RE: Should everything deemed "unscientific" be rejected?
I am a huge fan of scientific method. With things that can be quantified, it only makes sense. Not all things can be quantified.
And test results make me crazy. How many times have we read that coffee is deadly to humans? I've been drinking a couple liters per day for a lot of years (approaching 50) and I'm still breathing quite nicely, thank you.
The reason? Sample size is too small. A cancer research team will note that 68% of people that have X cancer drink coffee everyday. It looks bad, and in order to keep grant money coming they publish a preliminary report. Headlines scream "Coffee is DEADLY". What the research team didn't check is that 73% of the people that don't have cancer X also drank coffee every day. Or that their original survey was in a place that has an environmental reason for Cancer X that became apparent after the preliminary report.
Ugggghhh. Sorry. I really think that people that pay close attention to themselves and their bodies will have an inkling of what they need. It's not always more dope from more doctors.
Thanks for a great and balanced view on the subject.
You're so right! And I'm glad you enjoyed my rant. I like your example, because that's exactly it - scientific research can often be tweaked to suit different outcomes. That's why randomised control trials are so important - they aim to exclude factors that could distort the outcome - but they take years to do and are usually very costly.
And yes, just because something can't be quantified doesn't necessarily mean it should be rejected.