• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
Alyssa Luck

Alyssa Luck

  • About Me
  • Deep Dives
  • The IBD Index
  • Functional Orthodontics
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Contact Me
  • Show Search
Hide Search

A rant about science (alternately: All Hail Nuance and Skepticism)

Alyssa Luck · Nov 30, 2018 · 4 Comments

Warning: this post falls squarely into the category of “cantankerous rant about thing I should probably stop getting so worked up over.” You’ve been warned.

I’ve noticed a troubling tendency in some scientific communities (maybe I should put “scientific” in quotes…I’m lookin’ at you, Facebook) to treat science as some kind of Truth, where certain issues can no longer be questioned or examined because “science” has already had the final word. And this all while maintaining a smug, condescending, high-horse attitude towards anyone who doesn’t act the same way and believe the same things. And it’s pervasive, and often by people I love and respect, which has made me question whether it’s just me being sensitive, and it’s not actually a problem. But it’s infuriating, and I DO think it’s a problem.

Here’s the thing. Scientists (and especially “scientists”) are not immune to groupthink. They are humans like any other human, and although one hopes they’d have stronger critical thinking skills and fewer bandwagon-hopping inclinations than their non-sciency counterparts, they can easily be as closed-minded and defensive, if not more so. I’ve noticed this is especially true surrounding hot-button issues like vaccines and GMOs.

More often than not, I personally do not have a stance on issues like these. I might have an opinion, but not an actual stance that I would share publicly. I tend to be skeptical of everything, and also firmly believe that there are two sides to every story, and that no issue worth debating over is ever black and white. So the insinuation that to be skeptical of vaccines, for example, is to be skeptical of science as a whole, bugs the crap out of me.

First of all, science is not Truth. It’s a method of inquiry, a way of attempting (emphasis on ATTEMPTING) to understand the world around us. I love science, because I think the things it’s allowed us to discover about life and the universe and our bodies are amazing and fascinating and absolutely mind-blowing. But science doesn’t have all the answers, it’s very possible that it will never give us all the answers, and half the time, scientists have no f$*#ing idea what they’re doing. It’s messy, it’s complicated, and in a lot of ways it’s extremely dysfunctional, but it’s the best we’ve got, and a lot of times it’s also pretty doggone good.

SECOND of all, it’s not “science” that I’m skeptical of. It’s the person confidently proclaiming that “this is what science says and you’re a dirty redneck hillbilly hippie if you argue otherwise.” I don’t care if it’s a doctor, an internet stranger, a famous blogger, or a government agency – unless I already trust you based on evaluating your past work, or I have thoroughly investigated the issue myself, I don’t trust you. I’m not going to believe you just because you claim that science/modern medicine/[insert politically correct, pathologically revered construct here] is on your side.

Wanna know why? Because we’ve been wrong before! My favorite example is dietary cholesterol, not because it’s now trendy in the “alternative nutrition” world to lambaste the government for being wrong about the diet-heart connection all this time, but because I investigated the issue myself and discovered that holy cow, the government actually was irrefutably, embarrassingly wrong about cholesterol. To the point where the studies they cited in their own Dietary Guidelines didn’t even support their conclusion that dietary cholesterol is bad for you. Whoops!

When a committee convened specifically to evaluate the scientific literature on a matter, come to a consensus, and turn that into a policy, can be so wrong about an issue for so many years, I see no reason to trust anyone about anything.

This is where you start getting people who overcompensate by placing their trust in the opposite of the “establishment.” They’ve been burned by mainstream medicine or the government or some other “science”-associated entity, so they start believing the exact opposite on every issue. All vaccines, all drugs, all mainstream dietary advice, all new food technology, all GMOs – everything gets lumped into the “unnatural and wrong” category, while anything “natural” or “alternative” is usually accepted and trusted pretty easily, often without question.

This is not a better situation. We find ourselves divided more or less into two opposing camps; both believing “science” is on their side, and neither honoring the principles of skepticism, open-mindedness, thoroughness, and nuanced thought that are vital to the very scientific method so venerated.

And can we stop with the belittling, condescending attitude towards people (say, anti-vaxxers) who you disagree with? This attitude is not helpful to anyone, in any situation, unless it’s just to make yourself feel better and add fuel to the raging, festering hate-fire of the internet. If someone already agrees with you, you’re just preaching to the choir. If they don’t agree with you, they’ll just feel insulted and will not likely want to listen to anything you have to say. And all those people who may have been on the fence? They’ll probably feel attacked and alienated, too. Literally nobody in the history of the world has ever been convinced of something by an angry yelling person who is calling them stupid. And that’s a Fact.

I completely get and sympathize with the fact that these are important issues, and you have strong feelings about them. Heck, I’m here right now ranting about something on the internet because it’s important to me. But I’m doing it without hurling insults, because logically, the aggressively insulting approach to communicating doesn’t make good sense. And if anyone should be able to set aside strong feelings for the sake of a calm, logical, reasonable discussion, it’s scientists. Right?

And although it’s not nearly as satisfying, I truly believe that it’s possible to communicate the direness of a situation without resorting to angry expletives and name-calling. If you need a way to get out your rage, I’d recommend finding a like-minded friend that can match your level of frenzied anger and just ranting away. This strategy tends to be pretty effective, and with a much smaller likelihood of offending complete strangers.

To be honest, I have opinions about very few things these days. I have lots of thoughts, and lots of questions, but a stance? I don’t understand how so many people have enough time on their hands to have such a firm stance on so many complicated issues. How can one person possibly understand the economy, foreign relations, the human body, world religion, and inner city crime well enough to have a strong opinion about the proper running and fixing of all of them? A strong enough opinion, mind you, to get into heated arguments with complete strangers on the internet about?

Bear in mind that there are people who dedicate their entire lives attempting to understand one tiny fragment of any ONE of those aforementioned topics. Just look at the titles of any PhD dissertation ever. You won’t find one explaining the role of nutrition in cancer, or the most successful economic framework for a small developing country. Because issues like that are way too complicated, way too nuanced, and there’s way too much ground to cover for a tiny 4-6 year research project.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that life is complicated. Humans are complicated. We’ve been wrong a lot in the past about a whole lot of things, and it seems highly unlikely that the being-wrong-ness is going to stop anytime soon. We still need to come to conclusions and make judgments, and people will always strongly disagree about things, but I think everyone would be a whole lot happier (and smarter) if they stayed open-minded, thought in gray more often than black or white, and – when in doubt – tried to remember that the person on the other side of the computer screen is a human too.

Related

Blog, Rants & Musings

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Dave Kinard says

    December 12, 2018 at 11:42 pm

    The “alternative/mainstream” debate is prone to the same mind killing tribalist psychology of anything else that becomes part of a person’s identity.

    I have a term for the types of folks you are talking about- “vulgar” skeptics.

    If you’re not familiar, learn about x-rationality and see specifically on this subject “Politics is the mind Killer” on Less Wrong (and the many wonderful related pieces on Slate Star Codex)

    Reply
    • Alyssa Luck says

      December 13, 2018 at 9:37 am

      I’m not familiar with x-rationality! I’ll definitely look that up.

      Reply
  2. Dave Kinard says

    December 12, 2018 at 11:46 pm

    Alyssa, this is my first time seeing your blog. Are you HLAB27 positive?

    I am, and I have ankylosing spondylitis.

    Reply
    • Alyssa Luck says

      December 13, 2018 at 9:40 am

      Hey Dave! Believe it or not, I’ve actually never done any genetic testing, so I’m not sure. I’ve been tempted, but I also worry that I’d get a little neurotic about being predisposed to certain things. Do you feel like the information you’ve gotten has been helpful?

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

 

Hi! I’m Alyssa. I like thunderstorms and cats, hate wearing shoes, and enjoy devising extensive research projects for myself in my free time. This is me in Bali with a monkey on my shoulder. And this is my blog, where I muse about health-related topics and document my relentless self-guinea pigging. If you want to know more about me, click here!

alyssa.luck

alyssa.luck
Photo dump from the last year. Thanks to everyone Photo dump from the last year. Thanks to everyone who made 28 the best yet - excited for 29🥰

(PS. In case anyone wants to know what it’s like in my head, I was going to write something like “year 28” or “my 28th year” but then I realized that the year between your 28th and 29th birthdays is not your 28th year of life, it’s your 29th year. I am turning 29 because I have been alive for 29 years. So then I had a whole thing about how to word it without being inaccurate and ended up going with what you see above which is vague and weird but the point is it was a good year and I love all the people in my life dearly)
Biology of Belief (2005) was written by Bruce Lipt Biology of Belief (2005) was written by Bruce Lipton, who earned a PhD in developmental biology in 1971 and was an anatomy professor and academic researcher in the 70s and 80s. Despite the book's presentation and Lipton's background, this is not a science book. It is an exposition of an ideology, supported by haphazard and poorly contextualized nuggets of evidence, rhetorical leaps, and a mind-boggling overuse of analogies. 

The book largely failed to deliver on its promised content. What it does is argue for the primacy of the environment over DNA in controlling life; propose that the cell membrane rather than the nucleus is the "brain" of the cell; invoke quantum physics to explain why modern medicine fails; explain that our behavior is largely controlled by our subconscious mind; inform parents that they therefore have a great deal of control over the destiny of their children; and conclude that humans must become nonviolent protectors of the environment and of humanity because Everything Is Connected.

It’s not that these points aren’t relevant to the topic at hand - they are. But they were not connected in a coherent way that would explain how “belief” actually works (like…biologically), and the treatment of scientific concepts throughout was careless, or perhaps disingenuous.

I think he's correct about many things, some of them being common knowledge. For instance, the "new" science of epigenetics is now old news, as is the critical role of parenting and early environment in shaping a child’s future. But however important these and attendant concepts may be, the book did not do a good job explaining, supporting, or connecting them. 

As far as practical guidance, he refers the reader to a list of resources on his website, which is fine, but I expected some scientific insight into how/why those modalities work. None was given. 

On the plus side, the book was quite thought-provoking, and I came away with loads of references and topics to follow up on. My favorite line? "There cannot be exceptions to a theory; exceptions simply mean that a theory is not fully correct."
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (section 382) Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (section 382), as quoted in the introduction to Thus Spoke Zarathustra because I like the translation better.
This paper totally changed the way I think about e This paper totally changed the way I think about early nervous system development and the relationship between physiology and sociality. 

The authors propose that newborn babies are not inherently social, and have just one goal in life: physiological homeostasis. I.e. staying alive. This means nutrients, warmth, and regulation of breath and heart rate, i.e. autonomic arousal (it’s well-accepted that newborns sync their breathing and heart rate with caregivers through skin to skin contact). 

All these things are traditionally provided by a loving caregiver. So what the baby experiences during the first weeks of life, over and over, is a shift from physiological perturbation to homeostasis (a highly rewarding event inherently) REPEATEDLY PAIRED with things like the sound of a caregiver’s voice and seeing their face. Thus, over time, the face/voice stimuli become rewarding as well. 

The authors argue that THIS is the beginning of humans’ wiring for sociality, and may explain why loving social interactions can have such a profound regulating effect on physiology throughout life: because the brain was trained for it at an early age. 

This framework holds all kinds of fascinating implications for what happens if that initial “training” isn’t so ideal. What if the return to nutritional homeostasis via feeding is paired with negative expressions and vocalizations rather than loving ones, perhaps as could occur with PPD? What happens if the caregiver has poor autonomic regulation, such that social stimuli become paired with cardiorespiratory overexcitement in the baby? Could that have potential for influencing later introversion vs extroversion? (Because if social interaction is paired with autonomic overexcitement, that could lead to social interaction literally being more energetically draining, which is what introverts experience. Thoughts?)

For my energy metabolism enthusiasts: Table 1 in the paper draws a link between metabolic rate and sociality across species. Swipe for a screenshot. 

Anyway, check out the paper! It’s free, just google “growing a social brain pdf.”
I’ll be under general anesthesia in a couple day I’ll be under general anesthesia in a couple days to have two tooth implants placed, and I think I’ll take the opportunity to have a little heart-to-heart with my subconscious mind. A bit of medically-assisted self-hypnosis, if you will. 

I randomly stumbled upon these papers a couple months ago - an RCT showing reduced post-op pain in patients who listened to recorded positive messages while under general anesthesia, plus a post-hoc analysis of the same data that found reduced post-op nausea and vomiting in a subset of high-risk patients. 

The full review paper from the first slide is unfortunately in German, but it has long been recognized that even when unconscious, the patient is listening (for better or for worse). 

It boggles my mind that it isn’t standard of care to have patients listen to recordings like this while under sedation, considering that almost nothing could be easier, safer, or cheaper, and we have at least some evidence of significant efficacy. I mean c’mon, what more could you want from an intervention? 

(Yeah, I know. Profit. If anyone still thinks that our medical system operates with patient well-being as the foremost goal, you’re deluding yourself.)

“There should be a fundamental change in the way patients are treated in the operating room and intensive care unit, and background noise and careless conversations should be eliminated.”

“Perhaps it is now time to finally heed this call and to use communication with unconscious patients that goes beyond the most necessary announcement of interventions and is therapeutically effective through positive suggestions. When in doubt, assume that the patient is listening.”
If you've seen "vagus nerve exercises" that have y If you've seen "vagus nerve exercises" that have you moving your eyes or tilting your head, you've probably encountered the work of Stanley Rosenberg. The exercises he created and introduced in his 2017 book now appear in instructional videos all over the internet. 
 
The book itself has much to recommend it: it's accessible, it's practical, it's inspiring. But it has one major flaw: the solid practical and informational content regarding the cranial nerves is framed in terms of the scientifically dubious polyvagal theory. 
 
I particularly enjoyed the book as an introduction to the therapeutic arena of bodywork, of which Rosenberg is a skilled practitioner. His book is full of case reports that demonstrate how immensely powerful extremely subtle movements and physical manipulations can be. These do need to be kept in perspective: it's a small sample size of the most remarkable cases, and the results were achieved within the supportive clinical environment of a skilled practitioner. You can tell from his descriptions how refined his technique is. But nevertheless, it was a paradigm-shifting read for me, and the exercises give you something concrete to play around with. 
 
The book also brought the cranial nerves and the concept of “social engagement” to the fore as arbiters of health. Rosenberg has a solid background in cranial nerve anatomy and shares many interesting tidbits and considerations that you don’t typically hear; for instance, the potential impact of dental and orthodontic work on cranial nerve function.
 
So, is it worth reading? If any of the above piques your interest, go for it! Just read my post on polyvagal theory first – you can use the book to practice separating the wheat (solid informational content) from the chaff (pseudoscientific framing). If nothing else, the book is a nice reminder that genuine healers who get lasting results for their patients do exist.

But if you just want to try the exercises, you can easily find them all on YouTube. 

“You learn techniques to understand principles. When you understand the principles, you will create your own techniques.” -Stanley Rosenberg
Load More Follow on Instagram

Recent Posts

  • Polyvagal Theory: A Critical Appraisal
  • Lymphatic Support for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease
  • Heart Rate Variability 101: What It Is, How It’s Measured, and Controversies in the Literature
  • Autonomic Nervous System 101: Anatomy and Physiology
  • Vitamin A Detox Diet for Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn’s Disease

Recent Comments

  • Alyssa Luck on Polyvagal Theory: A Critical Appraisal
  • Andrew Cook on Polyvagal Theory: A Critical Appraisal
  • Alyssa Luck on Getting Enough Carbs on the Autoimmune Protocol (AIP)
  • eugenie breida on Getting Enough Carbs on the Autoimmune Protocol (AIP)
  • eugenie breida on Getting Enough Carbs on the Autoimmune Protocol (AIP)

Categories

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Monochrome Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in