So Much for Science

[Mutt]

“Truth is, unfortunately, a franchise, not a commodity.” - Anonymous

My greatest thanks to T-Nation is for opening my eyes to the prevalence of dogma. As a lifetime member of Know-It-Alls Anonymous, I frequently have to remind myself that much of my current knowledge is wrong.

Once, I was an avid Charles Poliquin supporter. I’d quote him like a favorite religious text to all unbelievers.

Then T-Mag started publishing this Ian King guy, who indirectly contradicted much of Poliquin. Who is this guy, I thought. Suddenly, everyone was an Ian King fan.

It wasn’t just King. All these different ideas of nutrition and exercise science bombarded me again and again. I started reading various contributors’ websites, finding more and more contradictions.

Then I started noticing the veiled, thinly veiled, and non-veiled putdowns and negative references to other contributors work - not on T-Mag, but on other discussion boards and websites.

It was then I started buying physiology texts and reading online journals. What I discovered was that Mr. Poliquin was just following the newest study and often claiming the findings as his trademarked training genius. Not only that, but I read refutations of many of his diagnostic methods, hair mineral testing, for example.

How can you tell if a purported scientific expert is a crackpot? There’s many popular anti-crackpot websites out there. Some are good, some didn’t seem to be created by very knowledgeable individuals.

To help shorten the story, even though it took more evidence than it should have, I now agree with Ian King that most of what we know is dogma.

Most people just don’t want to admit they were wrong.

Look at the “science” of chiropractic. While chiropractic has proven to be a therapeutic modality, many (if not most) chiropractors blow the benefits out of proportion. Many of them blame most of the bodies problems on subluxation.

“Cancer? I’ll crack your bones! AIDS? I’ll crack your bones!”

Then there are dentists who claim that bad dental health will damage the bodies immune system. Cardiologists who claim great powers by listening to the way the heart beats. Medical doctors who claim fasting is a great way to cure the body of ills.

There are tens of thousands of chiropractors in the US. How many of them will tell you that cervical adjustments have been linked to stroke?
How many of them will try to get you on a three day-a-week for six month schedule? How many of them will admit that a certain degree of scoliosis is normal? Of course, none of this stopped Ted Kennedy from attending the last international chiropractic political rally!

Just because a field of study exists does not make that field credible. Even if there are thousands of people in that field. Examine the premises.

Another example of crap science is man-caused global warming.

Climatic models show that the world will warm by several degrees in the next few years. Of course, the inputs used for these models are theoretical and unproven. (Kenneth Green’s website)

While many environmentalists agree the proof is small, they believe we should take a proactive approach to emissions, JUST IN CASE the environment can’t handle too much CO2. (Sierra Club)

The environment stores excess CO2 in soil. (Boston College)

Earthshine may account for raised atmospheric temperature. (NewScientist)

A great site for this is www.junkscience.com

There are Ian Kings in the environmentalist world, but they’re largely ignored.

[slimjim]

I won’t argue with you about the merits of your post, but I have to say that I enjoyed Poliquin’s writings. As well as King’s, Waterbury’s, Berardi’s, and I’d put that dude with the initials CT up here too, but I can’t spell that damned Canadian’s name. My only problem with the thread is that I’ve used his programs with great success and since my interest is to get stronger, leaner, and basically to become more attractive to females so my quest for pussy is a little easier, I have no qualms about whose ideas are being claimed as their own so long as they have one basic element: success, and undoubtedly every program of Poliquin’s that I tried met that criterium. I am interested in books on physiology, though and which ones would you recommend.

[Kieran]

Awesome post. I think it could easily be expanded and made into a legendary T-mag article.

People want/like dogmas. It restores order to our world and makes it easier to function as one does not have to constantly question or re-evaluate.

This is the nature of how the human mind operates. We use heuristic tools that sacrifice accuracy for speed.

[vroom]

Mutt, be careful, if any of the global warming theories are “proven”, it will probably already be too late.

People arguing against global warming can have their own agenda just as much as people arguing for it – they are not to be trusted any more than anyone else.

Studies can indeed show lots of contradictory things. However, there are decision making concepts that deal with risk and probability and perhaps they would be a good tool to use when making decisions about uncertain or unproven effects.

[Mutt]

Kieran - I recently read something along the lines of:

“A part of wisdom lies in knowing that you may be wrong. A part of courage lies in continuing on anyway.”

Was it the “medium” risk-takers that tend to succeed in speculating? I never can remember.

vroom - That is another way of looking at things. I’m just not willing to invest my emotions in might-bes, like moving away from all sources of alternating current under 400 Hz! Of course, I’m for liberty rather than democracy, just like my old pal Ben Franklin.

I do believe most global warming evangelists have everyone’s best interests at heart. I also believe it’s very hard to admit that an entire belief structure of yours has very little proof, and is silly when viewed subjectively rather than basing it on faith and then looking for proof. After all, I was Christian once.

Besides which, aren’t we between glacial periods - making man-made global warming, assuming that the data has been manipulated correctly, a good thing?

In any other accepted field of study, ANY manipulation of data invalidates the results.

Plus, atmospheric temperatures have gone up for 20 years, and then DOWN in the past three… (New Jersey Institute of Technology)

I’m not buying it. I don’t blame Bush for not buying it, either.

[Mutt]

my post didn’t all come through.

Check out humankinetics.com

[vroom]

Mutt, your arguments on global warming work both ways, if you can’t tell. It’s very hard to give up a belief that there is no danger if you believe that as well.

Nothing you’ve said really shows which thought pattern is correct. You’ve just stated which camp you are in, which is fine.

Perhaps the thinning of the ozone layer is not really an issue to be concerned about either?

[ScottL]

“But then we tend to forget that, compared to present-day information, most people in history have known almost nothing about anything–and even contemporary knowledge is daily being modified—and even proved wrong”

Idries Shah

[Beni]

You make some interesting observations mutt re some of the well known Strength coaches out there.

There are alot of very good coaches out there but there are far more who are very average but have a slick marketing image which presents them as the fountain of all knowledge.

I know for a fact of one strength coach who considers himself to be one of the top ten best coaches in the world and yet has only been around for five mins.

Yet because of his hype most people on this forum would believe that statement.
Those of us who work in the business know that although this individual is very good he has a long way to go before he can make such claims.

[slimjim]

I’m not one very partial to the idea that “time in service” is in any way a factor to someone’s knowledge or practices being worthy.

[topher]

[quote]Mutt wrote:
“Truth is, unfortunately, a franchise, not a commodity.” - Anonymous

My greatest thanks to T-Nation is for opening my eyes to the prevalence of dogma. As a lifetime member of Know-It-Alls Anonymous, I frequently have to remind myself that much of my current knowledge is wrong.[/quote]

It would be a very good thing if everyone were to frequently remind themself of that.

[quote]Once, I was an avid Charles Poliquin supporter. I’d quote him like a favorite religious text to all unbelievers.

Then T-Mag started publishing this Ian King guy, who indirectly contradicted much of Poliquin. Who is this guy, I thought. Suddenly, everyone was an Ian King fan.

It wasn’t just King. All these different ideas of nutrition and exercise science bombarded me again and again. I started reading various contributors’ websites, finding more and more contradictions.[/quote]

One of the things I’ve always admired about T-Mag is that they feature many authors who have different beliefs. If you read it closely, you’ll see that a great many of their contributors will disagree or contradict each other.

This goes for a great many contributors beyond Mr. Poliquin.

[quote]Then I started noticing the veiled, thinly veiled, and non-veiled putdowns and negative references to other contributors work - not on T-Mag, but on other discussion boards and websites.

It was then I started buying physiology texts and reading online journals. What I discovered was that Mr. Poliquin was just following the newest study and often claiming the findings as his trademarked training genius. Not only that, but I read refutations of many of his diagnostic methods, hair mineral testing, for example.[/quote]

You may no longer care for Mr. Poliquin, or his training information, but that doesn’t mean that it’s worthless. He is still fairly well respected by the T-Mag team (based on comments I’ve seen in articles), and many people have learned a lot and benefited greatly from his articles and books.

He’s still an active trainer, with a number of high profile clients, and I dare say he didn’t land those clients due to the lack of success his previous clients have achieved.

[quote]How can you tell if a purported scientific expert is a crackpot? There’s many popular anti-crackpot websites out there. Some are good, some didn’t seem to be created by very knowledgeable individuals.

To help shorten the story, even though it took more evidence than it should have, I now agree with Ian King that most of what we know is dogma.[/quote]

Be careful with “anti-crackpot” websites. Some of them are created by crackpots themselves.

As for most of what we know being dogma. . . I don’t know that I agree with that. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that I think I definitely don’t agree with it. Most of what we know is incomplete, but if we constantly work to learn more and continually refine what we know based on what we learn, then what we know isn’t just dogma, but our best understanding of “truth”.

Most people just don’t want to admit they were wrong.

Of course they don’t. No one likes being wrong. And some people are very close minded and stubborn. However, there are lot of open minded people out there, too. People who are willing to listen to new ideas, and considering all sides rationally.

I once heard it said that there are two ways of approaching science. One is to develop a theory, and then try to prove it true. The other is to develop a theory, and then try to continually refine it until it is true.

[quote]Look at the “science” of chiropractic. While chiropractic has proven to be a therapeutic modality, many (if not most) chiropractors blow the benefits out of proportion. Many of them blame most of the bodies problems on subluxation.

“Cancer? I’ll crack your bones! AIDS? I’ll crack your bones!”[/quote]

While your last line is amusing, you’re making a rather broad generalization here. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a chiropracter say that msot of the body’s problems are due to subluxation. Without knowing a great deal more about what “problems” you’re dealing with, it’s impossible to make an analysis like that.

And very importantly, you have to remember that people will tend to use what they know. Chiropracters know their branch of medicine, and they know it well. Thus, when presented with a problem, they’ll atemtp to solve it with the tools they know best.

This is the same reason that if you go to a doctor with a problem that can be treated either with medication, or with surgery, they will recommend medication. If you go to a surgeon with the same problem, they are more likely to recommend surgery.

Then there are dentists who claim that bad dental health will damage the bodies immune system. Cardiologists who claim great powers by listening to the way the heart beats. Medical doctors who claim fasting is a great way to cure the body of ills.

There are also numerous people in each of those professions that will vehemently disagree with those statements. The fact thatsome dentists, cardiologists, and doctors make such claims doesn’t invalidate everyone in those professions.

[quote]There are tens of thousands of chiropractors in the US. How many of them will tell you that cervical adjustments have been linked to stroke?
How many of them will try to get you on a three day-a-week for six month schedule? How many of them will admit that a certain degree of scoliosis is normal? Of course, none of this stopped Ted Kennedy from attending the last international chiropractic political rally![/quote]

You seem to have a strong bias against chiropracters here. I agree that some chiropracters do overstate their benefits, and understate their possible detriments, but as I said above, I don’t think that in any way invalidates chiropractic care as a whole.

I’m also not sure what Ted Kennedy’s attendance at a rally has to do with anything, either. If he supports or believes in it, why should we care that he’s supporting it?

Just because a field of study exists does not make that field credible. Even if there are thousands of people in that field. Examine the premises.

That’s very correct. However, it could be credible. Keep an open mind all the way around.

Another example of crap science is man-caused global warming.

Another, eh? So you’re implying that chiropractic care is crap science?

It may not be miracle science, but it can provide benefits in some cases. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary here.

Climatic models show that the world will warm by several degrees in the next few years. Of course, the inputs used for these models are theoretical and unproven. (Kenneth Green’s website)

Remember, every truth began as an unproven theory. The fact that the models are based on currently unproven theory doesn’t mean that you should just ignore them.

At one time, the belief that the Earth orbited the Sun was theoretical and unproven. I know of few people who think that today, though.

[quote]While many environmentalists agree the proof is small, they believe we should take a proactive approach to emissions, JUST IN CASE the environment can’t handle too much CO2. (Sierra Club)

The environment stores excess CO2 in soil. (Boston College)

Earthshine may account for raised atmospheric temperature. (NewScientist)[/quote]

You make it sound like we have to kill ourselves in order to take a proactive approach to reducing C02 emissions. I’m not sure I understand why, though. Whether or not C02 emissions are in fact detrimental to the environment, is there a good reason why we shouldn’t reduce them?

First of all, while there may be some controversy over the effect of C02 emissions on the environment, I don’t know of anyone who will claim that our fossil fuel stores will last forever. Most estimates suggest that within the next 50-150 years, the majority of our oil and coal reserves will be depleted. And the burning of oil and coal is one of the primary sources of C02 emissions.

One of the main ways that regulations reduce C02 emissions is via automative requirements. The easiest and most commonly way that automotive manufacturers “reduce” emissions is to make a care more efficient. So these requirements are giving you better gas mileage! It also stretches our supply of oil a little further, giving us more time to develop alternate fuel sources.

Secondly. . . what if they are right? Doing things “just in case” isn’t a bad thing, it’s a prudent thing. Always hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. If do that, things will work out a lot better in the end.

Working to reduce C02 emissions isn’t a bad idea. It helps ensure that we’re prepared, in case the worst does happen.

A great site for this is www.junkscience.com

I’ve visited that site before. There’s some very good information there. However, there’s also some very bad information (propaganda) and conspiracy theory crap there, too. I’d strongly suggest taking anything you read there with a grain of salt.

There are Ian Kings in the environmentalist world, but they’re largely ignored.

Be careful. Broad-scale skepticism is as much a dogma as anything.

Keep an open mind and investigate all evidence before blindly dismissing new theories. True, they may prove to be incorrect theories, but they may also be proven right.

[Mutt]

This is going to take some time.

[quote]topher wrote:
<>

I agree completely.

<<If you read it closely, you’ll see that a great many of their contributors will disagree or contradict each other.
This goes for a great many contributors beyond Mr. Poliquin.>>

Of course. Mr. Poliquin was just an example.

<<You may no longer care for Mr. Poliquin, or his training information, but that doesn’t mean that it’s worthless. He is still fairly well respected by the T-Mag team (based on comments I’ve seen in articles), and many people have learned a lot and benefited greatly from his articles and books. He’s still an active trainer, with a number of high profile clients, and I dare say he didn’t land those clients due to the lack of success his previous clients have achieved.>>

I daresay you’re right. I edit my posts before I send them out. One of the statements I deleted for length (not content) was that I believe Poliquin is a better-educated opportunist.

He wouldn’t still be around if he didn’t have an ability to add qualities to his clients. It’s just that his methods are one way of doing so, rather than THE way. My problem with him is that he vehemently denies this and that he’s not the superexpert he makes himself out to be. Of course, many trainers do that.

He was just one example. Otherwise, not only would I get way off-topic, this would be gassier than one of TCs articles!

<<Be careful with “anti-crackpot” websites. Some of them are created by crackpots themselves.>>

Rush Limbaugh, whom I enjoy very much for his whistleblowing of liberal stupidity and corruption, is an arrogant Bible-thumping hypocrite.

But, I also get information that I would never get from the partisan media. If you sort out the religion and self-congratulation…

<<As for most of what we know being dogma. . . I don’t know that I agree with that. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that I think I definitely don’t agree with it. Most of what we know is incomplete, but if we constantly work to learn more and continually refine what we know based on what we learn, then what we know isn’t just dogma, but our best understanding of “truth”.>>

I have to disagree with you here on a fundamental point for a very certain reason. Our best understanding of “truth” becomes dogma when it either unnecessarily affects my life, or purposely holds back understandings, or is deceitful.

<<Of course they don’t. No one likes being wrong. And some people are very close minded and stubborn. However, there are lot of open minded people out there, too. People who are willing to listen to new ideas, and considering all sides rationally.>>

I agree. I disagree on the method of rationalizing.

<<I once heard it said that there are two ways of approaching science. One is to develop a theory, and then try to prove it true. The other is to develop a theory, and then try to continually refine it until it is true.>>

I do not believe the second method is science. However, if not for the second method, we’d never have airplanes.

I like to draw the line between our toolmaking abilities and our exploration of the physics of a field.

A physics should not be approached with the second option, because then it is fundamentally flawed at the start. This is different from an invention that does not exist yet.

“Cancer? I’ll crack your bones! AIDS? I’ll crack your bones!”

<<While your last line is amusing, you’re making a rather broad generalization here. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a chiropracter say that msot of the body’s problems are due to subluxation. Without knowing a great deal more about what “problems” you’re dealing with, it’s impossible to make an analysis like that.>>

I have heard this, although not in the way you’re thinking. You’re also making a distinction between diagnostic procedures of the chiropractor and many chiropractors’ belief that subluxation is a root cause of many problems most studies have found to be unrelated, OR a way of augmenting the immune system against a currently uncurable disease.

Notice that I did say chiropractic is a proven therapeutic modality.

<<And very importantly, you have to remember that people will tend to use what they know. Chiropracters know their branch of medicine, and they know it well. Thus, when presented with a problem, they’ll atemtp to solve it with the tools they know best.>>

So do witch doctors.

<<This is the same reason that if you go to a doctor with a problem that can be treated either with medication, or with surgery, they will recommend medication. If you go to a surgeon with the same problem, they are more likely to recommend surgery.>>

There are surgeries that are essentially useless, along with medications that are essentially useless. Point conceded.

<<There are also numerous people in each of those professions that will vehemently disagree with those statements. The fact thatsome dentists, cardiologists, and doctors make such claims doesn’t invalidate everyone in those professions.>>

That’s not the point. The point is that there is a large number of highly educated scam artists and/or people who just don’t want to listen to the large amount of contradicting evidence.

<<You seem to have a strong bias against chiropracters here. I agree that some chiropracters do overstate their benefits, and understate their possible detriments, but as I said above, I don’t think that in any way invalidates chiropractic care as a whole.>>

Chiropractors are the best example of an accepted field of science that is mostly BS.

And what I said doesn’t invalidate chiropractic care; it invalidates the exaggeration of the problems treatable by chiropractic care.

Maybe you found a good DC.

<<I’m also not sure what Ted Kennedy’s attendance at a rally has to do with anything, either. If he supports or believes in it, why should we care that he’s supporting it?>>

Popular endorsement of a field of science does nothing for its credibility.

<<That’s very correct. However, it could be credible. Keep an open mind all the way around.>>

It is impossible to establish credibility in a short time-frame. In that case, yes, something could be credible.

However, I’m referring to any new subject, I’m referring to global cooling - I mean, global warming.

<<Another, eh? So you’re implying that chiropractic care is crap science?>>

The vast majority of it, which is adjusting subluxations. Ask any orthopaedist.

<<It may not be miracle science, but it can provide benefits in some cases. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary here.>>

Lack of evidence to the contrary is not positive evidence.

<<Remember, every truth began as an unproven theory. The fact that the models are based on currently unproven theory doesn’t mean that you should just ignore them.>>

Every theory began as an unproven theory. When those theories are fundamentally revised as much as global warming has, they’re usually discarded.

<<At one time, the belief that the Earth orbited the Sun was theoretical and unproven. I know of few people who think that today, though.>>

Really? That’s hilarious! It’s simple physics!

<>

Well, not kill ourselves, but hurt our economic health, yes.

<<I’m not sure I understand why, though. Whether or not C02 emissions are in fact detrimental to the environment, is there a good reason why we shouldn’t reduce them?>>

The removal of said emissions creates an unnecessary drain on productivity for no proven benefit.

“Yeah well it could be” hasn’t held up for anti-flouridation, global cooling, paper waste disposal, or anything of the sort.

<<First of all, while there may be some controversy over the effect of C02 emissions on the environment, I don’t know of anyone who will claim that our fossil fuel stores will last forever. One of the main ways that regulations reduce C02 emissions is via automative requirements. The easiest and most commonly way that automotive manufacturers “reduce” emissions is to make a care more efficient. So these requirements are giving you better gas mileage! It also stretches our supply of oil a little further, giving us more time to develop alternate fuel sources.>>

More efficient cars are great. If making cars more efficient is the goal, well, that has proven economic benefits for the consumer.

It doesn’t give a good reason to make all of those other unnecessary adjustments for an unproven theory.

Secondly. . . what if they are right? Doing things “just in case” isn’t a bad thing, it’s a prudent thing. Always hope for the best, and prepare for the worst. If do that, things will work out a lot better in the end.>>

The list of “just in case” scenarios is so high - why is it so important to hold on to this unprovable one?

<<Working to reduce C02 emissions isn’t a bad idea. It helps ensure that we’re prepared, in case the worst does happen.>>

Like what? The complete absence of fossil fuel? If we absolutely have to, we’ll run our engines on french fry grease or ethanol. Of course, someone will probably invent some science to decry that.

<<I’ve visited that site before. There’s some very good information there. However, there’s also some very bad information (propaganda) and conspiracy theory crap there, too. I’d strongly suggest taking anything you read there with a grain of salt.>>

Such as? I’ve yet to encounter anything not solidly backed up. That doesn’t mean I won’t. I just haven’t yet. Point it out to me and I’ll read it.

<>

Of course. I could be wrong this time too.

<<Keep an open mind and investigate all evidence before blindly dismissing new theories. True, they may prove to be incorrect theories, but they may also be proven right.>>

This one’s been around a long while, and still hasn’t been proven right without inventing more unproven theories to make it right.

Why don’t we focus on more important and provable environmental issues, like pollution or medical waste?