Detonation Range

In July of 2009 the American Medical Association published two journal articles suggesting that healthy eating and exercise can significantly reduce chances of cardiovascular heart disease. Condensed-news website Shortnews reported the findings and received a tepid response from the attached forums. “[I]‘m sure any 2 year old could tell you what the scientists found out.” One poster whined. Other posters complained that the funding probably came from the taxpayer’s pocket, what an outrage. This response to published research findings is far from unique.

Leaving aside the fact that newspapers routinely sensationalise the findings of research for marketing purposes, it is common to see the nature of current research appearing in the popular media. It seems that whenever research confirming a seemingly self-evident truth is published in the mainstream media, the response (at least on Shortnews, whose forums I visit regularly) ranges from lukewarm to openly hostile.

Consider a study from my own discipline of Psychology which (at least according to the mainstream news) discovered that the mental health of a child’s father has a more profound effect than expected on the mental health of a child. A poster complains at how much money can be wasted “on things we already knew!”

The nature of these complaints generally follows the formula; “This truth was self-evident, self-evident truths do not require researching, therefore this research was a waste of money/time.” After all, if we all already knew something, why bother confirming it?

In its most basic form, this complaint fails at the first hurdle. Many preposterous hypotheses have, in the past, been accepted as ‘self-evident truth’ and then later been discovered to be totally false. The idea that the Earth is the centre of the universe comes to mind, or that it is only a few thousand years old. The temptation to crow “I knew that!” when empirical data confirms an old wives tale or traditionally accepted piece of folk wisdom is understandable, but it is important to remember the thousands of ‘truths’ that empirical research has disproved. More simply; one cannot state the factual accuracy of a maxim until it is empirically supported in some way. Yes, it does seem obvious that a father’s psychological state influences that of his children, but as an undergraduate I would be extremely disappointed to see one of my Psychology textbooks say; “The mental health of parents influences the psychological states of children because it’d have to. It’s obvious.” As indeed I would be disappointed to see any similarly banal claim in any science.

What then, can be said about hypotheses which have already received empirical support in the past? Surely it’s a waste to re-do experiments or research in the same area which supports the idea that an active lifestyle and healthy eating reduce the risk of heart disease.

Not so. As one poster rightly identifies, “without constant study we would be left in the dark.” Science is not a process in which a hypothesis which is supported is then abandoned on a shelf as unassailable truth. Indeed, such dogma is more the domain of Religion. It is important to verify and build on the findings of past research. Old ideas must be challenged and either verified and expanded or abandoned to accommodate new and more accurate ideas. Not only that, but not all studies are created equal. Flawed research methodology can lead to inaccurate results. Re-testing is extremely important to guarantee the continued veracity of scientific testimony. Some early psychometric research (IQ testing and related areas) by Stanley Porteus in South Australia allegedly discovered a lower average intelligence capability in Aboriginal children compared to white children and that an Aboriginal adult male“had the brain capacity of a 13 year old white schoolboy.” (Bin-Sallik 1990, pp. 9-11).  Subsequent research showed these findings to be spurious and the result of bad research design, but at the time (1915) policy makers claimed to have known this all along. Imagine if the complainers had stepped in then. A waste of money to do more research, we know these Aboriginal children are incapable of the same intelligence as white folks. The idea is outrageous.

So my response then, to those forum-goers who complain that research is frivolous, a waste of taxpayer money or that scientists should “do some real scientific studies” is a suggestion that they consider the way the process of science actually works. Enduring theories (like Darwin’s natural selection, an old favourite) are not made so by simply accepting the findings of one study and refusing to do any further research, but by continued research which finds the same or similar results. Furthermore, folk wisdom or ‘common knowledge’ are not true simply because “everyone knows that.” Attempting to argue any point with this shameless appeal to the authority of the majority quickly collapses, buried under the avalanche of its own stupidity. Empirical support is needed to make fact claims and continued empirical support is required to continue to make them.

References:

Bin-Sallik, M A 1990, Aboriginal Tertiary Education in Australia, how well is it serving the needs of Aborigines?, Underdale SA, South Australian College of Advanced Education.

Shortnews 2009, Study: Fathers Psychological Problems can have an Effect on Children, viewed 21 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=78570>

Shortnews 2009, Study: Americans Choose Media That Reinforces Their Political View, viewed 22 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=78957>

Shortnews 2009, Study: Doing Healthy Stuff Makes You Healthy, viewed 22 August 2009, <http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=79781>