The Scientific Outlook On Life
Ronald Ebert
August 2001
"The trouble with most folks isn't so much their ignorance. It's know'n so
many things that ain't so." -- Josh Billings.
I don't want to write articles, whether for the web or publication in
journals, that won't make an original or unique contribution to knowledge or our
outlook on knowledge. For a long time I have refrained from posting anything on
the web other than a brief description of who I am and copies of my published
articles. Most of what I'd say has already been well said by others,
particularly the many competent academics who have posted information on the web
and members of the skeptical community, particularly my fellow list members on
Taner Edis' Skeptic Internet mailing list. But lately in interacting with
certain people I have been reminded of something I already knew - there is a
widespread lack of awareness of why we should believe some things and not
others, and people don't know how to acquire the necessary information about
what to believe. These issues have not been well addressed, especially in the
popular literature.
We have many decisions to make for our personal lives and for our society at
large. How we take care of our health, what we should eat, how to best use
resources such as water and power, how to preserve the environment, and how to
maintain a good quality of life are just some of the many issues that we deal
with. In order to handle these things competently we need the best information
we can get. In all our history, there has been only one successful system of
acquiring reliable information about the world. That system is science.
Contrary to popular belief, science isn't about finding absolute truths. Science
is about finding our confidence in theories that we develop to explain
phenomena. Instead of a black and white "this is absolutely true/this is
absolutely false" we have a range of confidence, from very low to very
high. Theories that explain the causation of earthquakes or Alzheimer's disease
are examples in the low confidence end of the scale. The specific causative
factors are not well known at this time and it is likely that a number of
unknown variables are involved for each theory. On the other hand, we have
theories like evolution and relativity in which our confidence is so high that,
while they are not absolute truths, they are so well confirmed that not to
believe them would be perverse.
All scientific theories are testable, at least in principle. There have to be
situations in which it is possible that new evidence could show the theory to be
false. An example for evolution would be the discovery of mammals in 600 million
year old rocks, which is a time in which only much simpler life existed. For
relativity, it would be the discovery of a material object that travels faster
than light. We don't expect such things to ever be discovered, but the important
point is, they could be. If you have an assertion in which you can't think of
any conditions in which it could be proved false, then it isn't a part of
science and it is highly likely that it has nothing to do with objective
reality.
Science is also self-correcting. Theories, hypotheses and ideas of any sort are
always subject to revision if new evidence comes along to falsify them or there
is a novel way of re-interpreting old evidence. The requirement that theories be
based on empirical evidence and the self-correcting nature of science are its
greatest strengths and are the things that distinguish science from all other
purported "ways of knowing".
There are many things that people believe in which are not based on empirical
evidence and the methods of science. In some cases it does no harm to believe in
these things, but in other cases there may be a significant personal or societal
impact. The abortion debate is one example of how the beliefs of certain
religious sects are detrimental to society. At the time of this writing, there
is a debate in the U.S. about whether embryonic stem cell research should be
funded by the U.S. government. This research has the potential to develop cures
for intractable diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's. The
religious conservatives tell us "life begins at conception", and doing
anything other than allowing that life to fully develop is wrong. Well, yes,
life begins at conception but the same is true for cockroaches. They don't
really mean life, they mean personhood begins at conception. But does it? We
know from the findings of science that sensations, feelings and conscious
thought are only possible with a brain and nervous system. These don't develop
until late in the growth of a fetus. Until that time we have living tissue but
it is no more a person than any other living tissue, like cockroaches.
The religious conservatives would counter that God puts the soul in at the
moment of conception, and that's what makes the person. But this is a
faith-based idea without the slightest shred of empirical evidence. In fact none
is possible as the idea is non-falsifiable. Indeed, the existence of
"soul" is a faith-based idea that can't be falsified. There is not the
slightest bit of empirical evidence that personalities or conscious thought can
exist outside of a functioning brain. Believing in a soul may bring us emotional
comfort, but if we want to look at the world as it really is rather than as we
would like it to be, then we have to conclude that souls are not objectively
real. There really is not a moral issue in using early stage embryos to advance
medical science.
Destructive beliefs can also apply to our personal lives. I knew of a person who
developed cancer. Instead of seeking out the best medical treatments, he went to
Mexico to get chelation therapy. He didn't want to suffer through chemotherapy
and he believed the claims of miracle cures from the chelation practitioners. He
died of his cancer several months later. There are many similar claims from the
so-called alternative medicine proponents. They tell us that their methods are
safer than invasive, side-effect ridden therapies such as chemotherapy and organ
transplants. They claim that their methods are ancient and natural, as if this
justifies their validity. But just because something is ancient doesn't mean
that it's effective or even safe. And "natural" is no indication of
either efficacy or safety. After all, poison ivy and snake venom are natural.
There are many claims made that violate well-confirmed scientific laws and
theories, both in medicine and in other fields. Advocates of these claims often
play on our emotional strings, appealing to our sense of fairness, our belief
that we are unique and different from others, our sense that there must be magic
in the world, and our acknowledgement of authority - theirs, of course. So how
is a person to tell truth from falsehood, especially a person who isn't familiar
with the topic at hand? There is no authority in science in the sense of some
person decides what is true and that's that, but we can have some confidence in
what the consensus of researchers in a field may conclude about some issue - as
much confidence as they themselves have.
But to find that out, we have to rely on the scientific literature - both
refereed scientific journals in which original research is published and that
research is critiqued by others, and journals and magazines in which such
research is reported and oftentimes commented on by science reporters with good
knowledge of the field. Science reporting journals and magazines will often give
us references to the original research, so we can look it up for ourselves and
see exactly how it was done, though it may be difficult to understand it if we
haven't had training in that field. Reporting journals and magazines have
developed a reputation on how accurately they report findings and developments
in science. Here is my take on the some of the better ones that I read on a
regular basis:
Science - A highly respected American-based journal that publishes original
research but also has an extensive "news and views" section where
findings are discussed and analyzed in less technical terms than research
papers. Science has a greater emphasis on the biological sciences than the
physical sciences.
Nature - Another highly respected journal, published in Britain with wider
coverage of international developments than Science and more even-handed
coverage of the scientific fields. Nature also publishes original research and
has an extensive news and views section. Many scientists consider Nature to be
the most prestigious journal of them all.
Science News - An American-based news-reporting magazine that does an excellent
job of covering developments in all fields in science on a weekly basis. Science
News is a magazine that sticks to actual developments and what the researchers
of those developments and other researchers in the field say about those
developments, with no independent editorial comment offered.
New Scientist - A British-based news-reporting magazine with a greater emphasis
on international developments than Science News. They are more
"colorful" than Science News. They cover more speculative
developments, have a more informal writing style, and offer a lot of editorial
comments on developments in science. If you want a magazine that is more fun to
read but is still reasonably accurate in its reporting, this is the one.
Scientific American - A well-respected American-based magazine that has a news
section and offers articles by researchers about developments in their fields at
a level that is understandable to people who work in other fields of science and
to the public at large, to a large extent. Scientific American's articles used
to be more technical in their language and in the information covered, but in
the past few years the articles have been more generalized with less detail and
less technical language. I suppose that's good or bad depending on how much
depth of understanding you want and what you need to learn to understand the
information.
Science News, Scientific American and Science are commonly available in many
public libraries. New Scientist occasionally is but Nature rarely is. But all of
them are available in college and university libraries. Unless you are a member
of such an institution, you usually can't borrow these materials, but you can
read them inside the library for free.
So how does this work? If you are one of the rare people who is really
fascinated by developments in science the way I am, you'll read one or more of
these on a regular basis and catch developments of particular interest and
usefulness to you as they crop up. If your interest isn't as keen but you still
want to know about particular findings, you can use Internet and library
databases to find them. Each of these journals and magazines has a web site but
unfortunately there is only a limited amount of information there. Still, you
might get lucky. Off the home page of this web site you'll find a link that in
turn has links to most of these publications. (Or just go here.)
You can go to any of them and do a search there and see what you get.
Unfortunately there is no freely available central site on the Internet at the
time of this writing that will allow you to search through most or all such
journals and magazines for a topic of interest. I think the best option for a
person without academic resources to use is to go to a college or university
library and ask the reference librarian for help in looking up information. Your
tax dollars are helping to pay for that institution and you are entitled to the
free help. In my experience, no one walking in off the street and asking for
such help has ever been refused. Reference databases in public libraries will
also be helpful but they are not as comprehensive.
Can such information really make a difference? Yes it can. There are many useful
developments that crop up that the general news media and the public ignore or
don't find out about, or else information is taken and is then badly distorted
in general reporting and public discussions. There are plenty of examples of the
latter that I won't go into. But I have an excellent example to offer of the
former that, if you are interested in living the healthiest life you can, you'll
be keenly interested in.
There is an enormous amount of medical quackery out there, with untested herbs
on the shelves that are really crude drugs with largely unknown and very
possibly harmful effects, claims of treatments and cures by alternative medicine
practitioners that violate laws of physics, chemistry and biology were they to
work as claimed, and politicians who take the money from the promoters of such
claptrap and then pass laws preventing the proper testing of these claims. Yet
amidst this sea of garbage there is a handful of properly verified findings of
foods and supplements that really do make a difference. Over the years I have
found science news articles of each and began using them as soon as I was
satisfied through verification of the original research that they are for real.
All of these findings apply to supplementation of a balanced diet and for people
who get proper amounts of exercise and rest. Doses were determined on the
recommendation of researchers or else duplication of equivalents given to lab
animals in trails. As of the time of this writing, here they are:
Magnesium - Low magnesium leads to cardiovascular diseases. Supplementation of
magnesium daily results in significant declines in blood lipid levels, reduction
of cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and reduces the build-up of fatty
deposits on arterial walls. Magnesium supplements can also help prevent problems
in pregnancy. See Science News, 4 June 1988 page 356 and April 7 1990 page 241.
I take 500 mg daily.
Vitamin E - Vitamin E is an antioxidant that mops up free radicals, which cause
oxidative damage and are responsible for a number of degenerative diseases
including heart disease and cancer. There is a danger in overdosing with it,
however. I take 400 IU daily, which should be well below the overdose point but
high enough to get the benefits. See Science News 10 August 1996 page 95, 22
February 1997 page 127 and 1 March 1997 page 135; and Pelton, Ross Vitamin E
slows aging process. American Druggist v216, n6 (June, 1999):52 (2 pages).
Vitamin C - Vitamin C is another antioxidant that mops up free radicals. It is
particularly effective in the prevention of cataracts. See Science News 18
October 1997 page 244 and the Journal of Internal Medicine, 2000; 248 (5),
377-386. I take 500 mg daily.
Conjugated Linoleic Acids (CLA) - Supplementation with CLA provides numerous
benefits, including fighting cancer, enhancing immunity, and ridding the body of
fatty, artery-clogging plaque. It also reduces the severity of type 2 diabetes,
helps control allergies, helps keep weight gain under control, and increases
muscle mass. See Science News 3 March 2001 page 136. The article cautions that
there are CLA formulations on the market that don't supply the CLA claimed on
the label. I am using one of the manufacturers that reliably supplied the
researchers with their formulation. I take 3 grams of CLA daily. Pay particular
attention to the ratio of CLA to inert ingredients in the formulation.
Blueberries - Blueberries have been shown not to merely slow down age-related
declines in memory, balance and coordination, but to actually reverse them. Old
rats given blueberry extract supplementation were actually able to perform about
as well as young rats in these areas. I eat one cup a day, raw or in foods like
blueberry muffins. Blueberries contain various anthocyanins, a subcategory of
flavonoids responsible for the deep blue color of blueberries. They are
responsible for these benefits. Cooking blueberries does not destroy the
anthocyanins as is evident from the lack of change of color. See Science News 18
September 1999 page 180 and The Journal of Neuroscience, September 15, 1999,
19(18):8114-8121.
So what difference do these supplements really make? I'll tell you my subjective
opinion, but first remember what I said about there being no absolutes in
science and that the findings in science cover a range of confidences. The
confidence level in these studies is fairly high. Even so, I'm equivalent to
just one lab rat. Effects attributed to a causative agent may instead be due to
the placebo effect, unrecognized or unknown variables, or in the case of a
degenerative condition a spontaneous remission that would have happened anyway.
Doing properly controlled studies can reduce these possibilities but can't
altogether eliminate them. Also keep in mind that I do eat a balanced diet, I do
a lot of hiking, and I'm not overweight, important factors all by themselves.
Now having said that, here are my subjective impressions. Take them for what
they're worth.
I'm 51 years old. I've been taking these supplements a few months after seeing
each report. The last one is the CLAs, which I've been using for about four
months now. I feel like superman. My strength, energy levels, and stamina seem
to be turned back to the way they were some 15-20 years ago. I am clear-headed
nearly all the time and my memory is fairly good.
Ask me how I am 20-30 years from now to get a better idea of the effectiveness
of these supplements.
Richard Feynman said that science is a way of trying not to fool ourselves. I
think we'd live in a much better society if most people understood how science
discovers truths about the world and would use the findings of science to make
decisions in their lives and for our society as a whole.