By MARYA ZILBERBERG, MD, MPH

I am so tired of this all-or-nothing discussion about science! On the one hand there is a chorus singing praises to science and calling people who are skeptical of certain ideas unscientific idiots. On the other, with equal penchant for eminence-based thinking, are the masses convinced of conspiracies and nefarious motives of science and its perpetrators. And neither will stop and listen to the other side’s objections, and neither will stop the name-calling. So, is it any wonder we are not getting any closer to the common ground? And if you are not a believer in the common ground, let me say that we are only getting farther away from the truth, if such a thing exists, by retreating further into our cognitive corners. These corners are comfortable places, with our comrades-in-arms sharing our, shall we say, passionate opinions. Yet this is not the way to get to a better understanding.

Because I spend so much time contemplating our larger understanding of science, the title “Are We Hard-Wired to Doubt Science” proved to be a really inflammatory way to suck me into thinking about everything I am interested in integrating: scientific method, science literacy and communication and brain science. The author, on the heels of doing a story on the opposition to smart meters in California, was led to try to understand why we are so quick to reject science:

But some very intelligent people I interviewed had little use for the existing (if sparse) science. How, in a rational society, does one understand those who reject science, a common touchstone of what is real and verifiable?

The absence of scientific evidence doesn’t dissuade those who believe childhood vaccines are linked to autism, or those who believe their headaches, dizziness and other symptoms are caused by cellphones and smart meters. And the presence of large amounts of scientific evidence doesn’t convince those who reject the idea that human activities are disrupting the climate.

She goes on to think about the different ways of perceiving risk, and how our brains play tricks on us by perpetuating our many cognitive biases. In essence, new data are unable to sway our opinion because of rescue bias, or our drive to preserve what we think we know to be true and to reject what our intuition tells us is false. If we follow this argument to its logical conclusion, it means that we just need to throw our hands up in the air and accept the status quo, whatever it is.

Continue reading…

By JOHN HENNING SCHUMANN, MD

A thirtysomething friend of mine, let’s call her Sally, started running last year in an effort to get in better shape.

As often happens in these scenarios, Sally developed some foot pain. So she went to a “foot” doctor (I’m not sure whether she meant a podiatrist or an orthopedic surgeon specializing in feet).

Reasonably enough, the doctor ordered an x-ray of her foot. The official reading showed no fracture, but there was a “questionable” finding on the edge of one of the midfoot bones such that the doctor couldn’t rule out some more insidious process. A stress fracture, perhaps? Those can be awful, and take a long time to heal.

So, again in reasonable fashion, the doctor ordered a CT scan of Sally’s foot. This is the logical next step if a plain old x-ray is abnormal. Heck, a lot of the time, even when an x-ray is normal, we still order the CT scan looking for something that we can’t see on the x-ray.

And though I said this was a reasonable choice, if you really think about it, was it so reasonable?

Continue reading…