All I care about are results and not evidence or science

This is one of the most common arguments against science or an evidence-based approach. How true or how wrong is this statement?. This article is apt for this forum.

All I care about are results and not evidence or science
Click to expand...

I think that the statement is true for most people most of the time even for “scientists” especially when dealing with things outside their field of study or the scientific community. We daily accept things that seem to work at what we expect them to do with no evidence in support except that we get the results we want. Seldom do we seriously think of the possible consequences, or if so we rationalize them away. Unless your mind is extremely well disciplined personal experience almost always trumps theories or abstract thought. So for most people results trump what they see as just another opinion unless they are bludgeoned with that opinion (like anti-smoking campaigns) and/or peer pressure.

One of the first things one must accept in discussing science is that it’s a social process from which human emotion can’t be removed, we can only implement rules that attempt to control its influence on the results of that process, historically with varying degrees of success. Many of those processes are ill understood by the general population including most people in academics save the trained scientists. I once sat in a large lecture at university barely paying attention as the professor talk about various health issues unrelated to traditional health concerns like driving and guns, but she got my attention when she said that accidental gun deaths have doubled every year since 1950 (this was 1992). I thought double any number even 1 that many times and gun deaths whipped out the entire world’s population in the early 80s. I know that is anecdotal but it serves as an example of how people are misled unintentionally and sometimes very intentionally by those academics with an agenda. Fast forward to today and you have internet bloggers pontificating on every subject imaginable. My point in this is that even when some scientist does an outstanding job applying the method resulting in substantial evidence of something most people, outside those who not only have the time to read the published work but the background knowledge to understand its implications, receive their information filtered often through many other people some (quite possibly many) of whom have agendas.

If there’s not already enough problems getting the evidence out to the masses often the evidence changes with time. In the article you link to in this article “Why We Need an Evidence-Based Approach in the Fitness Field” you site a couple examples where the “evidence” changed over time. Putting sleeping babies on their stomachs did in fact reduce the number of infant deaths caused by aspirating vomit however with further study it had the unintended consequence raising the mortality rate for some other reason. HRT did without a doubt show evidence of improving the quality of life of the women who use it but after further study seemed to increase the rate of breast cancer.

This comes back to personal experience vs. “evidence” many women continue HRT despite the apparent increased risk of cancer simply because it improves their quality of life enough to warrant the risk from their point of view. I myself fall into this camp now having gone on HRT myself. I educated myself about the known and potential side effects of taking testosterone and now that I have experienced life with it I will never if able go without, and that has nothing to do with lifting just simply being able to get through the day without feeling like crap, and until you have a T level of 60 don’t even try to imagine how it felt.

Another problem here is unfortunately built into the “scientific method,” and that is that it’s inherently deconstructionist. In most cases it’s impossible to get a large enough sample size and study it over a long enough period of time to get a complete set of results describing every potential consequence of what being studied. Instead scientists must take snapshots in time and use proxies of what they are studying and try to extrapolate from there, which clearly works for the short term (a scientist who only publishes after a lifelong longitudinal study isn’t likely to stay funded), but it does precious little to describe what happens on the long term or even often once the results are implemented outside the “lab.”

I think the best one can hope for is people being open to new evidence so as what science tells us changes over time they are able to adjust their beliefs however, however for the vast majority this flies in the face of most of recorded human history so I’m not holding my breath.
 
Hi Grunt

Good points.

And that is the hardest part. Humans are more influenced by anecdotes and personal experiences. Stats and data doesn't make an impact on our brains. In medicine, it always a struggle for doctors to find a balance between the system 1 vs system 2 decision making.

I agree to the personal experience, but it is just hard to know if it is true for everyone and make general statements. HRT was shown to be good in observational trials. It required an RCT to really show the benefits/risk of HRT.

Hi Alex,

This is my career. Just like everyone I write articles so that people would read it. It is the same reason why Bryan started HST. I usually post here since I was here when Bryan started the HST and a large reason why I became so evidence based. Bryan knows this too. Unlike the majority, I am not selling anything on my site though I started 4 years back . If I do sell anything, that would something really affordable ad information packed too.
 
Your article is about semantics, literally about the meaning and application of words. You also managed to invent a term, "basic science". I've spent 2 degrees and 3 years in science, as my first but not current career, in physiology and pharmacology to be precise and I have never once heard this term used. Ever. It's a label you've created to skew the direction of your article.

This is your second paragraph:

It is clearly one of the most misunderstood concepts and clearly shows a lack of understanding of the term evidence-based approach and how really research works.
Click to expand...

As someone who makes a living utilising language and persuasive arguments, I find it incomprehensible that you have chosen to use the word "clearly" twice in the second paragraph (really it's more like the 4th sentence, as page formatting creates a visual illusion here), when nothing has been "clearly" illustrated or evidenced at all.


Your "conclusions" are not conclusions at all. They are your contentions, but you've merely stated them at the end of your article instead of the beginning. Conclusions need to be supported, they are literally concluding statements that summarise the body of evidence within a piece, perhaps with a slight sprinkle of personal opinion thrown in as far as interpretation goes. What you have written is your opinion, not a supported and reasoned statement regarding fact.

"Exercise Biology was rated as one of the top 25 fitness sites in 2012" - by who? KwikMed ... ? This is a gratuitous and self-supporting post-script attachment to your piece.





I don't have an issue with self-promotion in general, but without personally directed offense, I have a real problem with you spamming your own articles when they are not well written and convey illusory arguments that don't stand up under thorough scrutiny. This piece is about what, exactly? It seemed like you were going to discuss the difference between understanding physiological pathways via scientific study VS extracting pragmatic applications from those studies, but that never happened. Then you went off on a random tangent about how personal trainers are able to point to clients who achieve results but the trainers themselves are probably not responsible for them. And then you invented conclusions that are actually opinions.

My personal belief is that you have a lot to say, most of it is probably very viable and would be helpful to some but you have no idea how to construct a strong piece of writing in the space that an internet article occupies (ala how to be concise and effective).
 
Your article is aboutsemantics, literally about the meaning and application of words. You alsomanaged to invent a term, "basic science". I've spent 2 degrees and 3years in science, as my first but not current career, in physiology and pharmacologyto be precise and I have never once heard this term used. Ever. It's a labelyou've created to skew the direction of your article.
Click to expand...

Type "basics science research" in google. And count how many hits you get.

As someone who makes aliving utilizing language and persuasive arguments, I find it incomprehensiblethat you have chosen to use the word "clearly" twice in the secondparagraph (really it's more like the 4th sentence, as page formatting creates avisual illusion here), when nothing has been "clearly" illustrated orevidenced at all.
Click to expand...
I don't really care tobe honest and most people won't. English is my third language and I would worry more if I was writing it for another website or a book. I usually have people proof read it when I write for another website. Usually I make a lot more and really bad grammatical errors. I would delete it if it caught my eye. But it didn't.

Your"conclusions" are not conclusions at all. They are your contentions,but you've merely stated them at the end of your article instead of thebeginning. Conclusions need to be supported, they are literally concluding statements that summarise the body of evidence within a piece,perhaps with a slight sprinkle of personal opinion thrown in as far asinterpretation goes. What you have written is your opinion, not a supported andreasoned statement regarding fact.
Click to expand...

Jesus, you talk like this too? I just simply meant to summarize what I wrote too.

So basically you are just saying my English is not that great and I don't convey it well. Some people may find it useful, but you don’t. And you maybe right. I probably won't change and will still posthere. So the only option you have is to just stop reading my articles.

Seriously, the points you make and the big words you use here to show how grave the mistakes I made are just laughable. You remind me about the word "pedant" (No personal offense intended).
 
My issues are not with your grammar, nor spelling. They're with the way you present your arguments. You articles typical provide scepticism of something you believe to be dogma, offer your opinion, restate your opinion in different ways and then provide a conclusion which is, again, a rehash of your opinion. There's a study or two thrown in, but the results of the study are not analysed or used in a convincing manner. I'm talking about language, not vocabulary. I could care less about your grammatical correctness (hell, the internet has almost rendered grammar obsolete), what's relevant to me is how you (or any author being read) communicate. Telling me "clearly this and clearly that" does-not-make-it-so. You need to provide support for your opinions, and sadly, you continue refusing to do this.

I'm sorry you're unwilling to change. Like I said, you seem to have a lot to say and I'm sure much of it is potentially very useful but you aren't writing in a way that actually conveys information or persuades the reader of your interpretation of factual data.




P.S. take any three words in the English language (or whichever language your computer is set to), put them into Google and look at the # of hits. Find me a combination that Google won't respond to with a high # of hits.
 
I did graduate studies in the sociology of science and technology and can affirm that at least up to the mid 1990s “basic science” was a very common term synonymous with “pure science” contrasted with applied science often used to describe various fields of engineering.

Anoop, please continue to post here including any insights or opinions you wish to share. I read some of what you post and/or link to if it interests me and if it doesn’t then I ignore it . . . simple. I seldom comment because I usually don’t feel I have anything worthwhile to say. In this case my background in studying science gave me a different perspective than I felt most people would have so I felt it was worth sharing.
 
P.S. take any threewords in the English language (or whichever language your computer is set to),put them into Google and look at the # of hits. Find me a combination thatGoogle won't respond to with a high # of hits.
Click to expand...
Seriously?

Here is the first linkof the search: http://www.lbl.gov/Education/ELSI/research-main.html

It took me one second to click. A lot less that it took you to write about your 2 degrees and how you never heard the word and how I discovered a new term to skew my article. Some strong hate bro

There's a study or twothrown in, but the results of the study are not analysed or used in aconvincing manner.
Click to expand...
You must be joking.You want me analyze the famous study to show what? That smoking increased lungcancer? Or HRT increases breast cancer? Or you think you have arguments against these results.

And for God's sake,this is a internet blog post that I post weekly. Will I write this way if I am writing for a peer-reviewed journal. No.

And you have serious issue for me not giving evidence for the word" It is clearly one of the most misunderstood concepts".??

And just a suggestion If you want someone to change, you don’t write like the way you did. You post comes across as rude and personal, eventhough I love how you try to sneak in your "no offense intended" every now and then. This is common sense and nothing to do with persuasive writing, which is your career.Good luck.
 
I did graduate studiesin the sociology of science and technology and can affirm that at least up tothe mid 1990s “basic science” was a very common term synonymous with “purescience” contrasted with applied science often used to describe various fieldsof engineering.
Click to expand...

Alex spent 2 degrees and 3 years in science, and he have never once heard this term used. So we are all wrong and I obviously made up the word to skew my article.

Anoop, please continueto post here including any insights or opinions you wish to share. I read someof what you post and/or link to if it interests me and if it doesn’t then Iignore it . . . simple. I seldom comment because I usually don’t feel I haveanything worthwhile to say. In this case my background in studying science gaveme a different perspective than I felt most people would have so I felt it wasworth sharing.
Click to expand...

Thanks! And you made some wonderful points which is the crux of the problem I believe. I am guessing you are well aware of the cognitive bases we all have.

And I would post just don’t get time since I have a forum too. And I just don't see too many people here now who really have the passion to/take time to find studies and discuss studies. From my experience here recently. I still think Bryan is the guy who brought some real science in the field of muscle growth when the only thing we talked about was mel siff said this/that and TUT studies.

And it takes me a while to research and write an article. I do feel I am helping more people by doing this than replying to forum posts. Most people who run a website either have a paid consultation or products they sell. Only thing which motivates me is to know I am contributing something and I am changing the way a few people think about science and evidence.
 
anoop said:
Seriously?

Here is the first linkof the search: http://www.lbl.gov/Education/ELSI/research-main.html

It took me one second to click. A lot less that it took you to write about your 2 degrees and how you never heard the word and how I discovered a new term to skew my article. Some strong hate bro


You must be joking.You want me analyze the famous study to show what? That smoking increased lungcancer? Or HRT increases breast cancer? Or you think you have arguments against these results.

And for God's sake,this is a internet blog post that I post weekly. Will I write this way if I am writing for a peer-reviewed journal. No.

And you have serious issue for me not giving evidence for the word" It is clearly one of the most misunderstood concepts".??

And just a suggestion If you want someone to change, you don’t write like the way you did. You post comes across as rude and personal, eventhough I love how you try to sneak in your "no offense intended" every now and then. This is common sense and nothing to do with persuasive writing, which is your career.Good luck.
Click to expand...

Of course I can put two words together, 'basic science' is not a term that makes no sense. That isn't at all what I said. I feel that you are using the term as though it means something specific to the reader when it doesn't. If someone who was once a scientist comes across those words used as a term and doesn't know what you're talking about, how is random-reader-guy meant to? I'm not challenging that the term exists, I'm challenging your use of it and whether it's the ideal way to write.

And of course (again) what I'm saying isn't personal. I have nothing against you as a person, I don't bear you any ill will or have the slightest inclination to do so. Critiques by nature are critical and frankly, it is frustrating the way you present yourself as an authority. I'm sorry that you are not able to separate my strong criticism from the what you perceive to be the motivation for that criticism. I'm not 'sneaking' in a comment about no offense intended, I'm blatantly stating that no offense is directed to you based on who you are. I obviously have an issue with your article and to a degree, the self-promotion because what you're promoting isn't a great product yet. I have zero issue with you as a person, and that's what I'm telling you when I say 'no personal offense is intended'.


Put aside my criticism of your terminology for a moment. Can you at least see why you should improve the structure of some of your writing?

This article of yours, which I read some time ago, is actually a fantastic piece:

http://workout911.com/?p=3709

It's written concisely, I understand where the author is taking me and the progression makes sense. You have an introduction, obvious tie-ins to the reader and the topic itself is actually an interesting one.

The article you've just posted doesn't read well. It makes giant leaps regarding it's content. If you want it stated simply, it doesn't stick on topic. It's all over the place (the structural problem) ... and the biggest problem is that as a reader, I have no idea if you're supporting 'basic science' based strategies, 'applied research' based strategies or if you're just telling me to be wary of what a personal trainer is trying to sell me on ... ? I feel like there was possibly two articles worth of subject here, maybe a series of three even but it's been condensed and chopped into something that's extremely difficult to read.

You can attack my reference to my own experience, it doesn't matter to me, and it doesn't matter to my critique. If you have no interest in improving your articles that's your choice, of course.
 
I honestly don't think it was all that bad that you make out of it. In fact, that is probably one of the most popular articles on my site from the facebook likes. There were a few people in the industry who shared it too on their facebook too.

And just to check i asked one of the people in another forum. He usually sneds me grammatical and other errors. And ths is what he wrote:

So since I haven't been able to go to sleep I read your article again trying to have a beginners mind and believing that I get results and that matters.

Your article is tight. I wouldn't change it.

If I change my mind after I sleep on it I will let you know, but I probably won't. It's golden.
thumbs_up.gif
thumbs_up.gif

__________________

Byron Selorme - Science Based Yoga Educator
Click to expand...

And I am sure there might be people who won't like it, especially they have a background in literature and such. but i write articles for people like the above.

And i agree that it could have been written better. I just don't take as much time for my weekly blog posts as I do when I wrote for other people site. The one you liked for another person site.

Anyway that's my last reply to you .

Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top