Why do people believe in things when the body of scientific evidence shows otherwise

[technodad]

This is not intended to be an attack on any denomination of belief. The aim of this thread is to try to understand why people choose to believe things, when there are far more likely explanations and why people choose to not trust the scientific opinion.

I am not particularly thinking about a discussion about religion because clearly "faith", some old books and preaching make a difference there (although, please discuss religion if it is relevant). I am thinking more about things like:

• People don't believe global is happening when the vast majority of the scientific community can provide evidence that it is.

• People believe in ghosts when their existance violates all the laws of physics and pretty much all "ghost events" (if not absolutely all) can be explained without mystery.

• People don't get their kids vaccinated (e.g. MMR), when it is clear that not vaccinating is orders of magnitude more dangerous than vaccinating.

• People think that palm reading, tea leaf reading, etc actually works...

• People believe in "alternative" medicines work, when every "alternative" medicine that actually works is now simple called "medicine"!

The rules are as follows:

1. You can say what ever you like, and I don't care if you insult me.

2. If you post something, you may have someone say something that challenges your deeply held beliefs, so please only post if this is acceptable to you.

3. No one is allowed to complain about anyone being horrible, or arrogant, based upon the fact that people will only post here if they are up for a debate (see 2).

4. There is no 4.

BackOnBriefly - in the post i was responding to you made a sweeping statement that referred to alternative treatments, not specifically reiki or homeopathy.

As to the second part of your statement, I do not see how that post can possibly be interpreted in that way. You are reading between lines that aren't even there. The only way my statement is incorrect is if every treatment or therapy that is not currently part of the mainstream has been proven not to work. I thought we had established way back that hadn't happened yet.

The placebo effect applies to both conventional and complementary medicines. The people taking a placebo in an RCT get better too- not as much as the people taking the drug, but still by a statistically significant amount.

Holo - i don't think the middle east is unique, but clearly is a major focus for pseudo-archaeologists. I think how much this kind of thing happens in other places would depend on how stringent authorities are in granting permission for excavation - i really don't know the answer to that (my knowledge base is very much Britain and Ireland) - i'm sure there must be other examples of archaeology being exploited to demonstrate the greatness of a particular regime (just can't think off the top of my head of a concrete example). There are plenty of examples of psuedo-archaeology in other areas though - i think most people will have heard of Graham Hancock or Erich von Danicken.

Certainly in the uk there is very little in the way of research excavation - in part due to funding and in part due to ethics. The general principle is that remains are best preserved in situ on the basis that our techniques will be more effective in the future, so most fieldwork is either non-invasive or of the rescue variety. In the earlier days archaeology was driven by a desire to find physical evidence from the bible and from the classics (Troy, Knossos, etc), but i think today in the uk at least it would be difficult for anyone to get permission to excavate on this kind of basis.

If someone set out to find Camelot for example they would be unlikely to get permission to start stripping the countryside. What they could do of course is look at the existing data and interpret that based on their pet theory - Camelot is in Cornwall, South Cadbury, Caerleon, whatever, when of course the likelihood is it never existed at all. Plenty of books about it though! The excavations at South Cadbury demonstrate that there was a C5th Great Hall at the hillfort. The media and local legend turn it into Camelot. So, while it would be difficult to carry out the kind of excavations that have taken place in the middle east in the uk, the existing record is still available for despoiling, not that this kind of interpretation is likely to be taken seriously by the profession.

MostlyLovingLurchers I scrolled back, but am now honestly unsure which post we are talking about now.

This one was meant for Milkhell who had just said that conventional medicine often harms/kills people and alternative medicines mostly don't. Though I may have made sweeping statements in reply to one of yours too. :)

I said to Milkhell: oh come on, the reason alternative medicines don't kill anyone is that they are only pretending to treat you. Like children having a tea party with empty cups.

I was oversimplifying to make a point, but the completely safe alternative treatments will be the ones where they don't really treat you at all.

Apparently 'St John's wort' has a real effect on patients. But because it does it also has a list of possible side effects.

"All knowledge comes to us via people, we can't escae that, even if we are v highly learnedourselves. Therefore all knowledge is subject to the people who mediate it; therefore subjective."

That would be true if "all knowledge" was mere Chinese whispers.

But it isn't. Have you studied any physics, mathematics, biology, or chemistry? That knowledge is tried, tested, verified, built upon, and used in various technologies that we use every day of our lives. Not by one person who whispers it all to you according to their own biases, but by thousands of people whose experiments and conclusions have been in agreement.

Alternative medicines might not be responsible for killing people directly (water that's been shaken & smacked with a leather belt is not generally considered a deadly substance, true ) - but relying on alternative medicine HAS killed an awful lot of people - children of ignorant parents, in many cases.

If Steve Jobs (as a famous example) had started conventional treatment as soon as his cancer was diagnosed - instead of pursuing alternative, natural cures & modifying his diet - there's a very, very good chance he'd be alive today.

The form of cancer he had was very rare, but potentially curable. By the time he finally took proper medical advice, it was too late.

Science is not an "attitude" as some people on here seem to think - it's not a bias towards anything. It's a system of checking & testing. Why would any sensible person think that's a bad thing?

"There are other ways of knowing, not just science". Oh yes? Name one, and name a single mystery that's been solved by anything other than science.

In my particular condition (thyroid), most drs and thyroid associations are still peddling utter shite, and in this case patients know more about how to manage their own health. If I was paying any attention to mainstream medical/scientific advice my business would never have got off the ground cause I felt so zombied. It is all to do with control and cost.

Interesting primal.

The initial treatment we used with ds1 (diet - it helped a lot with certain symptoms) for his severe autism had his then paediatrician laughing at us. Ten years later his neurologist & new paediatrician suggested it to us as a treatment.

Sometimes the clinicians catch up :)

Yes, I can see that your personal experience completely and utterly negates the years and years of training & experience professionals in the field have attained. And you're right, all doctors & nurses care about is control and cost, the absolute rotters.

Hettie - I'd say the cases are few compared to how many deaths are caused through modern medicine.

How many lives are saved through modern medicine?

And what exactly do you mean by "deaths caused by modern medicine'?

Not that "few"

Where's the harm

Yes, I'm quite sure that modern medicine has caused many deaths - although in a lot of cases it's more a question of being unable to save people (the drugs that work for some, but won't for others etc).

But compare that to the billions upon billions of people it's saved. Most of us writing here would almost certainly not be alive without science. 50% of us wouldn't have made it out of our own childhoods, let alone lived to become mothers ourselves.

There was a time when homeopathy & astrology had the opportunity to prove they were efficacious when it came to human health. They failed, abysmally.

Medicine, like everything, has risked attached. If I am ever diagnosed with cancer, I expect I'll be offered chemotherapy. There's a chance this alone would kill me since it is toxic & poisonous - but it's a small chance that has to be weighed against the bigger chance that it'll either cure my cancer or give me more time. It might also, of course, do nothing whatsoever.

What are my chances with healing crystals & magic water? Zero.

In my particular condition (thyroid), most drs and thyroid associations are still peddling utter shite, and in this case patients know more about how to manage their own health

The doctors 'peddle' thyroxin to my DH who has Hashimoto's thyroiditis and it essentially removes the problem for him. Its the least troublesome of the various conditions he has - but thanks to a small sackful of pharmaceuticals he lives an essentially healthy life. His uncle died younger than he is now of one of his other ailments because at that time there was no effective treatment.

Cote - I don't agree with Holo's point that all knowledge is subjective - that certainly isn't what i was saying in the post she was responding to. However, what her example of biblical archaeology shows is that there is the evidence (plus all the issues as to how that evidence has been gained) and then there is the interpretation.

In this example the interpretation is subject to political and religious bias. In response to that some mainstream archaeologists have gone too far in the other direction. As you say, the scientific method and peer review generally ensures that these interpretations are not accepted by the scientific community. The media, endless book publications and self-interested websites however give these pseudo-sciences more airtime than more mundane conventional theories get, since they tend to be more sensationalist.

The point of all this, in answering the original question of this thread, is that people who are not directly involved in academic research are led to believe that these interpretations are mainstream, proven and true. Hence they end up believing stuff like there is evidence for Noah's Ark or for Atlantis. In this sense Holo is right. Many of us will smell a rat or be interested enough to go back and look at the evidence and at other interpretations. Many however do not and so misinformation is taken at face value.

:) Maybe I was a bit strong when I said that all knowledge is subjective. I guess what I can't get around, though, is that all knowledge is produced by and mediated by people, not just people with obvious religious, political or socio-economic agendas but people who purport to be, and truly want to be, as objective as possible.

It's not possible for any one person to be an expert at absolutely every realm of knowledge, so trust has to come into functional daily living. We simply couldn't live any other way. I trust that the person who gives me my prescription has indeed put in the bottle the thing that the doctor ordered in the right quantities, and that the doctor made the best decision in prescribing it. I don't have the knowledge to test the drugs myself or to make my own diagnoses and treatment plans. These are people and I have to trust them. The science at work here might be objective (i.e. it might be objectively true that I have such-and-such wrong with me) but the way that my life is affected is filtered through lots of layers of people's thinking. This is why I can't help but feel that the idea that any of us can be outside of the cycle of human thinking is illusory. So science will always be, IMHO as a non-scientist, only ever as good as the people doing it. Which is pretty good, so I'm not wanting to dismiss science, but IMO it's like money; good for what it's good for, and for the rest, there's...(finish that sentence!)

The science at work here might be objective (i.e. it might be objectively true that I have such-and-such wrong with me) but the way that my life is affected is filtered through lots of layers of people's thinking. This is why I can't help but feel that the idea that any of us can be outside of the cycle of human thinking is illusory. So science will always be, IMHO as a non-scientist, only ever as good as the people doing it

Yes, that's very true.

We have to trust that our doctors have diagnosed us correctly, and we have to trust that the pharmacist has correctly dispensed our medication. And most of the time our trust is justified & that, in turn, justifies us in trusting in them next time. The evidence, such as it is, shows that professionals get it right far more often than they get it wrong.

But personal responsibility has to come into play as well. And that's why we should all question if we're not sure, and get a second opinion if we feel it's warranted.

I hate the notion that "doctors must not be questioned because they know everything" about as much as I hate the one that says they are all controlling charlatans who care more about money & results than they do about patients.

The doctors 'peddle' thyroxin to my DH who has Hashimoto's thyroiditis and it essentially removes the problem for him. Its the least troublesome of the various conditions he has - but thanks to a small sackful of pharmaceuticals he lives an essentially healthy life. His uncle died younger than he is now of one of his other ailments because at that time there was no effective treatment.

For an awful lot of people, synthetic thyroxin does not work. I now take NDT and it makes a huge difference to my health. I pay for it myself as the NHS won't, but it is worth every penny.

Yes, I can see that your personal experience completely and utterly negates the years and years of training & experience professionals in the field have attained. And you're right, all doctors & nurses care about is control and cost, the absolute rotters.

How patronising. It is not just my personal experience though. It is scandalous how thyroid patients are treated. We are undermedicated and treated with the wrong drugs, using the wrong tests, because of cost. Any doctor who tries to do otherwise is brought before the GMC.

www.stopthethyroidmadness.com
www.facebook.com/scottishthyroidpetition
recoveringwitht3.com/website/thyroid-patient-advocacy
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/testimonials_lodged_in_support_o

It is scandalous how thyroid patients are treated

Really? I'm one and my treatment has been superb.

I don't take information from Facebook and rant sites.

I posted a Facebook link because it is to a petition that is going through the Scottish Parliament. But if you don't want to bother reading any of it then so be it. You don't know if you could feel even better on other tablets and you are very lucky that synthetic thyroxin works for you. Maybe if you did some reading of the links I posted you would see that this is not always the case.

I can see that your personal experience completely and utterly negates the years and years of training & experience professionals in the field have attained.

However, to quote you, there are many, many professionals who are researching this and working on better treatments and knowledge, so we'd better not take your personal experience as gospel either.

However, to quote you, there are many, many professionals who are researching this and working on better treatments and knowledge

Scientists by any chance?

No, it's fine. But for balance, are you able to post any links that give experiences & quotes from people whose treatment has been positive?

I think that your blanket assertion that people have problems because doctors only care about cost and control is stunningly rude and , if you're going to make this claim then you ought to back it up with proper data.

Anecdotes on the internet are not impressive. I can find you sites that have people swearing blind that their anal polyps were caused by aliens probing their bottoms, and those arrogant, know-it-all medics simply won't listen.

I think that your blanket assertion that people have problems because doctors only care about cost and control

I didn't say say that. They are generally not allowed to prescribe T3 because of the cost. Sorry if there is not a controlled study published about that ... I edit medical journal articles every day however, including an endocrinology journal, so if I find one I will post it.

You did say that. They are peddling shite and it's all to do with control & cost.

Yes, there probably are other drugs available that probably are better suited to certain patients. And I expect frontline GP's do have their hands tied about what they can & can't prescribe. But this is happening across the board throughout the NHS, as we are all well aware.

But it's very unfair of you, or anyone else, to write every doctor of a thyroid patient off as a peddler of shite. Very unfair.

Oh, and I said I was a thyroid patient, not that I've ever taken thyroxin. No need in my case, a different sort of issue.

Like I said - I'm T1 diabetic and wouldn't be alive without insulin.

BUT alternative therapies can and do help.

There's a place for both. Why does it have to be either or?

Oh, and I said I was a thyroid patient, not that I've ever taken thyroxin. No need in my case, a different sort of issue.

So you don't know.