inflammatory_rls wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 12:26 am
I had not known that there was such a wide gap between the idea of science and its actual, imperfect application.
I'm not sure what to do. It seems clear now that I really had no business proposing any kind of theory and that I have made a fool of myself. I guess that's why it takes so long to earn a doctorate!
I like your theory, and I think most of it is sound. Don't get discouraged. You just walked into the trap that sprung on many of us: It's surprising to a scientific mind that the quality of medical/nutritional research is so bad in some areas. I mean, there is a lot of excellent work out there, so don't get me wrong.
Medical school is often different than other sciences: A lot of it is dogma, and there are strongly hirarchichal structures on all levels. The chief physician is "god" which cannot be opposed by an underling, so is the professor in medical school. I think it all starts with the way research is presented: In physics, every child can verify the archimedian principle by taking a bath. In medical school, pupils are not taught *how* researchers come to their conclusions, but only the conclusions. This does not allow critical thinking, because the theories cannot be verified, validated or questioned. As a student I shared a flat with a medical student, all he did was memorizing stuff for the next exam that he had every other week. After the exam he would party for a few days and happily forget everything he has learned. Very different from the world I know (maths), where it's all about understanding the path and little about the result.
Many researchers know this (and let me once again recommend Feinmans talk, I think he's both brilliant and I love his dry humor, plus it's only 30 minutes
), and many areas of medicine are pretty solid. But others aren't, nutrition in particular is minefield in my opinion, and the relation between nutrition and medicine is much neglected.
People like us in this forum can help, because public opinion will help those researchers in medicine that try to steer away from the dogmas. But in the end, knowing that a lot of science is flawed, what can we do (as we're the one who need treatment)? We can only base theories on what we know, so we do just that. But we keep our eyes open, and are aware of the fact that some research may be flawed and could be changed in the future. Personally I became my own doctor, I read research papers, and there are some research areas which I believe to be sound, there are others that I believe to be controversial, but most of all I am very careful with results in areas that I don't know.
And one more thing. I have some opinions that are controversial, and often there is a debate, and that's good because we learn from a good, scientific discussion. "Question the science" is a sound principle (within reason of course), if we didn't we would still believe that the earth is flat.