skip to main |
skip to sidebar
We as scientists often like to believe that we are truly neutral in evaluating experimental data and theories. Reams of legitimate literature exists that remains relatively neutral in results discussion, always giving several explanations to experimental outcomes. Unfortunately, literature appears that is driven by philosophical or religious (the two concepts are the same) motivations and are not true scientific inquiry. This kind of literature embarrasses the entire scientific community, invalidates the studies within this biased literature and creates mass public confusion.
This post is about one poorly written book from the vegan philosophy camp, The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M Campbell II. I started reading the book and made it through the 4th chapter before giving up. Obviously biased information within the first 81 pages is enough to repudiate anything else within the book.
First, the book is written by a father/son team. This immediately casts a shadow on the results. Why do you need your son to coauthor a book? I will tell you why. No other respectable scientist who needs a careers would put his/her name on such a piece of work.
Second, and more importantly, is science depends upon addressing other findings from within the scientific community and giving appropriate responses to their theories. The author talks about other scientists not giving "open-minded" intercourse to his ideas. This "open-minded" discussion runs two ways and there lies the problem. Everyone is supposed to just accept his simplified animal based protein is the cause of Western disease theory as a fact. Other scientific views backed by years of research are not relevant. Campbell even arrogantly makes the comment in Chapter 1,
....we scientists focus on details while ignoring the larger context. For example we pin our efforts on and our hopes on one isolated nutrient at a time, whether it is vitamin A to prevent cancer or vitamin E to prevent heart attacks. We oversimplify and disregard the infinite complexity of nature.
This entire book is a simplification of three studies stating that animal based protein is the cause of all degenerative diseases like heart disease and cancer (referred to as Western disease). What makes your simplistic idea any better than other scientist's? Did God have a direct communication with you? This is double-speak my friends and shows tremendous bias towards a philosophical idea.
Third, the book's premise are based upon experiments that lack any serious analysis. I could personally rip each of the poorly executed experiments to shreds, but for brevity sake they all have one conclusion without any thorough discussion. Thousands of factors could lead to the found results like nutrition, genetics and other biological mechanisms instead of one simple answer, his anti-meat explanation. This saddens me the most, because anything useful to be gained from the various studies was wasted among the dishonest conclusions. Other deep flaws litter the experiprocedures. It raises a further question, are the results repeatable?
Finally, the author contradicts himself in Chapter 4. The basic premise I outlined in an early blog posting, Supplementing what?, is long term veganism is not found in any large human populations worldwide. It results in malnourishment from lack of certain vitamins and minerals. Poor health is the result. Of course he could not find one of these vegans for his study (they would not live long enough), but he goes on to attack the closest thing. He describes one of his studies' subjects in China as consuming about 1/10 the amount of animal protein than in American diets and his results were on page 80, We expected that when animal protein consumption an d blood cholesterol were as low as they are in rural China, there would be no further association with Western diseases. But we were wrong.
Maybe the exclusive cause of "Western disease" is not animal protein consumption?
I will stop here because I could fill several posts on this horrendous book. What I am pointing out is sometimes science is distorted with the purpose to sway a select audience. Often, it is for religious or philosophical reasons. In worst case scenarios, it is for outright fraud. In both cases, it is unethical.
My scientific training is as an experimentalist surface scientist in a materials science related study. I spent a significant amount of time in the lab. It is one of my secondary homes. One bone of contention in the scientific world is the clash between experimentalist (us) versus theorist (what is a lab?). Both disciplines take large amounts training, rigorous work and deep thought. In an ideal world, theory should follow after experimental data. Occasionally, theory should predict a result like nuclear weapons is a great example. This post is going to cover a potential dark side associated with theory.
Theory is based upon experimental data sets and observations. Most experimental data fits into trends following mathematical relations. New data usually has previous bodies of work to support the new theoretical idea or concept. Over time, a story is built within a given area of study. It becomes easier to predict experimental outcomes ahead of time. New chapters in the story are written as evidence is presented with a theorist entering the wording.
One very basic concept that is the basis of all theory are assumptions. The theory holds true if for example in a chemistry experiment, the temperature, pressure and etc. are at certain levels. Note, these are serious limitations. All related conditions have to be met for the theory to be true. One assumption is not met, the theoretical framework fails. During initial theory development, many pieces are missing and often all assumptions are not yet known. This will often lead to semi-independent theories. In science and engineering fields, this learning process is benign. Trouble comes with other less easily quantifiable subjects such as sociology, psychology and history for several reasons. First, many subtle factors come into play. Second, not all of the necessary pieces are known. Finally, if a theory is not correct and taken by public policy makers as gospel, significant damage to society may occur. One of the worst historical outcomes from a theory comes from the false science (accepted in the past) known as Eugenics. Eugenics is the idea of keeping a genetic stock pure without undesired genes like genetic diseases. Sterilization of those with less than desirable traits was the main cure. Sometimes death was the their cure. Eugenics was one of the main driving forces behind the Nazi concentration camps.
Groupthink is when a group of individuals comes to a consensus without any serious debate leading to the suppression of all opposing ideas. This is not a fault of theory itself, but of those who are authorities on a given subject. It promotes continuation of false ideals and is a greater threat to any organization than an incomplete theory. Development of a theoretical framework requires legitimate questioning of an idea or concept. If the theory can not comprehensively address a proper inquiry, the theory has serious problems. The problem can often be fixed with a slight refinement. Other times, the theory is then disproven and a new concept is proposed. Groupthink suppresses all questioning, thus, faulty theories are allowed to live and often thrive. Some faulty theories cause serious damage if applied without any moderation to public venues touching us all.
Once in a while, I see something that is so ridiculous by a supposed educated individual, it just requires a little constructive criticism. This post is based upon a book published by an Australian anthropologist asserting claims about our ancient ancestor's physical abilities. The author makes outrageous claims like a normal, healthy Rwanda man jumping his own height, aboriginal Australians running faster than current world record sprinters and marathon running Roman centurions. After reading the post, only one claim has any hard evidence that is not circumstantial. I respect other branches of science that are out of my field, but come on!!! Out of curiosity, I have a few comments for our anthropologist or subjects.
Really what our author found was the use of a early super steroid. Athletes everywhere should be taking a trip to Rwanda to find this enhancing substance. An enterprising individual could make a mint off of this!
After a typical day of pillaging and plundering for the Roman empire, was the only daily form of entertainment they could find involve running about 40 miles? Was the prize an Emperor's Cup?
Ancient Neanderthal men, word of caution. When dating the ancient opposite sex, be careful. They can easily pick you up and throw you like a rag doll. That would make a bad scene, especially in the grocery store.
