Scientific Method and Relativism
We can wend our way through history and marvel at the “scientific” inaccuracies of the past. This is an easy enough experiment, and I hope I don’t have to provide examples of past scientific truths that no longer hold up today, but here are a few just in case: until the 1990s, scientists believed that gravity was slowing down the expansion of the universe, however science of today says the universe is expanding at an ever increasing speed. Also, Pluto was a planet when I was a kid, and as of today, dinosaurs are supposed to have been covered in feathers.
This stuff will probably all change too.
I’ve found the more difficult trick to be, knowing for myself what is right, despite what I’m being told by current “experts.” There are so many battling theory’s floating around about the causation of our current “obesity crisis” that to try and pick one to believe is tantamount to declaring religious faith. And let’s not forget that each major religion has it’s own fragmented sects, those who interpret the divine in the ‘right’ way. My head spins every time I’m presented with a new WHY, i.e. WHY are so many people gaining so much weight…
I have a theory, it’s backed up by scientific evidence, I’ve talked about it on the podcast and the point of this dispatch has nothing to do with that.
The point is… drumroll… Science CHANGES!
The most sciency reason for science changing is this: science requires tools by which to measure data, as the tools improve, the science reveals new “truths.”
It is not a rigid thing built upon a foundation of absolutes: light can be slowed, the gravitational constant has been shown to have some problems, a single particle can exist in two places at once… But for my life, functionally, none of that data is even relevant.
The other thing to keep in mind, a lot of dietary “truths” are being sold with some moral bent and as far as I can tell, there is no morality in science. It’s just data. Of course, one could use this data for moral or immoral purposes, but the distinctions between right and wrong should and must be of a personal nature.
I have found all diets I’ve done that ultimately set me in a caloric deficit, have worked to reduce my weight. Some are not specific about this deficit and just give you a list of foods to eat or not eat, and so provide a bit more freedom of choice over quantity of consumed food, and I have managed to not lose weight when doing these in a careless fashion.
If you do not want to eat animals, GREAT! If you do not want to eat GMO’s, GREAT! Lectins, gluten, nightshades, processed food, carbohydrates, sugar, anything but meat… GREAT GREAT GREAT.
What are YOUR PREFERENCES? This is a journey for you, and it’s one thing to try something that’s been successful for another, but another thing entirely to attempt to believe something that wasn’t necessarily true for you yesterday.
I can totally understand that adherence to something may be easier with the addition of morality, or the belief that it’s the best or only way, I am simply advocating that it be the best way for YOU, and only YOU can know that for sure.
BTW, there’s plenty of science on the placebo effect, belief is a powerful thing!
If something about a diet resonates with you, maybe that’s the one for you.
There are two major school’s of thought that I can see today, one is the Be Responsible school, the other is the Blame Food school. Either one can work, both schools have successes and failures. In between these two schools of thought lies a wonderful zone devoid of dogmatic rigor, I like to call the Center. The Center can see that we have not necessarily evolved to be capable of physiologically dealing with the sheer quantity of food available to us, while also utilizing some aspects of personal responsibility to deal with this knowledge. I am currently enrolled in the Center.
I believe that anything that has produced a success is valid.
Sincerely,
Ethan Suplee