When we hear scientific study we believe that this study will tell us the truth because we view science as factually based. But in reality these studies could be based on politics or who is paying the money. Our view of reality is clouded by what is taught to us all the way through our education that science is collecting facts and truthful evidence but in the real world these studies present just the information that the company that will benefit fro it wants us to hear. Then these "findings" we blindly accept as facts. This is because we put false trust in "science" that isn't at all the honest science that we learn in school. Like Decarte says ".. I first became aware that I had accepted, even from my youth, many false opinions for true,.." (meditation I). We have also fallen into that slippery slope by accepting scientific studies to be based on honest facts and not as a propaganda tool.
To solve this rose colored view on today's scientist it is best to research a study. Who was it done by? Who sponsored it? Who was it done on? These are all questions that could solve our naive view on the science studies of today.
Bibliography
"Meditations on first philosophy." Moodle. Web.
"Study shows flavanol antioxidant content of US chocolate and cocoa-containing products." EurekAlert! - Science News. Web. 22 Feb. 2010.
nice entry, it is true that society puts alot of faith in science, but does it really have another choice? Its human nature to ask questions when we dont know the answer.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the problem is just with people putting faith in science. I think the problem is people putting faith in unreliable sources and failing to ask questions or check facts. It's important to know information about your sources (and be familiar with the hierarchy of which journals are considered better than others). Obviously, there are many that are biased one way or another and it's important to realize that and take it into account. Also, when someone states "facts" from studies it's a good idea to actually look up that information yourself (most articles online have a link to the original article that presented the information).
ReplyDeleteOn a side-but-related-note, I think parents especially need to be a little more skeptical and careful about where they get their information. I get that being responsible for making that many decisions for your kid is terrifying and probably overwhelming, but seriously, stop listening to guests on Oprah. All of this anti-vaccination business not only drives me nuts, but it is responsible for the reappearance of preventable childhood illnesses (from January to July of 2008, 127 measles cases were reported to the CDC). And did people honestly think that sticking Baby Einstein in front of their kid would turn them into geniuses? Had these people talked to their pediatricians, they would have known that children under the age of two should be staying away from television, not sitting in front of it for hours. These trends annoy me so much, I could go on for days, but I'll stop here.
Good post. I agree: "research a study".
I like this entry. Even though i am a firm believer in science, you do bring up a goob point that science in not impervious to outside influences. Especially, as in this case, when a certain party funds and uses the findings in a way to benifit themselves. It reminds me of the belief that a glass of red wine is good for the heart, as in a glass a day or so. In fact it is grapes that are good for the heart and saying wine is good for the heart is kind of just a way to justify getting a little tipsy after dinner.
ReplyDeleteI like this post too. I agree that we have to be careful with research studies and not take them at face value.
ReplyDeleteWith that "study" that Hershey's did, it's obviously biased. Then again, it would be hard to find a group outside of chocolatiers to fund a study about the benefits of chocolate.