As the goal posts continue to shift within today’s evidence based paradigm, my feelings on the utilisation of science in the many areas of health and nutrition (notwithstanding other areas of physical and worldly observation), continue to change with it. As a result, my faith in science is qualitative and varied, depending on a number of aspects including methodology, and comparative studies with some degree of measurable results. Where certain controlled studies return zero or negative outcomes on centuries old therapies, I tend to be a little sceptical on agenda.
I think one of the greatest problems in research science today, is funding and motivation. Where corporate interest is involved (in many areas of clinical research), the underlying agenda has to be considered in the overall results, which tend to produce false-positive conclusions that are often in alignment with pre-organised ideologies. As outlined in Christie Aschwanden’s article Science Isn’t Broken, clinical statistics (commonly known as p-values), provide opportunistic tools that allow data manipulation for personal and corporate ideals.
So is science broken? I don’t think so. Without doubt, there are many positives to science and there have been numerous leading-edge discoveries. Which lends itself to further consideration of possible evidence that may potentially be withheld for personal and / or corporate interest. The power of science is infinite, and can certainly lead humanity into new areas of awareness and knowledge. The problem is within humanity itself, in who takes the reins and by whose agenda. Is it personal, is it profitable.. but mostly, can it be owned or patented? What methods can be used for roll out, and who profits from it mostly? There are many baseline variables to consider, and it’s within controlled parameters that further questions need to be considered. Ongoing research is a given, even with positive, confirmed results.. and science is only relative to specific markers and areas of focus that are in a constant state of change and evolution.
As Christie Aschwanden states, “Science is only as real as governing bodies over science usage to establish new ideals and outcomes”. I think this pretty much sums up our current use of science in many evidence based studies, and this may either produce positive or negative outcomes. I also think there’s much truth in confirmation bias, as evidence is often processed through the eyes of pre-conditioned belief systems. As such, news media plays a big part in early conditioning and perception, as it’s difficult to realign cognisance once an idea becomes fixed.
In light of the issues in controlled science, I feel there are many positives that will continue to overpower the challenges we face. One that stands out for me in particular, as outlined in Christie’s article, is the self-correcting power of science in ongoing comparative studies. Science may be manipulated, but its infinite truth and power can never be fully harnessed or parrallelled. It’s my view that science is a connective multi-organism within the realm of consciousness and life force. It can be pushed, pulled and prodded, but it can never be re-written.
“No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it”. Albert Einstein