There is an interesting article on Yahoo Health news today about the relationship between cola and obesity (soda=pop for people who don't speak Yankee). I have posted an excerpt here, not so much because I believe cola is a serious cause of obesity in children (because I do), but because of the remark near the end by the last researcher. See if you can find the one I mean:
...As for soda being linked to poor eating patterns, "you don't know which is cause and which is effect," Drewnowski said.
People who consume lots of fresh-squeezed juice, vegetables and fruits are fundamentally not the same as those who subsist on colas and bologna sandwiches, he contends.
"There is a difference: The first group is rich," Drewnowski said. He thinks government subsidies of fruits and vegetables would be better public policy than taxing a cheap source of calories.
He also disputes the claim that soda calories are not satisfying. He did a study in which 32 men and women were given either colas or fat-free Raspberry Newtons before lunch on four separate occasions.
"There was absolutely no difference in satiety" as measured by how much they ate or how hungry they said they were, he said.
That research was paid for by industry, a factor that can affect study outcomes, said Kelly Brownell, a psychologist and food policy researcher at Yale University and a vocal advocate for curbs on soda and fast food.
When you look at studies according to who footed the bill, "the literature parts like Moses parting the ocean," he said, referring to the biblical parting of the Red Sea.
Does the evidence add up to a conviction of soda?
One of the nation's leading epidemiologists who has no firm stake in the debate, the's Dr. Michael Thun, thinks it does.
Did you see it? To paraphrase...
When you look at [scientific] studies according to who footed the bill, the literature parts like Moses parting the Red Sea.
Here is the one real issue that separates the people on all sorts of issues in the modern world: the fact that scientists pretend to be completely impartial and unbiased - but they aren't.This is why no one trusts scientists anymore. This is why science has lost credibility as the final arbiter of what is real and what is not in the world, not to mention what is True and what is not.
The darwinist priesthood vs. the intelligent designers, the nutritionists vs. the junk food industry, the environmentalists vs. the manufacturing/industrial world, the teachers unions vs. anyone with common sense, and so on. Every group has their scientists who "do" their studies and "find" what they are paid to find or predisposed ideologically to find. And they present this garbage as "fact" (and claim that their scientists are better then the other side's scientists), and then wonder why the controversies don't go away, since in their own imaginations they have "solved" the issue. Meanwhile, the other side publishes its own studies,which contradict the first studies, and the mudslinging goes on and on and on.The public, of course, has reached the point where their patience is expired. Scientists have cried wolf when products weren't dangerous, claimed things were safe that were deadly, censored research and researchers who dared to question the entrenched status quo, claimed they were on the brink of solving problems that didn't get solved, pretended to understand processes and interactions that they turned out not to understand at all, and in general set themselves up as gods whose word should not be questioned.
They appear to have forgotten that "pride goeth before a fall."
And the fall of science is an embarrassing problem for them. They claim people are uneducated and ignorant for clinging to their religious beliefs, unconventional philosophies, alternative remedies and non-conformist ideas of history, politics, and everything else. But people, for the most part, know they are not stupid. They know that they have followed the issues that interest them, and been burned by believing scientists. They trusted science, but science let them down. No, not just let them down - sometimes science even screwed them.
So here we are, in the post-modern, post-science era, and scientists can't figure out how we got here. Guess what, class? Too bad they won't admit they did it to themselves. Otherwise, there might, possibly, be some sort of reform implemented that would rescue science from being classified in the same category as Tarot cards and astrology. (Apologies to all astrologers and Tarot card readers out there.) But that's the point of this, isn't it? Those guys have as much, if not more, integrity in the minds of the average person than the scientists do.
Now, here is the part where I'm supposed to say how sad that is. But I'm not going to, because it's not sad. It was ridiculous for science to claim they had the answers to everything in the first place. Empericism is nice, but claiming that there is nothing beyond empericism simply doesn't match with the personal experience and knowledge of millions and millions of people. And simply stating that these experiences by ordinary people aren't valid, aren't real, or have no meaning just makes science look stupid. Which is why people now think science is stupid, not valid, not real, and not meaningful. Science is arrogant, therefore it is not taken seriously. By pretending to be holier-than-thou science has proved itself incapable of objectivity. And until objectivity and impartiality is restored to science, it cannot recover its reputation. What is actually unfortunate is that this will never happen.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
How science was dethroned.
Entry for March 06, 2006