Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

nafex - Re: [NAFEX] Fw: mychorizal fungal rip off?

nafex@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "William C. Garthright" <billg@inebraska.com>
  • To: North American Fruit Explorers <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Fw: mychorizal fungal rip off?
  • Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:05:57 -0500


We're pretty much in agreement. Research that is done to show that a
particular food is good for you or bad for you is almost certainly funded by
producers of that food.


Absolutely! The difference is that you HAVE research, rather than just believing what you want to believe. And the way science really works is that research must be duplicated by independent researchers. Scientists are just as human as anyone else, and you may get someone claiming to have produced cold fusion - or being paid to commit fraud, for that matter - but it's not accepted as science unless it's been confirmed. Multiple times. And even then, it's always provisional, since new evidence may point out errors.

I know people who are frustrated because they constantly hear competing claims. They'll complain that "nothing is good for you" or that first a food is bad, then it's good, that scientists don't really have a clue. Well, they don't understand how science works, how it's built up, slowly, step by step, and that most things are more complicated than what they read in the paper or see on the news (or, especially, in advertising). The media want sensationalism, and the public wants ultimate truths, but science isn't usually like that. It's slow, it's painstaking, and it's always subject to revision. That's the world as it is, not necessarily as we'd like it to be.

Naturally, research costs money, and someone has to pay for it. Generally, that someone decides where to spend the money. Surprise, surprise. And yes, there's a big problem with negative results not getting the publicity of positive results. But none of that is any big surprise, is it? What else would you expect? And if multiple independent researchers confirm the results, what difference does it make who funded the original study? People who really know science don't put much - if any - value on any one research study. It's only when you look at multiple, independent studies that you can start to come to any real conclusions.

I fully agree that we should never believe what some marketer says about the science, since he will almost certainly have reason to exaggerate, if not worse. But those people know that science is respected in this country, so they're simply trying to use it for their own ends. But in the real world, science is how we determine truth from falsehood, so we have a firm basis for additional discoveries. It's the only way we've really progressed as a species. Like democracy, it's far from perfect, but it's still the best way we've found, so far.

Bill

--
I've never been a millionaire but I just know I'd be darling at it. - Dorothy Parker




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page