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.

Those particular pieces of data refer to hospitalized patients - not the general population overall. This makes a very, very big difference.

When you widen the issue out to the entire population, abuse of prescription drugs becomes hugely relevant.

With hospitalized patients, sometimes drugs that are given correctly are KNOWN to have adverse reactions in some people - warfarin, various chemotherapies and so on. 76% of these adverse drug reactions are with drugs of this type and in most cases it's an issue of incorrect dosage & monitoring that causes the problem, rather than the drugs themselves.

Medicine is a human endeavour & so isn't perfect - and absolutely no one on this thread is suggesting that it is. But it saves far, far, far, far more people than it harms - that's the point.

Malaria has historically been one of the biggest killers of human beings ever. More people have died of malaria than anything else (through history) - it used to be endemic all over the world, even here in Britain. There's every chance it will be eradicated within our lifetimes. That's amazing.

Nothing is without risk. I have strawberries in my fridge that I'm about to have for my breakfast. I have eaten strawberries hundreds of times in the past with no problem. There is a chance that I might eat them this morning and develop anaphylactic shock. It's a very small chance - but it's a chance. Are strawberries dangerous then? Should they be banned? Of course not, we accept risk ordinarily and I'm afraid we must accept it with medicine too.

sometimes proof maybe a bit of a nebulous concept.

take the amber. We test it's properties against what science knows currently.

it may be science just doesn't know enough about pain to test it's efficacy.

Proof is not a nebulous concept, except maybe in some people's foggy minds.

The case for amber is nonsensical.

Sadly when someone comes up with a novel idea, they may not be believed for ages. Look at that poor man who suggested disease was spread by bacteria, not bad smells, and that it might be a good idea for doctors to wash their hands. Especially because they were killing lots of women in labour (well, spreading bacteria with their filthy hands, that made women ill and die after giving birth).

Poor man died of sepsis AND it took decades before anyone believed him/the cholera in the water guy. Loads of people died because a. doctors refused to wash their hands, the filthy beasts, and because drinking water was contaminated.

And I do know that is history, btw, and the system of hypothesis/ theory/ testing/ publishing in peer reviewed journals means things should work faster these days.

Re. homeopathy causing and curing recurrent thrush - yes, I do know all the logical explanations, that it was a coincidence or the placebo effect. Even though I wasn't expecting it to have anything to do with thrush, so strange to think placebo effect might work on a condition you aren't actually seeking to cure.

BUT I don't really care if it was placebo effect (and placebo effect works whether you are seeing an actual MBBS with further qualifications as GP or whatever OR a complementary therapist And even if it's your dog or your horse you are consulting a vet using homepathy about).

The important thing, for me, is that I don't have thrush any more. Something that was a side-effect of conventional medicine was, apparently, accidentally cured as side-effect of homeopathy. Possibly via the placebo effect. Who cares, the important thing is not proxy measures e.g. statins lowering cholesterol, the important thing is, do patients live longer? Or in my case, did I get thrush again? Answer to the latter is a big fact NO.

Edam You're referencing people that were working over 100 years ago. Scientific methodology was nowhere near as rigorous as it is now.

If someone presents EVIDENCE today, it is not scoffed at or ignored.

Problem is, all these batty ideas are not accompanied by evidence & make claims about reality that are entirely inconsistent with the enormous body of knowledge that science has amassed.

You drank water and got thrush. Compare that with the billions of people today who will drink water and not get thrush!

Causation & correlation are not the same thing.

And the placebo effect doesn't make you ill - although I think (personally) that worry and anxiety can.

The important thing, for me, is that I don't have thrush any more. Something that was a side-effect of conventional medicine was, apparently, accidentally cured as side-effect of homeopathy

I'm not clear. You said you took a homeopathic remedy for your headaches and got thrush? What does conventional medicine have to do with it - other than that it's a known side effect of taking antibiotics.

And thrush, in otherwise healthy people, is generally self-limiting. In other words, it often gets better by itself.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this isn't relevant.

Recently on QI they said that within 6 years one third of the answers given today would have been proved wrong.

This is due to scientific progress. Just because things are current thinking does not mean it is the definitive answer.

"his is due to scientific progress. Just because things are current thinking does not mean it is the definitive answer."

Absolutely. In science, if a theory is tested and found to be wrong, it is discarded. In pseudoscience, the test is changed until it provides the desired results!

This is due to scientific progress. Just because things are current thinking does not mean it is the definitive answer

Absolutely. And those answers would have been proved wrong by.....? Yep. Scientists. Those same scientists who are apparently arrogant know-it-alls who think they have the answer to everything.

The only way a homeopath can prove the science community is wrong is to provide evidence. They've tried and tried and tried....and failed and failed and failed.

The only rational conclusion AT THIS POINT you can make is that it doesn't work. When the evidence changes, so will our minds.

take the amber. We test it's properties against what science knows currently

We test medicines essentially by seeing if they make people better (comparing with people who didn't take the medicine). How can that fail to be accurate?

within 6 years one third of the answers given today would have been proved wrong. You should bear in mind that in many cases that means we will have refined the answer rather than discarded it.

Imagine scientists calculating the speed of light. At first they may have got it 10% too low, then 8% too high, then 4% too low and then 2% too high. That's a lot of 'mistakes', but each time the scientists would say "it's only an estimate". Because they know the difference.

Meanwhile the non-scientists were probably saying "light doesn't take any time. God puts it where it needs to be"

Hettie - no, I took antibiotics and got thrush. Recurrent thrush. Water + homeopathic remedy cured the thrush even though that isn't what I expected or was seeking treatment for. Or, coincidentally, the thrush that had been coming back again and again and again just happened to go away for ever at the same time I took a homeopathic remedy for my migraines.

You are free to choose which explanation you like, but I don't think #2 is no less likely than #1 IMO. And IME.

You may not like it but it is my personal experience. And the experience of someone who is reasonably well informed re. medicines, has worked with enough doctors to stuff the average DGH, and expert reviewers of clinical trials. Including Mike Rawlins.

Btw, I've never been back and had more homeopathy - that experience was quite striking but I don't want any more side effects. At least with conventional medicine you know in advance what side effects are possible and which are most likely, if anything at all.

I neither like nor dislike it, edam - it's nothing personal. Truly.

Glad the thrush is gone though. Nasty & uncomfortable thing.

within 6 years one third of the answers given today would have been proved wrong. You should bear in mind that in many cases that means we will have refined the answer rather than discarded it.

I'm aware my statement is simplistic. I am not getting into the arguments on the thread, just saying that I found it surprising that such a high percentage of "facts" actually turn out not to be. And things we think we "know" today could go on to be disproved or rubbished in the future.

What else were you doing at the time you had the homeopathy? Were you watching any TV soap operas?

Statistically the number of people whose recovery from diseases coincides with them watching one or more episodes from long running soap operas is far too high to be denied. Clearly the soap opera is the solution and a viable replacement for all medicine.

A secondary effect can be demonstrated whereby just knowing someone who watches soap operas is sufficient to cure the common cold. In this instance the weaker effect means it can take a week or so for the cold to go, but all those who recovered from colds knew someone who watched at least one episode of a soap opera so the evidence is incontrovertible.

edam - I had terrible recurring thrush. Then one day it went away forever.

Or so I thought. 11 years later, thrush came back.

Thrush does go away on its own, sometimes not returning for over a decade. It is not because you were drinking magic water during your last bout of thrush that it hasn't been back. Yet.

YY I know those kind of statistical coincidences, Back. You can 'prove' loads of things are more dangerous than passive smoking if you are so inclined.

I've pointed out repeatedly that I do have some passing familiarity with clinical evidence. Have spent years dealing with it, and dealing with people such as Mike Rawlins, the former (founding) Chair of NICE, and the expert reviewers at Drug & Therapeutics Bulletin.

I 'know' that according to all sources, the streets the place to go. No, sorry, that's the Weathergirls. I know that according to everything rational, homeopathy did not cure my thrush that had been caused by conventional medicine.

But I also know that at the same time I took a homeopathic remedy, I got the worst case of thrush I'd ever had, that it cleared up, and has never come back. Haven't had it for two decades now.

I really don't care whether it was homeopathy or not, but it is interesting in the light of claims that homeopathy has no side-effects. And yes, again, I know everyone will say rationally it's coincidence again.

Important point is, whatever worked, it worked. If I ever got thrush again, I'd go straight back and see a homeopath. What would I have to lose, except a few quid? (And it was cheap, I saw a final year student at the College of Homeopathy in Regent's Park.)

Edam you say you understand it and you sound like you do, but then you say " If I ever got thrush again, I'd go straight back and see a homeopath" and I don't see any reason to choose the homeopath over the soap opera cure or any of a 1000 things you did that month.

It's not as though the evidence for that being the reason you got better is slim. There is no such evidence. In fact since we know it's just tap water we know it can't possibly be that, but even aside from that argument you know you are just picking 2 things that happened and claiming a connection. Watching soap operas is cheap too and equally likely to be the cause. Or possibly blinking rapidly while eating ice cream.

Of course you are entitled to have your own opinion and if you want to try that next time good luck to you.

You know what. On a personal level, I completely don't care if there is some evidence for something to work or not.
If Edam has found that homoeopathy has worked, why shouldn't she go back to see him/her? Even, if as you suggest it's 'only' placebo, that placebo has worked pretty well so why not having some again?

I mean when I take paracetamol for a headache and it goes within 15~30min, it's placebo effect (Paracetamol takes at least 1hour to work) but I am still pretty happy it does and I would still choose paracetamol instead of 'watching soap opera or blinking rapidly'. And I am sure that most people do too.
The difference is that you can take paracetamol, get better from the placebo effect and still have bad side effect from it, whereas if you have homeopathy and you get the placebo effect, you then don't have so many unwanted side effects.
And if it doesn't work, you can still try another way.

I agree completely. Only this afternoon I stepped out of my upper floor window. It mattered not the slightest that there's no evidence I can fly. We shouldn't let quibbles like that stop us acting in a random and irrational manner.

Luckily there were some old mattresses there so I didn't die in the fall. In fact it completely cured my hiccups!

Since I did survive I've taken to telling the neighbors kids that stepping out of windows is good for you. After all it did cure the hiccups.

Difference is BOB, that stepping out of a window and not being able to fly/not having a mattress underneath could have some pretty serious consequences. Taking a homeopathic remedy does not.

Taking a homeopathic remedy does not

Pardon?

I think there are a huge number of circumstances where taking a homeopathic remedy could hurt someone very badly. Kill them even.

Not because there's any active ingredient that's harmful - but the very act of bypassing conventional, professional advice & drinking spooky water instead is a dangerous thing to do.

Ask Steve Jobs.

Oh, you can't. He's DEAD.

Mostly true, though I'm also concerned about the long term effect it has when we propagate the idea that guessing is as good as knowing. I really don't mind if Edam uses homeopathy because I strongly suspect that she would be down the GPs for anything critical.

There are plenty of people out there saying that medicine is all fake and that waving a crystal cures things that we don't need otherwise sensible people encouraging them.

When I used the window example I could almost hear someone saying "Well the Theory Of Gravitation is just a theory. It's not like scientists really know anything" :)

Btw I must sound like a real supporter of the NHS sometimes, but actually I think they have an atrocious record, that too many GPs are passing out drugs when people don't really need them and that Pharmaceutical Companies are pushing this for their own profit. There's dishonesty, incompetence and profiteering and if the government spots an area that's working half way decently they leap in and change it.

But like democracy it's better than the alternative.

Hettie, I was comparing it to the ridiculous analogy of jumping out a window to cure hiccups. Do you advocate that over the more conventional methods? In the situations that have been being discussed - thrush (thrush and hiccups - no harm is likely to come from taking a homeopathic remedy. Jumping out a window will, however, be more likely to have serious consequences. I didn't say anything about taking a homeopathic remedy as an alternative to conventional treatment for pancreatic cancer.

You missed BOB's point, Bumbley - it was about the importance of evidence based reasoning. Not following this can, and does, cause harm all the time.

Where do you draw the line, though? People are not very good at evaluating the seriousness of their own conditions. We need doctors to do that for us.

What if someone with headaches goes to a homeopath? Often, there's no harm because often headaches are harmless. But not always. What if, in one case, the headaches were caused by a brain tumour?

Or, how about thrush, then? In a healthy person, it'll go by itself. But in others it can be an indicator of diabetes. A doctor would know that & look for other clinical signs, a homeopath wouldn't. Potential disaster.

And you say "Well, I'm not talking about pancreatic cancer" - well Steve Jobs was. A very smart man. And if he can buy into this hogwash, people considerably less intelligent than him certainly can.