You're not a scientist, are you?

This post stems from a Facebook thread regarding HPV vaccination.  In the midst of it, statements were made implying a non-trivial risk from the vaccination itself.

Me:  Still looking for specific, documented, significant risks as a result of these vaccines, though. References to science (vs. editorials) always welcome.

Friend: Jon... Why? Science is always proving themselves wrong! How many drugs and food additives/preservatives that were once deemed "safe" have been re-called, given people permanent physical or mental damage or worse... Killed ! I'm baffled as to why you are so pro-science? You're not a scientist, are you?

I'm pro-truth. People make claims about the truth - specifically about ways the world works - all the time. Some of them are utter BS. Others are extremely reliable. Most fall somewhere in between, and it's difficult to evaluate the likelihood of their being true without understanding the evidence.

Science is a set of tools by which some truth claims can be investigated. In order to work, it requires a constant stream of inquiry, the generation of ideas based on knowledge gained so far, and the generation of experimental evidence which could disprove those ideas.

This is a big deal because many of the facts - the real truths - about the way the world works are not intuitive to the human mind. For example: Imagine I have a ball made of glass that weighs 1 lb., and a ball made of lead exactly the same size and shape, which weighs more (say 4 or 5 lbs). For a long time, people assumed that, if one were to drop these things, the lead ball - which is much heavier - would fall faster than the glass ball. Aristotle taught this in ancient Greece. But, in the late 16th century, Galileo is reported to have actually tried it - dropping balls of different weights from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. (Note: Throwing stuff from tall places is just one of the really cool benefits of doing science.)

It turned out that they fell at the same speed, and hit at the same time. Aristotle was wrong. You - or anyone else - can repeat this experiment (maybe not from the same place), and should get the same result. No matter how hard one argues or believes or anything else, under the same conditions you should get the same result. In practical and rough terms, the rate of falling due to gravity is independent of the mass of the object falling. When a statement is made that can be tested in the world, then it could be right or it could be wrong: The truth is independent of anybody's opinion. This is what separates facts from opinions.

Science describes a set of processes and "rules" for evaluating statements about reality. One rule is that the statement must be predictive: That is, it must have consequences that can be compared to reality. A statement like, "Every person shares the universal buddha-nature" is not subject to testing, so science is irrelevant in evaluating it. However, a statement like "All humans have auras about them, which can be seen consistently, even through sheets or walls," IS subject to testing.

The "rules" of science tell us what kind of test is fair, how to design experiments to test specifically the statement in question, and how to account for errors and other factors that could affect the results. When it was discovered that the act of taking a pill affected a person's symptoms, even if the pill really did nothing at all chemically, it became necessary to account for this "placebo effect" when designing drug experiments to see whether one pill worked better than another, or at all. (Even to the point when it was learned that if those running the experiment knew which were "real" and which were "fake", that this information could be unintentionally transmitted to experimental subjects and could affect their reactions. This is where "double-blind" studies come from, where those involved in the experiment itself don't know what's pill A from pill B from a sugar pill.)

Another "rule" of science is disclosure: Publicly explaining ("publishing") your hypothesis and experiment(s) so that others can check the logic of your experimental design and can also try to duplicate your results. This is the ultimate test: If you state a truth about the universe, and how you have discovered evidence in support of it, then it must be evidence that can be re-created by any others who - as long as they are honest in performing the experiment - will get the same results even if they don't initially believe the claim. This is why airplanes fly in Tokyo exactly as they do in New York.

So, when a claim is made like, "This vaccine has significant side-effects," that's subject to clarification and testing: What is the evidence? Is it anecdotal and uncontrolled ("I heard...") or experimental? How do reactions compare against people who are given a placebo instead of the vaccine?

The goal is to reach a real understanding of the risk, so it can be compared against the potential benefits.
Am I a scientist? On one level, sure: Part of my value to my clients in the ability to reliably determine obstacles to their objectives, hypothesize approaches to resolve them, assist in putting them in place, and measuring the results. Many laboratory concepts come into play. At other points in my career I've been much more of a true "scientist" and less of an "engineer." I've certainly had a ton of training in science.

In daily life, I use these concepts all the time, sometimes in very important situations. For example, would you let someone perform a procedure on you which had a 2% chance of giving you a stroke? What if the benefit was that you'd increase your chances of living more than a week from 50% to 90%? I had less than a minute to make this decision. The doctor - who amazingly enough answered my questions quickly, thoroughly, and politely - also had to manage risk scientifically: What were the chances I was a drug user? I denied it but if I was, and he gave me the standard course of treatment, I'd likely (90+%) die as a result. (He took the chance.)(So did I.)

The problem most of us encounter isn't "science", it's people - often journalists, sometimes scientists themselves - who claim implications beyond those supported by the evidence, or in advance of public scrutiny of their work. When a scientists releases that "hey, we took this enzyme that's found in X and found it did Y in a petri dish", this often gets translated by the people at Good Morning America to mean, "Science says you should eat more X."

Yeah, like this...

Far worse, though, in my opinion, are those who are blatantly trying to sell a "special remedy" and make claims that have no support, or only small or poorly-designed experiments as evidence. Typically, they don't make their process/remedy public, and nobody can duplicate their results. When questioned about why their experiment or idea is criticized, the answer is almost always, "There's a conspiracy to hide my results by the big (food, pharma, defense, oil, etc) companies." (In my experience, if they really had something, it's far more likely that big X would have bought them.)

In summary, I respect "science" because it's a useful and proven process for helping distinguish truth from falsehood in regard to some claims. I don't support every person or company that "does science", because it's entirely possible to misuse a tool or to use it properly, but to achieve evil instead of good. What I NEVER support are those who make truth claims based entirely upon authority, or in contradiction of well-tested knowledge, without providing clear and convincing evidence to back up those claims. And I'll outright fight with those who would impose the consequences of baseless claims on others against their will, or in a way that causes harm to others.

"It happens all the time: They all become blueberries."

I think our key disconnect is that you equate the results of the scientific process with opinions or dogma. Science isn't a religion or a political party, it's just a set of tools. But it's a useful one, as there's a significant difference between "some people who got this shot got sick, and other people who got the shot even died!" vs. a controlled, double-blind experiment with 1,000 subjects that showed that 80% of those who received a shot puffed up like giant blueberries. All those statements may be completely true, but only the last one tells us anything really meaningful about the shots.


Like Aristotle, anyone can sit in their comfy chair and make up "facts" about the universe, which may or may not be true. "Science", instead, is like the Galileo example - where someone does the leg work to discover what the truth really is.

That's why I'm more interested in hearing about the latter than the former.


---

Berkeley has a great site on Understanding Science: how science really works