Why the Scientific Process is Never Wrong, and Why the Food and Pharmaceutical Industries give Science a Bad Name
I have a science degree...
I have a science degree. I have no idea why I have a science degree, because forty years ago, interior design was a trade, not even a university degree. These days it is supposedly a science. I have no idea which idiots called it a science, but interior design is no more a science than an apple tree is. Sciences include physical science, chemistry, geology, and math. These are hard sciences. They work with absolutes. Something is either right or it is wrong. It is either factual or it is not factual. And there are rigorous processes that are utilized in order to arrive at those conclusions.
The Big Bang Theory
Food, Pharmaceuticals, and Lying to the People
When business is researching food, it is doing so for profits. ‘Food scientists’ are no more scientists than I am a scientist because I hold an interior design degree. And just as interior design was a trade forty years ago, so was ‘food science.’
Both food manufacturers and pharmaceutical manufacturers have a vested financial interest in getting their products past the FDA. The standards required to do so are NOT the absolute sort that are required by the hard sciences.
The hard sciences (real science) has a series of characteristics that it must comply with in order to be called a theory. Statistics (which is what both the food and the pharmaceutical industry use) are not part of these characteristics. If something is not consistent, then it not accepted by science. Again, statistics do not demonstrate accuracy - just probability.
For example, If ten men jumped from a 40 floor high building, five of them survived, two were seriously injured, two were mildly injured, and one died, the theory of gravity would be kicked out the door. It would become superseded theory (a theory that is no longer supported by facts). However, those statistics are what is accepted by the FDA.
What this means is through a period of time, when millions of people have taken the medicine and people finally started noticing that 20% of people were badly injured and 10% of people died, that they thought the science was wrong. The science was never wrong. The statistics were there all the time. The problem was that the FDA found those statistics acceptable. Physics, chemistry, geology, and math wouldn't.
In both the food and pharmaceutical industries, statistics are used.The motive is money. Not health. Not well being. And not scientific accuracy.
The Pharmaceutical Industry
A pharmaceutical company discovers that Substance A cured seven people, left one dead, had no effect on one person, and one person was slightly improved. Those results are sufficient to get it past the FDA as a healing agent. In order to protect itself, each container of Substance A contains a ‘SMALL PRINT’ document of between 1000 and 1500 words. If you ever take the time to read that slip (very few people do), you will find the ‘side effects.’ What is remarkable about this piece of paper is the number of times that death is listed as a side effect.
Virtually every single anti-depressant has death as a side effect.
This means that people died of taking the anti-depressant while the pharmaceutical company was researching the substance.
This is not science.
If it was science, then the scientists would know who would die, the exact process which caused death, and they would be able to alter the substance so that it never harmed the patient. However pharmaceutical ‘scientists’ do NOT know how or why the substance causes death. They also do not know which potential patients would likely die from the intake of that particular pill.
The corrupt process of how Aspartame got approved
The food industry
Then there is the egg fiasco. Don’t eat eggs. They contain cholesterol, and cholesterol is bad for you. Now I don’t know about you, but already 30 or 40 years ago, I was reading repeatedly that cholesterol in food cannot be converted into cholesterol in the body. I read this so frequently that I was bewildered as to why doctors warned one against eggs. I can only assume that I read more books than they do. Of course, fewer than 5% of people pick up a book after they leave school or university. I assume doctors are no different. So they’re stuck with what the media are telling them.
So let me ask you something. Who benefitted from eggs being taken off the breakfast table?
Why the cereal companies, of course
The Food Pyramid
In my youth, the base of the food pyramid was protein and the very, very top echelon which was the food you should eat least of were starches.
Carbohydrates consist of vegetables and starches. Starches include all grains (pasta, pizza, bread, cake, rice) and potatoes. We were taught never to have more than one slice of bread per day, never to serve rice and potatoes on a dish, and never more than one small potato per meal. Pasta and pizzas were unheard of. So was junk food.
So who benefited by changing the food pyramid so that grains were now the most important food in the world?
Why the grain industry, of course. Food companies benefitted massively.
Again, this is not science. This is politics and business colluding or profit.
So What is the Scientific Method?
Science is a discipline that uses testing and observation to determine what is 100% accurate. It is NOT a statistic. In addition, in order for something to be accepted as a theory, it is studied by numerous scientists in the field. This is called peer review. In other words, other scientists (even the competition) study your work and point out its errors. By the time something has reached the level of theory, it is about as factual as it can be.
Many confuse hypothesis with theory. In colloquial English, the word theory can be used in more than one way (as with many words, e.g. fly, fly, and fly). Generally when people are speaking about a ‘theory,’ they mean something that hasn’t been proven yet – just an idea, really. That is NOT what it means in science. In science, theory is the highest level that anything that reach. It is the place where it’s about as true as it can be. Do you think that gravity is going to change anytime soon?
However because new information is constantly arriving, falsifiability gives scientists the ability to re-examine theories, and if the new information means that the theory is incorrect, then the theory is withdrawn.
Only a handful of the few hundred theories in existence have been disproved. When a scientific theory is disproved, it is called a superseded theory.
So What is a Scientific Theory?
In order for something to qualify as a scientific theory, it must have the following characteristics.
- It must be testable. So you cannot test god or religion or creation. So those things can never be scientific theory.
- It must be replicable. This means that other people should be able to do the experiment. Obviously competing companies aren't going to give their work to anybody else to test. So this alone removes it from being science fact.
- It must be stable. This means that when others test it, they must get the same results.
- A scientific theory must be simple. This means it must be concise.
- A scientific theory must be consistent. This means that it can't contradict another scientific theory. If it does, then it means one of the theories is wrong.
Scientific theory is different to general theory
Do you ever read the pamphlet inside a medicine container?
So, no, science is NOT always proving itself wrong
As a result of the misconception that various industries are presenting humanity with science when it has nothing to do with science, science is rapidly receiving a bad name. Comments include ‘But science is often wrong.’
No, it actually isn’t. It’s seldom wrong. This does not mean it cannot be wrong, but it does mean that by the time something reaches theory stage, money didn’t get in the way, statistics wasn’t involved, and there wasn’t a political bureau that could be bought.
© 2016 Tessa Schlesinger