Some people will do just about anything for a bit of attention or approval — and I’m not talking about the buffoon in the Oval Office this time. Twenty-three people, whom we may assume are otherwise perfectly normal and rational, volunteered to participate in a study — published in the medical journal BMJ — whose objective was:
To determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft. [1]
They agreed to participate, knowing full well that they had a 50/50 chance of being given an empty backpack instead of a parachute before jumping from an airplane or helicopter.
The scientists evaluated the results of the randomized jumps using a standard protocol:
The primary outcome was the composite of death and major traumatic injury, defined by an Injury Severity Score greater than 15, within five minutes of impact. The Injury Severity Score is a commonly used anatomical scoring system to grade the severity of traumatic injuries. [1]
The results of the study will likely astound you: there was not only zero difference in outcome between those who jumped with a parachute and those who jumped with only a backpack but all 23 participants survived with absolutely no injuries whatsoever!
Of course, to understand the reason for this extraordinary outcome it’s important to read the fine print of the study:
… participants were … on a biplane or helicopter (0% v 100%; P<0.001), were at a lower mean altitude (0.6 m, SD 0.1 v 9146 m, SD 2164; P<0.001), and were traveling at a slower velocity (0 km/h, SD 0 v 800 km/h, SD 124; P<0.001). [1]
Having a spot of trouble reading that? Here, let me help.
The participants jumped from aircraft (a biplane and a helicopter) that were parked on the ground. The jumps were less than 2 feet in height.
There ya go. The results suddenly become a lot more obvious and expected once one fully understands the methodology of the study. It isn’t surprising at all that a parachute, or lack thereof, would make no difference nor that such an experiment could result in zero injuries and fatalities.
Okay, haha, good joke based on a silly study by the scientists, right? Actually, this study is invaluable.
"It's a little bit of a parable, to say we have to look at the fine print, we have to understand the context in which research is designed and conducted to really properly interpret the results," Yeh [one of the study’s authors] says. Scientists often read just the conclusion of a study and then draw their own conclusions that are far more sweeping than are justified by the actual findings. [2]
It teaches us that it is easy to design experiments or studies that will produce a desired outcome. Had the scientists been unethical, they could have used elderly people with severe osteoporosis to “prove” that jumping from aircraft always produces grave injuries, with or without a parachute.
It also shows us how we leap to conclusions that aren’t necessarily supported by the studies. Most people reading this would naturally assume that the jumps were from moving aircraft at an altitude expected to be dangerous. If they read no further than the summary of the results, they would be (potentially tragically) misinformed about the study’s findings.
These researchers did this to make a point but bad studies have been happening ever since the scientific method began to be practiced. At times, scientists have been corrupted by patrons, bedazzled by their own dreams, or confused about how to ensure their experiments were truly objective. They, like all of us, are mere mortals and can make mistakes, willfully or innocently.
When we see claims for “miracle cures” or machines that defy the laws of physics, we need to be suspicious: was the data cherry-picked to “prove” a desired outcome? Were the experiments run in such a way that a neutral third-party could replicate them and get the same results? Do the results actually show what the experimenters claim that they show?
Science is wonderful. But it’s not magic. We need to carefully scrutinize both the methods and the results of studies and experiments. Knowledge is power.
Which brings us to …
An article by evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, published at The Conversation today, also grapples with problems related to methodology and outcomes. The crux of the problem: science and religion are incompatible, not complementary. It’s a war, not a mutual admiration society.
Both science and religion fundamentally compete to reveal, explain, and understand the truth — the truth of how we came to exist, how the cosmos came into being, and how to better our lives. The ways both approaches use to discover and show those truths are complete opposites.
The conflict between science and faith, then, rests on the methods they use to decide what is true, and what truths result: These are conflicts of both methodology and outcome.
In contrast to the methods of science, religion adjudicates truth not empirically, but via dogma, scripture and authority – in other words, through faith, defined in Hebrews 11 as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” [3]
Science absolutely depends on evidence. A theorist may come up with a brilliant insight but it is only when evidence is discovered — in nature or via experiments — that the theory becomes accepted and useful.
Religion, on the other hand, rejects evidence as not only unnecessary but as suspect. Its claims cannot be verified by demonstrable proof so belief without evidence, or in spite of evidence, becomes a virtue. Such belief, or faith, demonstrates a commitment to the religion or deity that is meritorious in the eyes of both believers and the religious hierarchy.
But what has this preference for faith over provable facts gained for religion? The short answer is: nothing. Yes, religions have accumulated believers, secular power and influence, and wealth but its success at proving its unique “facts” (as opposed to generally agreed upon common knowledge) is zilch. There is no universal or near-universal agreement that any religious claims are true, unlike agreement on scientific theories such as gravity. If anything, more time has created more dissension as religions split into more and more mutually denying sects.
... science has had success after success in understanding the universe, the “method” of using faith has led to no proof of the divine. [3]
That contrast between religion and science and the foundational difference between them — the primacy of faith versus the primacy of replicable facts — seems to have opened a gulf between the scientific community and the larger society.
There’s a huge disparity in religiosity between American scientists and Americans as a whole: 64 percent of our elite scientists are atheists or agnostics, compared to only 6 percent of the general population – more than a tenfold difference. Whether this reflects differential attraction of nonbelievers to science or science eroding belief – I suspect both factors operate – the figures are prima facie evidence for a science-religion conflict. [3]
Some people argue that there really is no conflict because religion deals with a different realm entirely, concerned only with the reasons for our human existence — the why rather than the how.
That, of course, is revisionist nonsense. Every religion began with stories of creation of the universe and human beings. Religions spin their own theories — often ludicrous and self-contradictory — of how things came to be. Religion has never said “We have no clue about how so we will limit ourselves to discussing why.”
As for the why questions, philosophy has tried to answer those by using logic and reason rather than ancient authorities and divine mandates. Philosophy begins from the perspective of the self-aware individual and progresses to his/her responsibilities and privileges when interacting with others, in groups ranging from the family to the entire global society. It is a human-oriented approach to understanding ourselves and our obligations to society and nature.
In short, philosophy seeks to develop and improve human behavior through rational ethics.
Religion, on the other hand, begins with a completely different fundamental task: how to understand a complex and capricious deity and propitiate it to ensure survival and well-being, both of the individual and the larger social groups. It is not concerned with human morality (just read the Bible to find incomprehensible cruelty and depravity which is divinely sanctioned); its mandate is to be aware of (but not necessarily understand) and carry out instructions ordered by the deity, even if they are repugnant or make no apparent sense.
In short, religion tries to control and enforce human behaviors in order to satisfy a non-human entity for its own purposes and reasons.
As Coyne writes, trying to reconcile the conflicting domains of science/reason with religion is not only impossible but it’s not good for one’s mental health; it’s like the White Queen telling Alice she should believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.
In the end, it’s irrational to decide what’s true in your daily life using empirical evidence, but then rely on wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions to judge the “truths” undergirding your faith. This leads to a mind (no matter how scientifically renowned) at war with itself … [3]
Many Western countries are slowly growing agnostic as younger people drop their interest in and adherence to religion. In time, religion may dwindle away of its own accord as people find it impossible to reconcile the differences between the science that sustains and improves their lives and the religious demands that often condemn that very science, without any rational basis or demonstrable results.
To that, I would say “Bye, Felicia.”
Sources
[1] Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial at BMJ
[2] Researchers Show Parachutes Don't Work, But There's A Catch by Richard Harris at NPR
[3] Yes, there is a war between science and religion by Jerry Coyne at The Conversation