When it comes to health, yes, I prefer science. To me, that falls well within the same category as laws of physics, where the best method of finding truth is science.
Even picking a roofing contractor (or anything else that merely has to do with money or material possessions), I may not demand all the trappings of the scientific method, but, if possible, I want at least some of them, like data, and borrowing methodologies and reasoning. Relying on the advice/authority of a single other person is unappealing, unless I believe that other person actually did the research I would have done.
Sometimes, though, it's not possible. If a tree fell through the roof, it may not matter who the "best" one is, only the good-enough one available now.
> A more scientific approach is to look at everything in terms of strength of evidence; what are the strengths and the flaws of every study.
And unfortunately, much that is called "science" does not do this; it presents results as much more strongly supported by evidence than they actually are. Then everyone acts surprised when the results don't replicate or something turns up in a few years that shows the results were wrong or predictions based on those results don't pan out. Those results should never have been called "science" in the first place.
My view on learning to do one's own research is that, unfortunately, in our current information environment, you don't have a choice: you have to do your own independent research because there is no information source you can trust to always be honest with you about the strengths and weaknesses of claims and evidence. Of course that doesn't mean you can just believe whatever you want, and doing your own research is hard. But there is no alternative in our current society.
That's the thing when people say "Trust the science." Yes, the scientific method is absolutely the best way to advance human knowledge. However, like any process mediated by humans its administration is fallible.
Here's what comes to my mind. There's this notion that if it isn't scientific it isn't serious. But if you want to take a scientific approach to everything, you won't be able to navigate life. If someone gives you personal advice on how to find a trustworthy contractor for your roof, do you demand a scientific study?
I'm not a scientist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that science is by far the best method of finding truth within pretty small parameters. A law of physics. The effects of one particular chemical on a certain kind of animal. Etc. For complicated things the best thing you can do is make a really simple model of it and draw a conclusion from that. The other details are anecdotes. Again, people say to avoid trusting anecdotes, but it's what we live by all the time day to day.
So when it comes to psychotherapy, it's an art form. Especially given the multiple incompatible schools of thought. It's not that much of a science. If a lot of people swear by it, well, maybe it's a placebo (though what would that even mean for psychotherapy?). Or maybe there's something to it for a decent number of people.
That is the ideal, sure. In practice though, science is whatever scientists do.
And as seen here, sometimes scientists don't actually follow the scientific method, they fall trap to entrenched interests and other biases.
The people that tell you "trust the science" are not usually suggesting you get a PhD and study this yourself. They are actually suggesting you trust the scientists - which may or may not be good advice based on the field (e.g. trusting physicists, climate scientists, virologists: good; trusting dieticians, Alzheimer's researchers: possibly bad).
So why do you know the scientific method is the best method or even a valid method? Any answer you give to this question will be a philosophical answer. You are doing philosophy whether you like it or not.
Science itself is the best method we have for exploring and making sense of the world around us. The method is rock solid.
In between us (gen pop) and The Method are scientists, and scientists are just as fallible as any other group of people - lawyers, politicians, coders, shop assistants.
Science is primarily a methodology, and secondarily a body of provisional knowledge discovered and tested via that methodology.
As non practitioners, if we trust in the methodology, then to some extent we have to take a shortcut and make decisions based on the consensus judgement of expert practitioners. And, unlike some religious people, accept we can never act in absolute certainty.
Necessary? No. You can do what you like. But if you want to find out what works and what doesn't, and actually get the right answer, the scientific approach is the only game in town.
Even picking a roofing contractor (or anything else that merely has to do with money or material possessions), I may not demand all the trappings of the scientific method, but, if possible, I want at least some of them, like data, and borrowing methodologies and reasoning. Relying on the advice/authority of a single other person is unappealing, unless I believe that other person actually did the research I would have done.
Sometimes, though, it's not possible. If a tree fell through the roof, it may not matter who the "best" one is, only the good-enough one available now.
reply