[quote]Mattlebee wrote:
[quote]Rhino Jockey wrote:
The thing that irks me about the forums he usually posts on is that they absolutely won’t believe something unless it’s on PubMed. It’s like their bible.
[/quote]
Not sure Bible is the right comparison since PubMed is all about peer-reviewed (rather than one author’s opinion) science. Basically, if it’s on PubMed then it’s been demonstrated and tested in more than one person, by someone who has set up control groups and can probably explain the biological mechanism at work.
If it’s one person (bodybuilder or trainer) saying it works, it’s an anecdote. It might be true, but there are no controls, too small a sample size and probably no explanation for why it works.
If you have to pick sides then the side that has lots of data and a scientific explanation is probably the better bet. Where there are gaping holes in knowledge, you can tentatively accept anecdotes in lieu of something more comprehensive, of course.[/quote]
Sure picking the side of reason is the correct choice, but ask yourself who is on the side of reason. Science is a good thing as is skepticism, or skepsis, which means something along the lines of “rational doubt and probing.” It’s necessary and healthy to a certain extent, but one extreme of it can be as dangerous as would be a complete belief in the irrational.
The intensity of a person’s dogmatism though and their seeming inability to connect with sound reasoning including good science and anecdotal evidence as well, makes you really question the person’s psychology.
Where skeptics see the automatic dismissal of claims that don’t fit within the rigid context of their scientific beliefs, even when made by experts and based on some solid theories (albeit different then their own), as a necessary and healthy reaction, the skeptic could be dismissing valid claims due to their dogmatic and intolerant stance indicating a deep emotional commitment to their views.
Skepticism can easily be taken too far to the point that a person identifies with an opposing position striving to downplay, misrepresent or simply ignore evidence that goes against what they believe in.
A debunking agenda (see Aragons writings and attacks on things like Biotest) is a classic sign of a skeptic that’s taken it too far. A scientific inclination that’s been warped to the point that it fires an intense dogmatism supporting only a commitment to a rigid view point, is the negative side of skepticism. Taken to these extremes, skepticism is no longer about science and more about dogmatism.
I will point out that that you also have to watch out for a level of acceptance that is not grounded in any level of science. It’s human nature to be a follower, so you must be aware of the triggers that cause the simple human nature of liking and disliking something/others. A great example is a baby goose will love and follow the first creature that is nice to it, whether it’s its mother or a human being.
A consequence of these tendencies is that man will ignore faults of the object of their affection, favor people/products associated with that object, and distort facts to facilitate that love. Hence Aragon’s attacks of Biotest and these forums. Conversely, man will ignore virtues in the object of his dislike, dislike people/products associated with that object, and distort facts to facilitate hatred, as is the case with Aragon and as fueled by his skeptic dogmatism.
So be careful when you side with science.
BT