The last couple years have significantly promoted the idea that “science” should be a leading determinate of social and individual behavior. But as we learn more about the most recent social phenomenon surrounding COVID, newer studies indicate that our over-commitment on the earlier science may have led us to make some rather costly and even incorrect decisions. For those that are honest about science, and considering the historical evidence that science has missed “a lot” on a number of important topics, the conclusions would have to be that science can be a tricky thing and may not be the only factor to take into consideration when determining best behavior. Over the years, thousands of scientific “facts” have been proven wrong in every life category. For instance, remember when we were told that we should limit eating eggs because they caused high cholesterol? However, more recent research has caused the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to reverse this guidance revealing the actual health benefits of including eggs in our diet. Ultimately, you must decide this yourself based on your own personal experience and research, but to truly assess the depth and breadth of any issue or question about human behavior and health, is it not scientific to question any finding in science? The whole intention of science, including every scientific study ever conducted in the name of science, is based on this premise. Studies are designed to disprove a certain theory or assumption previously made. All scientific studies start with a hypothesis, an assumption or a guess, and the study is intended to disprove that hypothesis, not prove it. A good study will try to come up with as many conditions or variables as possible to “test” the limitations of the general hypothesis. But is this always happening?
An important feature of any serious research study is for the researchers to publish the studies limitations of the study. Considering that most researchers are biased towards proving what they set out to prove, this section may be difficult for some researchers to honestly and accurately access. The variables that can impact the outcomes of any study are often so great it is difficult to pinpoint them. Notably, most limitations noted are about scope, size, or diversity of the studies population or samples or perhaps the method used to collect data. But honestly, there are almost infinite variables that can affect the outcomes of scientific research. Availability of sample data, time constraints, the instruments used to measure outcomes, lack of supporting research are to name just a few of the more common variables. It is also safe to assume that many studies are subject to “confounding” or “intervening” variables which are those that cannot be known or controlled. For example, if we were studying the efficacy of a certain drug or supplement to support sleep, the researchers will pick a rigid sample of population and ask the participants to all be in the same condition (i.e. have eaten dinner, drank 20 oz of water that day, no medications, and others), but as researchers we cannot know every psychological or psychological variable that may impact the outcome of the study results. The researchers can make some assumptions based on higher numbers of outcomes (statistical significance), but certainly, as strong as some of these studies might be, it cannot be said it is certain.
When you think about the structure and intent of research, the biggest factor that often influences the outcomes of research is the researcher’s investment of the outcomes. When research is funded by certain industries, segments, or constituencies to either prove or disprove a scientific question, is it possible the conditions of the research may be structured to meet their agenda? It’s not only possible, it’s probable. It’s human nature after all, which by the way (human nature) is a still to this day a scientific mystery. So, the intent of this article is not to trash science. Science is an amazing tool and has been one of the most important inputs towards the advancement of human kind. No, this article is only intended to encourage curiosity and caution when pundits claim “its science” as if to say its fact. It’s not, at best, science is a best guess based on some limited data that research had available to them at a certain point in time. And I think it cannot be argued that given time and more data, it will change. Now, that is something you can call a fact.
