Didn't mean to hijack the thread, and I tried to stay away from politics. I will continue to do so, and try to connect what I have to say to the topic at hand as well.
I'm not sure how much it is anti-science versus anti-authoritarian or anti-establishment. While this might seem similar, I do not see an anti-science trend per se. Without trying to start a political argument, I think there is quite a difference. I think you see this very clearly in how they are quite ready to use science that supports their anti-authoritarian/establishment movement.
Perhaps I can rephrase my thought a little bit. Let me use my analogy of "if you had plumbing problems, you would call a plumber, not an electrician who knows a plumber." A lot of the very loud voices in the media sphere (never mind politics...) are more like the electrician who knows a plumber. There are media personalities out there who use the fact that they were successful in one field to bolster their arguments about fields they did not spend equal time in. Yet, their opions are widely regarded by their fan-base as intelligent and even "heroic," because they are "standing up to the establishment." There are media personalities who "do their own research," who I doubt could explain what a P-value is to their audience. Flat earthers have proved themselves wrong over and over again, and continued to think "hmm, maybe the equipment was broken."
There are also people within a broad field, who have strong opinions on certain, particular things within that field, AND who don't listen to the people who have actually made studying those particular things a focus. The whole point of the scientific process is to test ideas and gather new information about the world. Disregarding evidence not in favor of one's stance is, in my opinion, pretty anti-science. And yes, it happens on "both sides."
While I respect science (and am currently in university), I think it is important for people to do their self-experimentation. I lose respect for scientists who can't accept results that do not align with current science or try to make sure people worship science without being able to think for themselves. Research proves likelihood not fact and science often does not take into account personal variables like mileage.
Agree, generally speaking. Regarding the underlined part: I think that scientists need to accept when an endeavor maybe wasn't the right direction to go. The point is that people just need to admit mistakes, or when they were wrong about something. And the people listening to them need to be open to that. There's this widespread mentality that if an authority figure changes their position on something, that they are somehow being dishonest or something. If they were
constantly changing, or it was clear they were doing so to gain a following, that's one thing. But if they are just updating their opinion based on new evidence, that should be accepted as normal.
In the training, fitness space, I have a beef with loud voices "nocebo-ing" their audience. That is, telling them that certain postures or movements are inherently dangerous. Has there been some evidence so? Sure, there are
correlations. Under trials actually observing interventions purporting to address those "bad" movements or postures, this doesn't hold up that consistently. I would rather the established voices say, "well I've done it this way for a decade with success, but this new research is interesting." Instead they ignore it.
Regarding the part I bolded: While I can agree that some science communicators (such as Neil DeGrasse-Tyson) can sometimes speak somewhat arrogantly, I think this might sometimes be born out of frustration. It's incredibly difficult to communicate intricate concepts,
that require in-depth knowledge to really understand and appreicate the importance of, to people who do not share the same background. To do it in 15-second soudbites on social media, since the population is losing its attention span? Forget it.
People who are untrained in a field need to accept that they aren't going to understand what someone with a background in that field does. This was my point about anti-science. Even if you find a few papers that seem to contradict what the "mainstream" says, that doesn't mean they are wrong. It means the evidence isn't always clear. I try to find sources that have success, logical reasoning, and can understand what scientific literature is saying.
not too mention the source o research funding.
I used to think that source of funding was a major issue. Now, I am not so convinced. The funding has to come from somewhere. Consider all the things that you would need for a decent study on hypertrophy, for example. You need competent researchers, who need to be fairly compensated for their time. You need facilities and equipment, which is likely not going to be free. You need funds to compensate subjects for their time away from their regular training. I'm sure we could think of more. Where do you think you would find the money for all that?
The point is that
of course the meat industry will fund studies on red meat and cholesterol.
Of course drug companies fund research into disease. Unless we, as a society, decide that goverment funding should be used to better the understanding of how to make humans happier and healthier (sorry, politics....) then private funding is here to stay. I think funding is a moot point.
If you're going to pick on studies for biases, you can look for the "conflict of interest" sections, and go look at the backgrounds of the researchers themselves. It's fairly easy to find other work by researchers.
