have expressed an “ideal.” But, you have not expressed reality. And, I put quotation marks around “ideal” because experience has taught me well enough that peer review is NOT the final arbiter of what is purported to be a scientific fact. Peers are also human and will exercise their biases just as much as others of their ilk. This is not to say that a peer review system is not a good system, but I am saying that it is far from being a perfect system, which it sounds to me is what you subsume when you make that statement.

You say that “there are 23 MILLION articles on PUBMED, and 500,000 new articles published yearly using the same, peer reviewed and scientific standards. Yet the only articles ever questioned are: and you list them. This seeming fact is not a fact. Many peer reviewed articles well outside those areas are not only questioned, they are contested.

Are you not aware that papers submitted for peer review may be rejected by the reviewers because some of the information is not congruent with accepted scientific dogma? For this reason, many scientific studies never see the light of day; they are not published. Even worse, many more studies than that, with decent hypotheses, are never conducted because they don’t get funded for the same reason. There is more to this situation than first meets the eye. Consider this: reviewers may reject a paper because publishing it would undermine their own position. They may have received millions of dollars for their own studies and thus, they have a vested interest in perpetuating their own outlook and preventing conflicting information from becoming known.

With respect to science deniers going to the doc with diabetes or heart disease or a tumor or anything else, and science working just fine, I think you need to reevaluate. Let me take diabetes for an example. The incidence of diabetes was relatively rare in the U.S. 50 to 80 years ago. Now, it is rampant in the population. Why is that? Isn’t everybody following the “scientific” guidelines laid down by the U.S. Government? The answer is: most people are following those guidelines. And, the results of following them are crystal clear. Rampant obesity and diabetes on an epidemic scale.

Here is an excerpt from a paper on the subject that might help give you some grounding The information below is not intended to refute your position directly. You would have to read the whole paper to see the science to back it up. If you would like a full copy of the paper when it is finished, let me know.

BEGIN EXCERPT

A good example of misinformation ... is reflected in the dietary guidelines established by the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs in 1977. Senator George McGovern chaired the committee from 1968 to 1977. The intention of the committee was to take action to combat heart disease, certain cancers, stroke, hypertension, obesity, Diabetes, and arteriosclerosis. “Dietary Goals for the United States,” also called “The McGovern Report,” was written by a junior staffer named Nick Mottern, a Vegan who had no training in the nutritional sciences. The Report suggested that Americans eat less fat, less cholesterol, less refined and processed sugars, and more complex carbohydrates and fiber. The recommended way of accomplishing this was to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and less high-fat meat, egg, and dairy products. But, they got it wrong and the dietary and health communities went into lockstep without questioning the validity of the advice. In truth, following these guidelines has resulted in a paradoxical situation: Americans are simultaneously overfed and undernourished.

This is not to say there were no dissenting voices; there were. Some scientists averred that the recommendations had no scientific basis and should be tested before being promulgated. But, the voices of dissent were ignored or squelched by Senator McGovern.

For one example, Phillip Handler, was an American nutritionist and biochemist who earned a B.S. degree from the City College of New York and his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois. He taught at Duke University where, at age 35, he was named the youngest chairman of the Department of Biochemistry. As a biochemist, he published more than 200 papers on nutrition and metabolic activity. In 1964, Handler was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequently, he held the office of President of the United States National Academy of Sciences for two terms from 1969 to 1981. He received the National Medal of Science in 1981 for “his outstanding contribution to biochemical research.” Of The Dietary Guide, he said,

“The McGovern Committee Report is nonsense.” … “What right does the federal government to propose that the American people conduct a long nutritional experiment with themselves as subjects on the strength of so little evidence?”

Handler was ignored.

A second example was Edward H. “Pete” Ahrens, Jr.,, who earned a B.S. and M.D. degrees from Harvard University. In his time, he was regarded as a leader in the field of lipid nutrition and the relationship of lipids to heart disease. His studies gave the first unambiguous data on the effect of high carbohydrate/low fat diets in provoking marked elevations in serum triglyceride. Of the McGovern Report, he said,

“A trial of the low fat diet recommended by the McGovern Committee and the American Heart Association has never been carried out. It seems that the proponents of this dietary change are willing to advocate an untested diet to the nation on the basis of suggestive evidence obtained in tests of a different diet. This illogic is presumably justified by the belief that benefits will be obtained, vis-a-vis Coronary Heart Disease protection, by any diet that causes a reduction in plasma lipid levels.”

Ahrens was ignored.

For a final example, Dr. Robert Olson, a highly qualified scientist and nutritionist who earned an M.D. from Harvard and a Ph.D. from St. Louis University, where he was Professor of Medicine and Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry, made the following statement to the committee,

“In my opinion, the Dietary Goals are not a sound nutritional guide.” …“I have pleaded in my report and I will plead again orally here for more research on the problem before we make announcements to the American public.” … “This is not a question of the last iota of proof. This is a question of any proof.”

Senator McGovern’s response to the latter statement was, “Well, I would only argue that as senators we don’t have the luxury that a research scientist does of waiting until every last thread of evidence is in.” Senator McGovern’s response is a good example of the Precautionary Principle in action as well as a powerful confirmation of the fact that the Report was not based on strong scientific data. Although the “food pyramid” that resulted from the McGovern Report has recently been replaced by “My Plate,” the replacement changes nothing of substance.

END EXCERPT

I ask you to consider the following:

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” —Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher, (1788-1860)

“Theories have four stages of acceptance: 1. This is worthless nonsense. 2. This is an interesting but perverse point of view. 3. This is true, but quite unimportant. 4. I always said so.”—J.B.S. Haldane, British geneticist and evolutionary biologist. (1892–1964)

“[O]ur opponents in this argument have a marked advantage over us. They need only a few words to set forth a half-truth; whereas, in order to show that it is a half-truth, we have to resort to long and arid dissertations.”—Frederic Bastiat, French classical liberal theorist, political economist, and member of the French assembly. (1801-1850)

“[T]he amount of information necessary to invalidate a hypothesis is considerably greater than the amount of information required to make an initial interpretation.” “When faced with an analytical problem, people are either unable or simply do not take the time to identify the full range of potential answers.” —Richards J. Hueur, Jr., former CIA veteran of 45 years and most known for his work on Analysis of Competing Hypotheses and his book, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis.

With no disrespect intended, the bottom line is this: The science is settled...until some maverick comes along and knocks the pins out from underneath it.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2014 12:01 AM

2014-10-31T00:01:05-04:00

Here's the thing about science, just like religion and history. Why is it deemed to be true? Because someone who's not alive anymore wrote it down and said it is.

If I sat down and wrote a book about something that most people these days would call me crazy for saying, then I went and buried it somewhere. In a couple of hundred years when someone dug it up and read it... I'd become a historical figure.

What color is the respond button? Blue? Why? Because we've always been told that's what that color is.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 31 at 2014 11:23 AM

2014-10-31T11:23:05-04:00

While I generally agree with what you have said, even with science, there are often opposing views, with scientific evidence to back it up. People simply have to choose which they believe, after weighing the facts for themselves.

Global warming, Ebola, etc. can be argued by people with opposing views, using scientific facts that contradict each other.

With the current administration, it appears that the only science they are interested in is Political Science; whatever will get them the votes.

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Nov 3 at 2014 9:54 AM

2014-11-03T09:54:44-05:00

I found this to be an interesting take on climate change:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/11/02/hello-everybody-there-is-no-global-warming-weather-channel-founder-goes-off-on-climate-change/

‘Hello Everybody! There Is No Global Warming!’: Weather Channel Founder Goes Off on Climate...

Don't call him a "denier" — he says he's a "skeptic." John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, has long been outspoken against the notion of man-made climate change, and after he penned an open letter last week, Brian Stelter invited the "climate denier" onCNN's "Reliable Sources" Sunday...

Response by CPT Zachary Brooks made Nov 6 at 2014 11:21 AM

2014-11-06T11:21:33-05:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member you mention that Climate Change is a "solved" piece of science. I remain a skeptic, and things such as the "Medieval Warm Period" continue to support that skepticism.

Do you have any ideas or thoughts on this?

Thanks

Response by SGT Richard H. made Nov 6 at 2014 1:35 PM

2014-11-06T13:35:06-05:00

// There is NO POSSIBILITY of a conspiracy in science. //

To say this is to say that there is no possibility of science being conducted by humans. There is a possibility of conspiracy in everything Humans do.

Perfect science does not exist, because perfect humans do not exist.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2015 2:53 PM

2015-05-12T14:53:50-04:00

You mention MTV News with Kurt Loder was not real news? :|

Response by SPC Angel Guma made May 13 at 2015 7:03 PM

2015-05-13T19:03:19-04:00

I would wonder why someone just down-voted this thread. I don't think there was anything unreasonable with it.

Response by SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA made May 20 at 2015 1:00 PM

2015-05-20T13:00:20-04:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member , I can appreciate your interest in this topic as it is shared.

When I first moved in to the US, my wife constantly told me how much of an advantage I had in my field compared to us citizens vying for the same job. I couldn't understand why, since I had the same degree as my American "competitors", but then, on my first interview, I got my first job in the US after only a month in, even with my poor English. After a couple of months of actually working, I realized what she meant, the overall understanding of basic scientific concepts is severely lacking. Well, 16 years ago at least, I'm sure nowadays is even worse.

Then another nugget, when I joined the Army, I was 42, I had been out of school for 20 years, taught in a different country using different methods for a different curriculum.
So I was worried about the ASVAB, but as it turned out, my 20 year old memories were good enough to get me a 139 GT score. Took the DLAB and got a 129 out of 135.

Compared to the majority of young people fresh out of either HS or College that can barely reach 80-90 on their ASVAB or 106 on their DLAB.

I am no Einstein, but I did have a solid Science and Math foundation that has lasted me 45 years, so when I read about States willfully removing Science from their curricula, or trying to teach "Intelligent Design" as a pseudo science, I feel for the future. Or when we see politicians spew some of their ridiculous ideas and then qualify them with an "I'm not a scientist but..."

Year after year the international rankings show how far American Education has decayed, as opposed to the rest of the world's gains, it worries me.

We should all be.

Response by SA Harold Hansmann made May 20 at 2015 3:35 PM

2015-05-20T15:35:47-04:00

I do concur with some of that statement. There is a lot of ignorance in this country, some of it is teachers passing students to get them out of their hair as it were, a bit of it is today's youth not wanting to learn, ( albeit they don't want to get off the electronic devices, hate school, what ever.) and some of it is people thinking that this country or the world owes them. Example: go to a store or fast food restaurant and you bill comes to $9.15 and you give them $20.25 and they look at you dumbfounded, like what's the change supposed to be?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 6 at 2015 8:25 AM

2015-11-06T08:25:23-05:00

Yes, while this may sound like a Kent Brockman news story, it is in fact the fruit of a study made by 270 researchers who meticulously reproduced past psychology studies. 60% of the results refuted those of their original studies. Sources have yet to confirm whether the re-results of this study will re-re-refute those found in this one.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made May 31 at 2016 3:13 PM

2016-05-31T15:13:27-04:00

I disagree with your first assertion, that the only articles ever questioned involve the 4 subjects you list. My own work on transpiration cooling's effectiveness in rocket nozzles was questioned. It is the nature of peer-reviewed articles. The reviewers should question the method, assumptions, and conclusions. But I agree with your next two assertions; science is a method, and no conspiracy is possible. Put philosophically, religion requires faith, while science demands skepticism. All scientists readily (if not happily) invite other scientists to test their hypotheses and theories. Whether proven or disproven, we move the ball forward in our understanding. That's why I'm not a big fan of the "denier" appellation. It implies denial of a belief or knowledge, when science is not about those things. I say bring on the skeptics...allow them to test and prove or disprove all hypotheses in ALL areas of study. Those who attempt to use faith to justify sending humanity backwards by drastically and immediately curtailing carbon-based production of electricity are just as guilty as those who use faith to justify placing others' children at risk by not vaccinating their own children. Neither are testing a hypothesis or theory or are even willing to try.