Science and how science should be discussed:
Commentary on a fact based science should be fact based. By this I mean don't say "it is fact based" rather make it fact based. Daily KOS has many excellent commentators, folks who seem really smart and knowledgeable but know this: I dislike the “proof by intimidation” arguments I sometimes see when it comes to science. All scientists have to concede that there is the possibility that new knowledge will force all of us to modify old ideas, and perhaps even have to throw out a theory or even a previously successful model. If you are a true scientist, you have to accept that sometimes you might be wrong. We should both listen and think critically – the critical thinking expert who is willing to take criticism and adapt to new facts (say a Democrat) is far more important than a committee of experts engaged in some mutual admiration (a bunch of Republicans). The sin in science is not in publishing something that is wrong: scientists do make mistakes and that should be an accepted part of science. But to refuse to later admit you were wrong – that is a real sin ! Why am I commenting on this ?
When a commentator dismisses some concept concerning a disease as “not fact based”, but there is whole lot of literature in peer reviewed journals, then explain why the scientific literature is wrong please. Don’t ignore the literature, rather tell me why you think it is not a valid description please. Don’t assume I cannot do a search of the literature. Don’t dismiss me or someone else with facts in hand (i.e. access to peer reviewed literature) that disagree with your view. Because if you are arguing that your position is fact based, make sure you have a model that encompasses the facts.
Doing a literature search of the peer reviewed literature isn’t that hard anymore. For example, there are commentators who dismiss chronic Lyme disease and say this isn’t fact based, I tend to get a little upset. Why ? Well my area of expertise may have almost nothing to do with biology or medicine, but I can do a scientific literature search. If can do a scientific literature search on MEDLINE, or Web of Science, both very standard search engines of scientific literature, and come up with several hundred articles detailing examples of chronic Lyme disease or persistence Lyme (chronic Borrelia infections) even after a year of treatment with antibiotics, then those are facts. Either come up with a disease model that encompasses those facts OR very carefully explain why those facts are invalid. What was wrong with those published observations and experiments that made it into the peer reviewed literature please ?
Above all, if there is peer reviewed literature, and a lot of it, that supports an opposing view point, then citing a committee of experts who are "all knowing" is not going to sway my thinking. Medicine is rich in committees of experts who proved to be wrong. Committees of medical experts once dismissed multiple sclerosis as not a 'real disease' and once even dismissed infectious diseases. Case in point: John Snow and the cholera epidemics of London. John Snow was right: the medical review board was wrong. More recently committees of experts (and Doctors) told us PSA tests are essential for early determination of prostate cancer, breast screening essential for early determination of breast cancer. Yet the literature was rich in studies that showed no difference in cancer treatment outcomes as a result of the PSA test or breast cancer screening. Before the medical community finally changed their position in just these past few year, that science lurked in the literature for years prior. Experts ignored the literature so it has taken until now for the medical community to realize these early screening tests just led to a lot of painful and unnecessary surgeries, and very little improvement in overall outcomes. Face it: it was all some boondoggle. So don’t cite an “expert” committee and yet ignore scientific literature and then claim you are fact based and I am not: that is not science.
I understand extremely well that perfection is not part of science. Scientists should believe in something that Issac Asimov referred to as the “relatively of wrong” in other words, imperfect models, if successful at predicting new observations, are both valuable and a “truth”. If we asked for perfection, no science would ever be possible – the earth is not perfectly spherical by any means, but to a first approximation, this is a good start and much better at describing the world than models that require the earth to be flat. And mistakes do occur. But remember, there is a relatively of wrong. My institution has a “wellness” newsletter I know to be filled with nonsense. My institution also has an annual health assessment where we are required to answer questions that simply cannot be answered correctly because all of the answers available are wrong, and indeed assessment has questions that are sort of irrelevant to disease or health issues although there is information requested that my institution does want to know about its employees (“are you depressed ?” You bet !). When I made this mistake of complaining to our ‘benefits’ administrator, I was told that after all my expertise has almost nothing to do with biology or medicine (true), and “experts” had reviewed the required questionnaire and news letter and determined it to be valid (untrue). When I pointed out that there was scientific literature supporting my contention, the response was that all that scientific literature was just “opinion” no match for the experts consulted. I asked: All science is just opinion ? The scientific literature doesn’t matter ? The response: “Yes: physics had the big bang happening 13.71 billion years ago, and now physicists say it is 13.8 billion years ago. So it was opinion all along !” What I didn’t say in response, because there was no point, is that you, my dear administrator, have just equated at 300% error with a less than 1% error. That is not science.
Science is based on putting forward ideas that fit the available facts and then can be further tested, and in some cases shown to be wrong, not just in the details, but wrong. This is what separates science from creation science. So to return to my analogy of Lyme disease. You want to convince me there is no chronic Lyme, then test. First show that you have an accurate test for Lyme disease, one without more that 30% false negatives. Then test the standard 3 week course for antibiotics on all sorts of Lyme patients: newly infected, long time suffers, etc. and then show that out of 1000 patients less than a few percent have recurring Lyme symptoms after treatment. Otherwise, the fact that there is a rich literature supporting the existence of chronic Lyme and the fact that I know several chromic Lyme disease sufferers, including a couple of highly published excellent scientists, seem to be the more compelling.
An expert committee told John Snow he was wrong, yet in taking off the handle of a pump, John Snow saved lives and eventually London got a sewer system. Cite an expert committee, and ignore the peer reviewed literature, and I then have a hard time telling you apart from Republicans who say that gun violence (annual rate of all gun deaths per 100,000 population is 10.3 and gun injuries is roughly 100) is not a health hazard.