The purpose of science is not to validate the way we wish nature to be, it is to discover the way nature really is. Let the data speak. – Gary E. Schwartz
I clearly remember the high school professor of philosophy and logic who taught us the art of reasoning. He slowly marched around the class with a "deep-thinking" expression on his face and quietly asked questions. He patiently waited for answers and explained complex concepts by citing some of the great philosophers. At that time, I became familiar with many of the terms and definitions that are necessary to set up the argument and the accuracy of the following conclusion. It was during this period that I began to pay attention to veracity and truth using newly acquired knowledge aided by a desire for objectivity and critical thinking. In my reasoning, I came to the conclusion that no absolute truth exists. I thought that all truths are relative and determined by the needs of the present moment and time, the traditions inherited, and the limits of the human mind.
At the time, I did not know that Erich Fromm was dealing with this problem and that he thought it was futile to discuss "absolute truth" and that the emphasis should be on "optimal truth." He believed that the truth stems from the need to survive and orient oneself in this "strange and powerful world." In this way, truth is identified with functionality, the human ability to successfully adapt to the environment. He writes: "The history of thought is the history of getting closer to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; contains the optimum truth that can be achieved in a given historical period."*
This conclusion of the great thinker is not isolated but is often a debated topic in the circles of philosophers, scientists, theologians, and others. The sciences acquire knowledge (truth) using the scientific method based on meticulous observations of the studied phenomena and generating the explanatory hypothesis that is consistent with other accepted facts. It has to be tested and data analyzed. If accepted, it is adopted into scientific theory. Bias prevention is achieved through careful experimental design, transparency, and a rigorous peer review process for findings and conclusions.
This description makes it clear that scientific knowledge is relative rather than absolute because the new data necessitate a new hypothesis, experimentation, and modification of the existing theory or creation of the new. Apparently, science is powerful in producing truthful knowledge, but it is not as powerful as the human mind. All of us, including scientists, tend to accept culturally conditioned beliefs about certain ideas and reject data that may jeopardize previously established truths. There are many cases in the history of science when new facts are met with hostility, such as that our planet is not flat, that the earth revolves around the sun, that gravity exists even though it is not visible, that physical objects are not solid, etc.
Thomas Kuhn eloquently wrote about this in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. ** He claims that a typical scientist is not an objective, free thinker and skeptic. Essentially, he is a conservative individual who accepts what he has been taught and applies that knowledge to solve the problems that have arisen. This kind of scientist tends to resist research that could point to the development of a new theory that better explains all the available facts. Kuhn remarked: "Novelty emerges only with difficulty, manifested by resistance, against a background provided by expectation."** Then a revolutionary appears, such as Darwin or Einstein, often a young scientist who is not brainwashed by accepted theories, and who completely "breaks" the old set of beliefs shared by most scientists. The war starts, between the old and the new, in which it is known beforehand who will win in the end. Professor Paraušić, my high school philosophy teacher, taught us in the words of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, "Change is the single constant in life." But he forgot to tell us that the fear of change is also constant.
If we now turn to day-to-day life and people, we can say that what is true for scientists can be noticed within each of us. We are all in the same "sauce", cultural stew, in which we soak up odors that are not easy to eliminate. Habits that feed on a particular kind of food are deep-rooted and are called core beliefs. They govern, from the corner of our minds, our feelings, our thoughts, and our decisions. They determine our truths, often by the power of the controller as if we were a puppet manipulated by invisible wires or strings without being aware of it. The feeling of helplessness sometimes follows when the light of reason and the spirit of my good old professor of philosophy appears, because we cannot resist that “mover and shaker” who leads us to the “point of no return.” It is not easy to live with that feeling, so we often push it away, justify it or defend it in other ways. Especially if we feel threatened by other people, those of the "free spirit", or those who criticize us for "indulgence", traditionalism, follow the "leader", etc. We hold these habits like a "drunk at the fence", because "God save us from it," we trip and fall if we dare to take a new untrodden path.
Does what I wrote evoke hopelessness? Was I too pessimistic? That's not what I intended. I have tried to convey the reality of our human condition in a world guided by beliefs in which critical thinking is suppressed and revolutionary thinkers are rare. Most of us are often irrational and illogical about our assessments and conclusions. If we want to change that state and bring light into the darkness of our mind, we first need to be aware of the strings and wires we are attached to and gather the courage to cut them off and live guided by responsibility and free will. It is a daunting task, but necessary, if we want to accept the truth as a guide instead of the entanglement of the life of the convention.
Now let me focus on the title of this text. It was inspired by the medical profession, which is committed to using the best evidence at the moment (truth) in making decisions about the care of individual patients. So-called evidence-based medicine was introduced about thirty years ago as a systematic attempt to incorporate findings from formal research into medical practice. In medicine, the best evidence is based on randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, aimed at eliminating bias in both providers and recipients of care. The high-quality data thus obtained are reliable but must be replicated. This leads us to meta-analysis as a method of reviewing conclusions from a number of independent studies of the same subject, which even more convincingly ensures the veracity of the results obtained.
But as I wrote earlier, people are people, and even highly educated doctors and other medical professionals are no exception. Many of them rely on old habits and learned knowledge that is not in line with the latest evidence. They often reject findings if they contradict their anecdotal experience, due to prejudice, and for many other reasons that have nothing to do with the truth. The practice of evidence-based medicine is a process of lifelong, self-directed learning in which patient care creates a need for knowledge of important information related to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatments based on the best available data.
I wondered whether it would be possible to organize a life away from medicine guided by the same principles. That's why I invented the title of this text, thinking it was original and in accordance with my intent. I was pleasantly surprised to find out that a site with the same name exists *** sponsored by the Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Research, which is affiliated with Cornell University. Its mission is to bridge the gap between research and real life. The founders of the site are concerned that over the past 20 years we have been "bombed" with too much information on every conceivable topic. Their purpose is to separate the right scientific information from the wrong and thus guide readers towards the truth, verified evidence based on sound scientific studies. As an illustration, I will list a few randomly selected texts:
Scientific Consensus is that Humans Are Causing Climate Change: A new scientific review concluded that more than 99% of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 2012 and 2020 find that climate change is mainly caused by humans.
Is science reliable? The problem comes when media sources report the results of correlational studies as proven facts, instead of the first step in a years-long research process. Here at EBL, we use systematic reviews and meta-analyses to provide the most reliable research findings to use in everyday life.
How Much Do You Really Need to Exercise? The two new studies seem to identify an ideal amount of daily exercise for prolonging your life: about 30 minutes or 7,000 steps a day. Exercising less than that amount may be correlated with a shorter lifespan.
Drinking Coffee Is Actually Good for You: A new systematic review published in the New England Journal of Medicine has found a surprising number of health benefits associated with coffee and caffeine.
I think this sample is enough as an overview of how the scientists on this site give advice, based on the best scientific evidence available at the moment, that we can apply in everyday life. Solid scientific research provides important information to facilitate decision-making. However, it is important to think critically and to be open to new knowledge because, as I have said many times in this text, all truths are relative.
* Man for Himself, by Erich From, Fawcett, 1986
** The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by Thomas S. Kuhn, University of Chicago Press, 1962
*** https://evidencebasedliving.human.cornell.edu
Comments