Distrust Phony Science

by Rodney Ohebsion

We're told that a lot of things are "science." In other words, we're part of the public--and the public is presented with a variety of ideas that are labeled as "science." The world sends us the message that "Science has shown us that X is true, Y is false, A is better, B is worse, we should all do J, and not K, etc. It's all science." The world also suggests that it's crazy to disagree with anything that's presented as science--because if something is labeled as science, that means it's either a proven fact, or something close to it. The world also tends to group the various branches of science together, as opposed to stating something like, "Even if two things are presented to the public as science, they might be the products of vastly different systems and processes--even to the point where one branch of science is highly reliable, while another is filled with doubtful premises." Finally, the world points to certain accomplishments of mankind, labels them as triumphs of science, and uses them to back up the claim that science is legitimate pretty much from top to bottom. "Smart phones--science. Farm equipment--science. Polio cure--science. Planes--science. Space shuttle-science. Our knowledge of chemistry--science. Science has produced things like that. Science is legitimate." Nowadays, the public is told to avoid direct, unfiltered sunlight exposure, because it might lead to death by skin cancer. That recommendation is usually presented to us as legitimate, established science. The American Academy of Dermatology is the world's largest organization of dermatologists--and it has taken the position that sunlight exposure is undesirable, and that no sunlight

is better than a little sunlight. In other words, its official position is that 0 minutes of unfiltered sunlight a day is the optimal amount for the typical person. Most other scientsits have that same position, or a very similar one. In 2012, among 310 million Americans, 3,000 died from non-melanoma skin cancer (basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas), and 9,000 died from malignant melanoma skin cancer. The public is pretty much told, "Those deaths were caused by sunlight exposure, and can be prevented by reducing the public's sunlight exposure to 0. Sunlight exposure is bad. Science has shown that." But the actual research data presents a mixed, varied, and complex picture. For instance, there are some studies suggesting that (a) outdoor workers are less likely to get melanoma, (b) regular, moderate sunlight exposure can protect against melanoma, and (c) people develop melanoma more often on their rarely exposed trunks than on their more frequently exposed heads and arms. There's also some data indicating that sunlight exposure might benefit the typical person in numerous ways, and that if the general population were to increase its exposure to unfiltered sunlight, that might prevent numerous deaths from a very wide variety of causes (such as ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis), prevent many bone breaks and fractures, and enhance many people's quality of life. It's entirely possible that (a) sunlight exposure often does significantly more good than harm, (b) the typical person should aim for 5-25 minutes a day instead of 0 minutes a day, and (c) if the general public increases its level of sunlight exposure by 50 percent, that will cause thousands of deaths a year, and prevent tens of thousands of deaths. But for some reason, those ideas are usually hidden from the pubic, and not properly explored by the scientific community. In 2004, after vitamin D (a hormone the body produces when exposed to sunlight) expert Michael F. Holick began recommending sunlight exposure for the general public, he was fired from Boston University's Department of Dermatology by its chairwoman Barbara Gilchrest, who called his book The UV Advantage "an embarrassment for this institution and an embarrassment for him," and she added, "I read better things in ladies' magazines."

The amazing thing is that Hollick's sunlight recommendations are very conservative. To some extent, he got in trouble merely for stating that a little unfiltered sunlight (8 minutes a day) is better than no unfiltered sunlight. All in all, the scientific community isn't especially interested in examining the benefits of sunlight exposure, weighing those benefits against any drawbacks, and then making the appropriate public recommendations. It doesn't feel obligated to do that. Instead, it's attached to the established idea that we should avoid unfiltered sunlight exposure--and it's highly unreceptive to the mere suggestion that a little is better than none. Let's also keep in mind that the "avoid sunlight" recommendation is one of the main ones being made by the scientific community. The message being sent to the public isn't something like, "Well, it's best to avoid direct, unfiltered sunlight. But we have a long list of things we think you should and shouldn't do--and the sunlight one isn't a big deal." Instead, the public is being told that sunlight avoidance is a major item. That's also being presented to us as science. As in, "The science is saying that sunlight avoidance is especially important, while eating more fruits and vegetables isn't." If someone spends a lot of time in the sun, people will strongly advise against it--and they'll even regard his habit as a few steps away from slowly committing suicide. But if someone is eating very little in the way of fruits and vegetables, he'll end up with far fewer warnings from people. In my opinion, the public is made to believe that according to science, sunlight avoidance is very important, while fruit and vegetable consumption is far less important. It's interesting just how little attention is drawn to fruit and vegetable consumption. It's emphasized far less than sunlight, and far less than many other nutritional factors--including cholesterol, saturated fat, and sodium consumption. The public is sent the message that according to science, those three items are far more important than whether you're eating an adequate amount of fruits and vegetables. And yet, the actual scientific data, taken as a whole, hasn't come close to firmly establishing that cholesterol, saturated fat, and sodium consumption are very important. And at the same time, most scientific data supports the idea that eating more fruits and vegetables will benefit the general public. In other words, the public is being told that according to science, it's more important to reduce cholesterol, saturated fat, and sodium consumption than it is to eat more fruits and vegetables--and yet,

the actual science is saying that fruits and vegetables are important, while cholesterol, saturated fat, and sodium might not be especially significant. The interesting thing about nutrition is that the entire field is filled with conflicting studies. It's very common for some major studies to point in one direction, and some other major studies to point in the opposite direction. "High carb diets are better," "low carb diets are better," "high fat diets are better," "low fat diets are better," "we should eat more dairy," "we should east less dairy," etc. When you look at the studies, it becomes apparent that the very "science" of nutrition is largely unscientific. To me, there's really no other explanation for the mixed results of supposedly legitimate studies. The studies, taken as a whole, suggest that our basic idea of nutrition science is highly flawed--and that when we merely reduce everything to a few variables, put together some standard studies, and see things in absolutes, the results are not especially meaningful. Nevertheless, the scientific community has remained attached to the idea that the science is legitimate, and that we have no need to actively explore alternative models and methods of studying nutrition. "Let's put together a standard study to see if eating more vitamin C reduces your risk of colon cancer." In my opinion, that's 95% unscientific. "Let's put together a standard study to see if eating more vitamin C reduces your risk of death." That's 90% unscientific. "Let's put together a standard study to see if eating more vitamin C reduces your risk of death and increases your quality of life." That's 85% unscientific. But the public is told that those studies are legitimate science. The thing is, sometimes those types of studies are legitimate science, and sometimes nutrition does in fact fit that particular type of scientific model. For instance, many decades ago, we discovered that vitamin C prevents and treats a condition known as scurvy. If 100 different groups were to put together 100 similar, bug budget studies on vitamin C and scurvy, all or almost all of those studies would point in the same direction, and suggest that vitamin C prevents and treats scurvy. But the vitamin C-scurvy connection is a very isolated example. And when it comes to almost everything else pertaining to nutrition, our "scientific" studies aren't nearly as valid. If 100 different groups were to put together 100 similar, big budget studies on the same topic, those studies would probably point in

lots of different directions. And that holds true even when the studies are completely uncorrupt, and associated with reputable people and organizations. I think the world applied a standard scientific model to nutrition--and tried to turn nutrition into something comparable to chemistry. We sought to discover what components make up food, and then catalog those components, and use experiments to determine what the components do. The field of nutrition has generally stuck to a line of thinking that's consistent with the "vitamin C prevents scurvy" finding. We see food as something made up of a combination of nutrients like vitamin C, and we design experiments to determine the effects of those nutrients. And yet, after accumulating mountains of research, the field of nutrition has yielded very little--and very few of our findings support the idea that nutrition matches the simple, straightforward "this nutrient has that effect" model, and that we can use standard studies to test what a nutrient does to people. There are some exceptions. Vitamin C does in fact prevent scurvy. But most studies and experiments have pointed in a much different direction. In reality, here's what usually happens: "We tried to determine the effect a nutrient has on the human body. And we're still not anywhere close to being sure. The data is pointing in many different directions." People don't go right out and say that. But their findings do. When we mix hydrogen and oxygen in a laboratory, we can observe what happens, figure things out, and know what to expect the next time we mix hydrogen and oxygen. But when we have people eat less sodium, less cholesterol, more potassium, or more oranges, we really can't figure much out much using a standard scientific model. We expected nutrition to be more or less like chemistry--especially after we learned that vitamin C prevents scurvy. But nutrition isn't chemistry, and most of nutrition doesn't fit the "this nutrient does that" model. There's no "human + 500 mg potassium" experiment comparable to "hydrogen + oxygen." Psychology is another field that suggest it's loaded with established, legitimate science, even thought it might not be. According to psychology textbooks, we've learned a great deal about the human mind and behavior through certain experiments and studies. That's the message being sent to us by psychologists, the educational system, and

society in general. We're shown data from psychological experiments and studies, and then we're presented with the idea that it's a given those studies mean that "this is the case, that's the case, etc." In other words, we're led to believe it's obvious that the study results demonstrate very general, wide ranging, far reaching truths about what people are like. in most cases, the world pretty much tells the public that a psychological study proves or disproves a general idea. "According to a study, most people obey authority." "According to a study, money contributes to human happiness up until the $70,000 a year income level." "According to a study, people are somewhat selfish." "According to a study, most people are conformists." "Look at this study. It shows that people are happier when they do there three things." "This study shows that when you watch the news, it makes you grumpier for the next three hours." "This stuy shows how willpower is some sort of general resource in humans, and it can be depleted and replenished." That's what the public is usually told, as opposed to something more like, "this study seems to indicate ___ is the case, but here are some other possible interpretations," or "scientists examined a study, and came to the conclusion that..." In reality, all we have is an experiment showing that when 100 people were put in a certain situation, most of them did one thing; and when 100 other people were put in a different situation, most of them did something else. That doesn't necessarily mean much. But we're often told that there's only one way to look at the results of that study--and that essentially, it tells us a great deal about what human being are and how they think, feel, behave, etc. in general. Instead of being presented with conclusions that are separate from the actual data, we're told that the conclusions and data cannot be removed from each other, because there's only one way to look at the data, and that the data and conclusions are one and the same. That style of science is not really "science" per se, but we are constantly told it is by the public, and even by scientists themselves. This isn't to say that psychological studies are worthless. I just don't see how they're as meaningful as we're often told they are. I'd say the same thing about the various categories of psychological disorders. They don't tell us that much. Even if Joe and Bob receive a technically

"correct" diagnosis of X Disorder, it doesn't mean they really have that much in common. From a superficial glance, they might have several of the same types of abnormal behavior. But the behavior might not be that similar; or even if it is, it might stem from a much different mix of motives and causes. But we're taught to see much of certain people's behavior and overall personality from the standpoint of X Disorder. As opposed to saying, "There's a lot to his personality," or "There are five main reasons why he has a tendency to ___. It's not just a case of him having X Disorder." Instead, it's usually something more like, "Joe has a tendency to ___. As does Bob. And they both have X Disorder." We're also told things like "Science has shown that Prozac is an effective treatment for depression, due to a simple, straightforward, well understood effect the drug has on a brain chemistry abnormality in depressed people." In reality, there's hardly anything simple, straightforward, and well understood about any of that. 10 people might be depressed for 10 much different reasons--and Prozac might have much different effects on them. But the public is sent a much different message. Western medicine is yet another field where we're often told, "This is established, proven, legitimate science from top to bottom." Out of 310 million Americans, 70 million of them use FDA approved prescription statins, antidepressants, and/or painkillers. The public is let to believe something like, "The health care system uses drug trials that determine what a drug is good for, and it uses doctors who prescribe drugs based on the result of those trails. It's all science, from top to bottom. If 70 million Americans use FDA approved prescription statins, antidepressants, and/or painkillers, almost all of them are receiving the optimal treatment of their conditions." Now, suppose a man in his twenties has slightly elevated cholesterol levels, ankle pain, and slight depression--and he's given a standard dose of FDA approved prescription statins, antidepressants, and painkillers. Is that necessarily the scientifically correct, optimal treatment? Do the scientific trials of those drugs indicate that a standard dose of statins, antidepressants, and painkillers is the optimal treatment for this particular person in his specific state? Is the doctor prescribing drugs to his patient based on the most scientific data available? Do the drug trials properly consider a patient's

overall wellness? Is the doctor properly considering his patient's overall wellness? Have alternatives like a lower dosage of drugs, the use of different drugs, increased fruit and vegetable consumption, moderate sunlight exposure, moderate exercise, regular deep breathing exercises, etc. been properly explored? Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that of the 70 million Americans on FDA approved prescription statins, antidepressants, and/or painkillers, 60 million of them are using those drugs in a way that isn't exactly supported by much science. In other words, from a legitimately scientific standpoint, it's highly debatable whether those 60 million people are actually receiving the optimal treatment. Nevertheless, the public has been led to believe that reliable science is conclusively pointing to the exact same place. Out of 310 million Americans, 200 million of them don't eat at least a few servings of fruits and vegetables and get at least 15 minutes of exercise per day. On their average day, they fall short of one or both of those low, basic standards. The health care industry is considered science-based. It strongly encourages tens of millions of people to use FDA approved prescription statins, antidepressants, painkillers, and other pharmaceuticals, as well as surgeries, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy. But it's not nearly as active in telling 200 million Americans to eat more fruits and vegetables and/or get more exercise. In a certain sense, the public is told that according to science, it's more important to use treatment like drugs, surgeries, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy than it is to meet modest minimums in the way of fruit and vegetable consumption and exercise. And keep in mind that there's a lot of safety in parroting consensus views. If you tell someone to stay out of the sun, and then he follows your advice and he ends up dying of colon cancer, getting MS, developing diabetes, becoming depressed, or developing bone problems, you're essentially blameless to most of the world. Few people are going to suggest that the lack of sunlight might've been a factor in any of that. But if you tell someone to get 20 minutes of sunlight exposure a day, and then he follows your advice and he ends up getting any type of skin cancer, what do you think most people will say? They'll defer to the "science" that says sunlight is bad. They won't account for how that science might be partly illegitimate, and how even though it's

recommending 0 minutes of sunlight a day for the general public, the optimal number might actually be in the 20 minute range. If someone from an academic / medical circle were to say, "Instead of monitoring your cholesterol, saturated fat, and sodium consumption, just eat more fruits and vegetables," he would create a lot of enemies in that world, and hardly any allies. When someone is given a conventional treatment and he recovers or at least survives and maintains his health for far longer than expected, the usual conclusion is, "The treatment was effective." And if his condition worsens, the usual conclusion is, "The world did the best it could with him." But when someone is given an unconventional unpatentable treatment (diet, exercise, sunlight exposure, relaxation exercises, fresh air, laughter therapy, massage, herbs, meditation, visualization exercises, music therapy, acupuncture, etc.) or no treatment at all, if his condition worsens, most people think, "Conventional treatments would've helped him, and/or alternative treatments hurt him." So of course, we're constantly bombarded with orthodox, conventional, "scientific" views on topics like sunlight exposure, cholesterol, saturated fat, and sodium consumption, and health care. What's my point? Well, I'm not necessarily trying to promote alternative medicine over conventional medicine, or disqualify nutritional and psychological studies, or launch an attack on mainstream scientific organizations and the mainstream media. My point is that the public is being sent numerous messages about what science has done and what science is telling them, and those messages have caused people to form certain beliefs about what is and isn't the case, what should and shouldn't be accepted, what should and shouldn't be done, etc. But the greater portion of those beliefs aren't based purely on legitimate science. In many cases, there's also a strong element of plain old human narrow-mindedness, arrogance, herdmindedness, self-interest, etc. that come into play and shape what the scientific community is telling us. But the net product is made to resemble the product of a reliable scientific process. Meanwhile, the public has its own motives and characteristics that make it accepting of the message being sent, and eager to pass along that message, and reward those who also accept and promote it. The public, the mainstream media, and the mainstream scientific community all support and contribute to each other in this process--and

ultimately, we end up with lots of unscientific ideas that are represented by as legitimate, firmly established, and not worthy of examining and debating. Nowadays, the mainstream scientific community, the mainstream media, and the general public commonly vilify individuals for promoting unorthodox views--even if those views are very far from being extreme and presumptuous. If someone so much as suggests that maybe the general population should get a moderate amount of sunlight, he'll be regarded by many as a promoter of harmful anti-science. Many people will equate his view with others that run contrary to orthodox science, like, "Water doesn't contain oxygen," "The earth is flat," "a squared + b squared /= c squared," etc.--as if to say that the mainstream "avoid sunlight" recommendation is similar to and as scientifically established as the most basic, widely held ideas in the world. "Don't get any sunlight." That's considered legitimate science from a legitimate source. "Maybe you should spend 10 minutes a day in the sun." Many people with authority will label that as dangerous, unscientific extremism that shouldn't get a hearing. "Maybe 10 minutes" is considered a less scientific and more extremist idea than "definitely 0 minutes." But in my eyes, it should be the exact opposite. That, to some extent, describes the system in place today--and that system is regarded as science. There are plenty of people who will tell you, "My husband died because he spent too much time in the sun." "My friend died because he didn't wear sunscreen." "My brother got skin cancer because he didn't wear a hat." Etc. But it would be extremely bizarre and offensive to hear someone say, "My wife died because she didn't get enough sunlight." "My cousin is depressed because he stays out of the sun." "My friend's cancer would be far less advanced if he'd sunbathed regularly." I'm not saying the latter group is right. I'm merely pointing out that the public is trained to think a certain way--and that's purely the result of our cultural influences. 12,000 American die each year of skin cancer--and to the general public, sunlight is the culprit, plain and simple. A countless number of other people die of other causes, have health problems, have emotional problems, and have deteriorated bones--and sunlight is seldom even considered a possible factor.

The scientific community and mainstream media are constantly telling us, "Sunlight, skin cancer, death." "Sunlight, skin cancer, death." "Sunlight, skin cancer, death." That's being represented to us as science. It's legitimate to present that simplified picture as science, without presenting any additional details. Millions of people have died of skin cancer of the last few decades. And a countless number of people are going around saying, "Sunlight killed Jim Smith," "Sunlight killed Jane Jones." etc. The public has been trained to think that way, without going much further on the sunlight issue. It's hard to argue with a scientific community and mainstream media that are saying, "Sunlight, skin cancer, death." "Sunlight, skin cancer, death," and a countless number of people that are saying, "Sunlight killed Jim Smith," "Sunlight killed Jane Jones." "Sunlight, skin cancer, death. Look at the millions of people sunlight has killed. We should stay out of the sun completely." For the most part, that's considered the mainstream scientific view. And that's the message most commonly accepted by the general public. "Not all skin cancer deaths are entirely rooted in mere sun exposure. Not to mention the fact that sun exposure has many significant benefits. Maybe people should get a little sun, instead of no sun. We should consider that possibility. We should research it much more." Somehow or another, that's considered a form of extremism. In my opinion, if the world were in fact on the side of legitimate science, then the first view would be considered extremism, while the second view would be the moderate, orthodox one. Not to mention the fact that people would be trained to make a major distinction between the type of science tha says "Water contains oxygen," and the type of scence that makes any type of public recommendation on sunlight exposure. In other words, legitimate science wouldn't group those two types of science together. "Water contains oxygen" is an established idea that's the product of one type of science. "We should get no sunlight" or "We should get some sunlight" is something much different. In my opinion, the public isn't trained to make the proper distinction between those two things. And that, in a certain sense, is extremely unscientific.

"A Harvard researched put together a study indicating that potatoes lead to weight gain." "A highly regarded doctor authored a study that says the Mediterranean diet beats all other diets." "According to a study, people should eat this and not that." The public hears those things from the mainstream media, and it accepts them as legitimate, proven science. It has a very limited awareness of how studies like that are performed all the time, and they often come to completely different conclusions. I'd say that 95% of people don't realize how common it is for reputable, legitimate sources to study the same topic, and up making completely different conclusions. And when people read an article that tells them "A Harvard researcher put together a study indicating that you should eat this and not that," they seriously consider the idea that they should eat this and not that. And should I, non-Harvard researcher Rodney Ohebsion, suggest that the matter is still subject to debate, most people will throw out my suggestion. They'll say, "A Harvard researches is saying that a study shows how X is the case--and now you're suggesting that X maybe not be the case. I'm gonna side with the Harvard researcher." I can't even get him to consider the idea that even though one guy from Harvard is saying that X is the case, there might be plenty of others with similar credentials who are far from willing to accept that premise. For some reason, in a lot of people's eyes, I'm arrogant and insane merely for not accepting what one USA Today article is saying about what one Harvard researcher is saying about one study he put together. A lot of people have that attitude when it comes to one article's presentation of one researcher's interpretation of one study. So you can only imagine what people's attitude is like when you refuse to accept a more widely held scientific view like "Sunlight is bad. It kills people." If I, non Harvard researcher Rodney Ohebsion, say that sunlight may or may not be bad, and that it's possible 20-30 minutes of sunlight is better than 0-5 minutes, many people will counter, "Fuck you! Scientists are saying 0-5 minutes is better. And I know some people who were killed by sunlight-like John Smith and Jane Jones. Why would I take your horseshit opinion over science?" Most people have that type of attitude, many of the rest have a less extreme form of it--and as for those who are more receptive to an unorthodox view, most of them are what I'd consider to be narrow-minded extremists. I'm a fucking genius, and this is the bullshit I come across in all corners.

The world has neglected to utilize my genius. Meanwhile, some motherfucker like Jimmy Fallon is set to become host of The Tonight Show, even though there are 100,000 people more suitable for the position. I'm not complaining. I'm merely pointing out that there's a culture and system in place, and it has some pluses and minuses--including a minus like The Tonight Show with a Phony, Suck Up, Ultra Conformist, Company Man Named Jimmy Fallon. And meanwhile, Rodney Ohebsion's brilliance has been relegated to bottom shelf status, as his material is posted on the internet and basically ignored by everyone. "My daughter was having a dance thing at her school. They had this big dance. Anyway, we all went, all the parents, and everybody's there, and everybody's got their phone, every single parent. It was an amazing thing to watch, because kids are dancing and every parent is standing there like this. Every single person was blocking their vision of their actual child with their phone, and the kids, I went over by the stage and the kids, there's people holding an iPads in front of their faces. It looked like we're all in the witness protection program. Like, the kids can't see their parents, and everybody's watching a shitty movie of something that's happening ten feet. Like, look at your fucking kid. The resolution on the kid is unbelievable if you just look. It's totally HD. Why are you taping this? You're never gonna watch it. In a million years, you're not going to watch videos of your kids doing shit you missed the first time it happened. You don't watch it. You just put it on Facebook. 'Here, you watch it. I want to take a nap now.' And then you get to read all the comments. 'Oh my GGGGGGGGGGod! It's so cute! Ngaaaaaaaaaaah!' And guess what? They're not watching it, either. They're not watching the video." Louis CK. "Milk is a big problem for people in the supermarket. They're never quite sure if they have it, if they need it. They bury it way in the back in the supermarket. You gotta find it, you gotta hack your way through all the displays. 'Yeah, there it is. There's the milk.' 'Do we have any milk?' People are never really sure if they have milk. You think you have milk, you might have. 'I know there's a carton in there, I don't know how much is in it.' 'Well, what shall we do?' 'Cause you wanna be sure. There's nothing worse than thinking you have milk and not having it. You know, you got the bowl set tup, the cereal, the spoon, the napkin, the TV, the newspaper--everything's ready to go. You lift up the carton--and it's too light. 'Oh, no! Too light!' Or sometimes you think you need milk: 'Hey we'd better pick up some milk.' Like many of you are thinking right

now. 'You know, he's right. Maybe we should pick up some milk.' So you pick up some milk on your way home. And then you discover you already have milk. And now you got way too much milk. That's no good either." Jerry Seinfeld. "How about when you're out on a small boat on a windy day? You ever been out rocking back and forth for three or four hours trying to keep your balance, rough seas, little boat, then you get back into the shore and you're standing on the dock and you could swear there was something inside of you that was still out there rocking? ... Do you ever notice how sometimes all day Wednesday, you keep thinking it's Thursday? And it happens over and over all day long, and then the next day, you're all right again. ... Did you ever fall asleep on a late afternoon, you wake up after dark, and you don't know what goddamn day it is? ... You ever been sitting in a railroad train in the station and there's another train sitting right next to you, and one of them starts to move, and you can't tell which one it is?" The legend, George Carlin. "Do you ever walk up to a door, stick your hand out, grip the handle, and then turn it clockwise--and then you pull in the door and open it, walk through the doorway, turn around, grab the handle on the other side, and close the door? And then later, you come back to that same door, and you open it!" Give me my Grammy. The public is more or less told that "science is science." And it's told, "This is how science works. This is the way science ought to be approached. And we ought to place our faith in what's represented as science." Many things are presented to us as science. Many vastly different activities, belief system, and topics are put under the umbrella of science. The diverse ideas, practices, subjects, etc. within the worlds of medicine, nutrition, psychology, chemistry, physics, engineering, etc. are constantly presented to us as science. The same thing goes for most things associated with advanced technology. "It's science. When nutritionists and psychologists make far reaching conclusions based on their various studies, that's generally considered science. The world has demonstrated little willingness to properly and fully distinguish between one science and another, and it's created a culture that considered it somewhat bizarre to do so. It's not especially common for us to consider how a particular type of science is, in many ways, a separate entity from science in general; or how different varieties of "science" might have little in common with each

other; or how similar scientific methods might not have similar applications to two different fields. The world has made many major advances in legitimate science and technology. The public is told to associate those advances with anything else that's being called science. We're more or less told, "The science responsible for chemistry is also telling you to take statins." "The science that created wireless internet is also telling you to take antidepressants." "We landed on the moon." "Prozac is an FDA approved treatment for depression." "According to most psychologists, Milgram's study shows us how people go very far in obeying authority." "Vitamin C prevents scurvy." "Reduce your sodium and cholesterol intakes." "Our knowledge of chemistry enables us to do all of these things." "Our knowledge of psychology tells us all of these things." "Wireless internet." "The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders." "99 cent solar powered calculators." "There's only one way to look at this data." "Hydrogen + oxygen." "Here's the mainstream view of what a famous psychological study tells us about the mind and human behavior." "Trigonometry." "There's a connection between money and happiness up until the $75,000 a year income level." "Airplanes." "Conventional educations." "TVs." Science. Science. Science. Science. There's not much of connection between one thing and the other. And yet, we're constantly encouraged to believe that there is.