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.

Cote, I don't want to be pointlessly antagonistic, but is this really true: 'There are so many hundreds of studies on each subject'? I follow the research on a couple of medical issues and know that the research findings are more a slow drip-drip-drip than a whoosh tidal wave of information. I'm not anti-medical science, obviously, but I am aware that for various aspects of medical science, what is known is frustratingly piecemeal. Equally obviously, I'm aware that knowledge grows over time - the classic definition of a doctoral dissertation is that it makes a contribution to the body of knowledge of its field.

I know that in my discipline (humanities, not science based), there are fields that are well and truly ploughed. But there are also quite a few that aren't. And within my academic background, there are areas that are fraught with political complexities which are hugely determinative of the work that gets done. (The work on the Dead Sea Scrolls is a case in point.) This is not to say that the whole endeavour is a waste of time and we should all just go home, but it would be inexplicable not to recognise the messy human realities in which all this research is taking place. We do our best, but we are human and fallible in so many ways. Which is what so many medical doctors have said to me over the years...

As a side issue, what do you / we count as a 'science'? Presumably medicine has to be in there, and all the usual suspects. Maths? My mathmo friends all debate the existence of infinity and talk about visualisation and imagination being the most important qualities of a university mathematician - is that 'scientific'? And does it matter anyway? Feeling thoughtful this morning! :)

so let me get this straight - alternative medicine doesn't work until it become medicine after it is found that that particular alternative medicine works?

Good point, Ivy. And where does 'we don't think that homeopathy / alternative medicine works' leave traditional healers, e.g. Aborigines, Masai, etc? Do you believe that they're just all wrong?

"I follow the research on a couple of medical issues and know that the research findings are more a slow drip-drip-drip than a whoosh tidal wave of information."

I am guessing those issues are on the cutting edge, subjects we have not yet accumulated a body of scientific evidence like acupuncture, homeopathy, reiki, etc. It is entirely normal for new research to take time. The subject of this thread is why people believe in stuff which a large body of evidence clearly shows does not work better than placebo.

"for various aspects of medical science, what is known is frustratingly piecemeal"

Yes, we don't have all the answers. We are working on getting them, though. How do you go from "incomplete info on some subjects" to "can't trust science"?

"the classic definition of a doctoral dissertation is that it makes a contribution to the body of knowledge of its field"

No it is not. It would be nice if it did, though.

Sorry, but there is no way that you are dressing up one guy's personal theory based on his prejudices as a scientific study and then shoot all science down in flames because that one guy wrote a racist paper.

"As a side issue, what do you / we count as a 'science'?"

The question here is what we count as a scientific study, and the definition of that is fairly easy: You start with a hypothesis and then conduct an experiment to see whether or not the results back up with your hypothesis. The experiment needs to have a statistically significant number of subjects, it should be double-blind, etc. It needs to be done in a controlled environment that can be reproduced by others.

This is very different than some other methods of collecting information, such as reading books and writing a dissertation about a theory that you think should be correct, which might be more the standard in the humanities (not my field so can't say).

I think we can all agree that Harvard guy's dissertation was not a scientific study, since it was just some theory with no experiment. And therefore, you cannot show it as a supporting example to your theory that science cannot be trusted. QED.

"alternative medicine doesn't work until it become medicine after it is found that that particular alternative medicine works"

Stuff that works as a medicine is called... "medicine".

Stuff that has never been proven to work is not called "medicine".

It's easy to understand.

So if a medicine starts of as alternative and works it is then called medicine - so alternative medicine works as long as it is proved to work.

So what happens when medicine doesn't work?

"what happens when medicine doesn't work?"

What happens when zebras are not animals? What happens when 2 is not a number?

Err... zebras are always animals, 2 is always a number, and stuff we call "medicine" is called thus because it works.

Not just in works in your mind or works no more than a sugar pill but works in an actual biochemical way that is verifiable.

so if chemotherapy doesn't cure cancer - is it s medicine or is a an alternative medicine as it only works sometime, could it be that the medicine only works for some people as they have a different mind set?

Chemotherapy always works in killing human cells, because it is poison. The extent to which it helps with the treatment depends on the type of cancer and the stage it's at, not on the hippy-dippy aura of the patient.

Do you actually understand what I'm saying? I really hope that you are being deliberately obtuse.

Cote, thanks for responding. You seem to have a certain idea about me which is not very accurate, though.

The areas of medical science I'm interested in are the ones that have a direct bearing on me and my family so no, not reiki etc. I follow research on a few defined, medically diagnosable diseases. I have access to academic journals so I read up on those regularly. I'm not a medic but am reasonably intelligent and have read enough of this stuff for long enough to know what the issues within the research of these diseases consists of.

Did I say I don't trust science? I don't remember writing that. It'd be a mad thing to say given the life that I lead. There does seem to be this slightly strange 'religious person = Luddite = hates / mistrusts science' thinking that arises on these threads which bears absolutely no resemblance to real life, but nicely props up prejudice.

Cote, why do you say that the definition of a doctorate I gave was wrong? If you go to any PhD induction week you'll hear that over and over again. Or you could just Google 'PhD original contribution to knowledge.'

Do you count the social sciences as science, btw? I didn't post about the Harvard study and have no particular beef about whether it counts as science or not (although it'd reflect pretty poorly on Harvard as a world-leading university if it turned out to be that they give out PhDs for poorly hashed-together theories - although, on the bright side, we could all get one! I'd have a head-start from all my reading of academic medical journals!) (joke) How about psychology? Is that a science?

I understand what you mean about scientific research being as carefully controlled as possible. What I'm not so convinced of is that it is ever possible to dissociate the research from the researcher (i.e. the human being) or researchers. Science is a human activity, so it can't stand outside of or above human life. It's part of the messy business of life, it's us as humans doing our best to understand aspects of the world and life. Which is wonderful. But that's all it is. IMHO.

so medicine only works if the environmental structure of the illness are correct so its not the medicine alone that works but a whole combination of factors?

Do you understand what you are saying?

I must get on with some work in a minute, but it's obvious that not all medicines work the same way on different patients, or at different times within the same patient. There's an array of treatments for various illnesses and doctors weigh risks against likelihood of the treatment doing more good than harm, and prescribe accordingly. If the patient has a bad reaction, the doctor goes back and tries something else. Because each person is unique, the doctor uses statistic likelihood of bad reaction / storing up long-term health risks / lifestyle factors (e.g. certain meds might make pregnancy impossible) to prescribe - but each patient is their own living, breathing scientific experiment because it is impossible to say with absolute certainty how he / she is gong to cope with that particular treatment.

Maybe chemo is a more open-and-shut case, but there are illnesses with more of a smogasbord treatment plan. Within that smogasbord there might be things that might be considered 'alternative,' although some doctors are very sniffy about alternative medicine. I've lived with this for a long time so I know what I'm talking about! I'd so love medicine just to be open-and-shut, you were ill and now you're better, but it's just not. As I keep saying, medical doctors are human beings trying their best to use what they know to help others. That's all medicine can ever be.

I think it is fair to say that in the case of something like homeopathy that it can be tested with a repeatable, reliable methodology and it has been found wanting. However, other areas are not easy to study.

I'm thinking of something like the effect of diet on cancer - there are so many variables that it is difficult to produce any meaningful results, and the data can be contradictory. For example, there has been some research that suggests that a diet with a high fat dairy content can reduce the survival chances of women with breast cancer, although there is also some research that shows that dairy is beneficial here. Another example is Ayurveda. Some aspects may be harmful and some may be beneficial, but clinical trials have been fraught with difficulties here.

I think you could say the same about the paranormal. Some things like esp and mediumship are repeatable and the claimant should be able to demonstrate their abilities. If they can't then their claims should be dismissed. Something like seeing a ghost on the other hand is usually unpredictable and unrepeatable, so doesn't easily lend itself to examination.

You can look at the circumstances and location etc after the event and look for the rational explanation, but what you cannot do is recreate and test the actual momentary experience. Sometimes there will be an obvious explanation, other times there won't be. Where there is no obvious explanation you can argue that the most likely scenario is that there must be a physical cause or the person was hallucinating (interesting article here about the illusion of seeing). However, what you do not have is proof that the person wasn't seeing exactly what they thought they saw. They may be mistaken in what they saw, or it may be that science does not yet have the tools to understand what they saw.

Most people accept scientific evidence where it is compelling, or even suggestive - obviously there are exceptions to this (yec spring to mind). However, there are plenty of grey areas, as with some medical research where results are inconclusive or contradictory, or where there is a void between experience and scientific explanation, and those are the areas where most people's opinions will differ. Unfortunately we can't put our lives on hold waiting for all the answers and so sometimes we may formulate views or have to make decisions that others may disagree with.

ivy - re "so medicine only works if the environmental structure of the illness are correct"

Huh? Wth is "environment structure of the illness"?

And how on earth did you get that from what I wrote?

This conversation is not likely to go anywhere until you start reading, understanding, and replying only to what I write.

True, Lurcher. You said: 'Unfortunately we can't put our lives on hold waiting for all the answers' and that is why IMO things that come under the umbrella of science (medicine being an obvious example) are part of the messy not-quite-sure-really business of being human. The medical doctors I trust the most are the ones who are happy to live with this ad not pretend that they are outside of and above human fallibility.

cote - medicine doesn't always work in the case of chemo it fails often, your answer to the medicine not working is to blame the illness, the stage of the illness or the particular type of illness - but you don't blame the medicine yet it is the medicine that hasn't worked.

Holo - You misunderstood me (I read back and it wasn't clear, actually).

"The areas of medical science I'm interested in are the ones that have a direct bearing on me and my family so no, not reiki etc."

I wan't saying you are interested in reiki. That was an example for the kind of subjects OP was about - stuff we already have a sizeable body of evidence showing they don't work, but which people still believe in.

"Did I say I don't trust science?"

It's been said several times on this thread - sorry if it looked like I was pointing the finger at you.

"Cote, why do you say that the definition of a doctorate I gave was wrong?"

Because "the classic definition of a doctoral dissertation is that it makes a contribution to the body of knowledge of its field" is just not correct. Where there is no new experiment, it would be quite difficult for a dissertation to come up with new knowledge. It is possible and wonderful when it happens, but by no means essential to a dissertation that what it says has never been said before.

I just checked online for the definition of doctoral dissertation and have not come across any that says it must be a brand new addition to that field of knowledge, btw.

"Do you count the social sciences as science, btw?"

Of course. Any field where knowledge can obtained through the scientific method is a science - ex: psychology.

Ivykaty, I'm not sure Chemo is a medicine, in terms of the way you appear to be defining 'medicine'.

What is your definition?

ivy - Just drop it. You don't get it at all.

Chemo is poison and works to kill. It is designed to kill cells that divide rapidly and that is what it does - it kills cancer cells, but it also kills bone marrow cells, hair follicles, etc. We hope that it will kill/shrink cancer faster than it kills the person. Sometimes this is possible, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes we know it won't help towards a cure but will buy several months or years for the cancer patient.

There isn't a single case of a person who doesn't suffer these effects when under chemo, so it works for everybody, doing what it is expected to do.

Mostly - I agree with you re difficulties in studying certain subjects, like the effect of diet as you say, since it is so hard to isolate especially over decades.

For me the issue is that I do NOT believe that science has all the answers. I also think that some of your examples can not be put in the same bag.

• Medical stuff: well to start with, just a small portions if the treatments available on the NHS are proven (about 20% if I remember well and that's from the BMJ). So yes we have 'Medicine' as in Western Medicinebut saying it has the answer to anything and everything is just very naive. Hence some people will seek aleternative it rather complementary medicines.
• Gosts etc: do you have any idea of what happens after death? Can you prove it? Can you prove Gosts do not exist? The reality is that you can't do one it the other so why us your explanation better than the Gosts believers?

that was why I picked it - you were very sanctimonious in your post about 2 is 2 and zebra is zebra - oh an medicine always works that why it is medicine.

I get it - what is your definition of medicine cote?

It's easy to get people muddled up on these long thread, eh? I've never got into things like reiki etc. I'm not rabidly anti, just not particularly interested. (Apologies to anyone who is.)

For me, science is good for what it's good for (iyswim).

Re. PhDs, read the second sentence here: here or the first here or the description here. I could quote sources all day, but this is the most standard definition of a PhD. Other, more pgragmantic / vocational definitions exist too (e.g. PhD = an apprentice's master work). If you read any of these things, you'll find what universities expect in the way of what this actually means in practice.

Did you mean that IYO psychology is not a science? Am unclear about what you mean.

Ladyindiguise, do you believe in other things that can't be proved?

The trouble with science is it often tests the wrong hypotheses.

Take for example the work on autism and the MMR, as that is mentioned. If you read the papers out there there vast majority looks at whether MMR caused the rise in autism numbers. This is not and never has been the question. Likewise the vast majority of papers treat autism as one condition. It is not. That much is known (and slowly slowly the research is recognising that and more useful studies are being carried out). So the research I need to answer my questions has not yet been done (it's being done, slowly, now people have started to look at the immune system & mitochondrial dysfunction)

Furthermore most of the UK based autism research doesn't even acknowledge the existence of severe autism. I wanted to sign up to take part in research carried out at the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge. As part of the sign up process you have to fill in one of Baron-Cohen's systemizing-empathising questionnaires for each family member. Except when I came to fill in in for my severely autistic son I couldn't - the questions were a complete nonsense for a severely autistic individual and the questionnaire could not be completed. No completed questionnaire, no taking part in the research. I did email them and point this out, and they were going to develop another questionnaire for people like my son but last time I checked it hadn't been done. So in terms of UK autism based research he doesn't exist.

He recently took part in another university research project (just a student one) and I despaired at that as well as the standard questionnaire they were using there was completely nonsensical for him as well. I just made it up in the end or wrote N/A over most of the sheet. My answers will be converted into numbers which will make little sense and will skew the stats.

Chemo is an interesting one. Some interesting potential alternative approaches using current drugs. When we treat cancer we tend to try and blast it into oblivion with strong chemo. The problem with that approach is that you kill off susceptible cells but select the cells that are resistant and eventually those grow and overwhelm you. Some evolutionary biologists have suggested an alternative approach where you use enough chemo to stop the tumours getting too big and troublesome but you don't try and blast it. That way the resistant cells (which are outcompeted by non-resistant ones without chemo) take much longer to take over the tumour and overwhelm you. The aim being not to cure cancer but to manage it. AFAIK this is still theoretical rather than trialled.

Personally I think a lot of medicine would benefit from the addition of evolutionary biologists to the team. We wouldn't have had the antibiotic cock up we've had if they had been listened to when they were introduced.