I picked up a recent special edition of Time Magazine that was focused on fitness. I was hoping it might have some substantive research in it, but I was disappointed. As I leafed through it I kept seeing the same phrase, which I see often in the fitness world: “recent research shows.” I think we need to recognize that “recent research” does not necessarily make an argument more substantive or compelling.
There Is Always A Study
Research is happening endlessly, but a lot of it is not that useful on its own. First of all, studies usually need to accumulate and be applied into a larger picture to be truly helpful. For example, if you studied the effects of eating limes on scurvy, you would find that eating them prevents the disease. You might then conclude that eating anything that is green will prevent the disease. The only way to know if that is true – which it isn’t – is to conduct another study. Research is always happening, but one experiment is not necessarily enough to make a big picture point.
Second, as the BBC reported recently, many studies fail the reproducability test. According to them, two-thirds of scientists have tried and failed to replicate another scientist’s research. In other words, an experiment is run and conclusions are drawn, but when the experiment is run again, it comes out differently. When studies do fail to be reproduced, journals will report that, but by then the average reader has moved on and never even notices.
Evidence Based Does Not Mean Only Research Backed
I was recently at one of the Universities here in NYC and there was a big poster board on display about evidence based medicine. I thought the term evidence based was going to mean scientific research backed. In fact, evidence based medicine was defined as medicine that combines research with clinical experience and consideration of the person in front of you. In other words, the practitioner considers scientific evidence, looks at the specific case in front of them, and then uses their experience to decide on the best course of action. I cannot over-emphasize the importance of that experience part. Given that research is sometimes limited, as mentioned, you need someone with experience evaluating the smartest moves.
“Recent Research” Is Not A Magic Credibility Wand
I read that phrase “recent research” (or “studies show”) all the time in health and fitness. They are there to make the argument sound more credible. The fact is, they don’t. If you really want to check the reliability of what you are reading, you’ll need to check several studies. One of the best ways is to search for a meta-analysis or a systematic review. These are papers that evaluate large sets of research to see what kind of consensus, if any, exists on a particular subject. They do the work of checking out the body of evidence that is out there rather than just the results of one single study.
Good post. Here's something related. A must read re science and doubt plus politics. NYT op ed “Climate of Complete Certainty” Bret Stephens APRIL 28, 2017 Got 1,555 comments. This is their new op ed columnist previously on the Wall St Journal editorial board, known for pro business, conservative opinions. He's writing here against the 'complete certainty' assumptions on the threat of global warming by green energy advocates. He says, “History is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors.” I commented: Well, not exactly ‘littered’---that’s a stretch. But at least Science has built-in methods for correcting errors by replicating experimentation to verify or contradict. Our politics is obviously just the opposite. History is littered with wreckage from dictatorships wielded by religious authorities over secular govts. It’s littered with mass unquestioning belief and superstition which scientific inquiry was designed to free ourselves from. He also says--- “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” and “hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public. and Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions.” This is in the so called liberal NYT----a column to cast doubt on what vast majority of world scientists agree on. And then to worry it may be used as political propaganda? He writes to protect the profits and power of the fossil fuel industry, of course. Most readers probably see this. He picked the wrong topic and argument.
That's an interesting column. Obviously, I agree with a lot of what he says. It is true that science is not as absolute as people often think it is. When that is highlighted by something being proven wrong, it could shake people's belief in science. Where we have to be careful is not to allow that to be an excuse for not acting on common sense. I intend to write about that. Stay tuned!