Not diet related per se, but a nice little article about a talk that Michael Crichton gave back in 2003 about the dangers of consensus science. In researching low carb diets we’ve all come across this kind of thing, though they generally use phrases like “it is well established that’ or “it is well known that” when criticizing the LC way of eating. As the man says, science only ‘requires one investigator who happens to be right’.


Michael Crichton explains it best when he said:

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.


And he continues:

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What are relevant are reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

This needs to be made a sticky in this forum. That way when I read some article that says "the consensus is" I can find this easily and copy it to put in the comments to the article.

Peer review is another problematic concept that people fall back on alot. I get so irritated when people with health issues, even life-threatening issues, are unwilling to look at anything that is not "established". I mean, do they think the bloodletters had it all worked out? We are just a moment in time with as much knowledge - some of it right and some wrong - as we happen to have right now.

EXACTLY!!!

I always liked this one professor's saying, "Half of what we're teaching you is wrong, we just don't know which half."

Peer review and consensus are essential. There are NO logical alternatives. If the professor says he doesn't know which half is wrong, how would you or I (or a legislature or doctor) know?

It is interesting that even with regard to our favorite bugaboo, that diabetics should avoid fat and take statins. When one actually reads the literature there is a consensus that we get lower BGs on low carb and that statins really are not generally helpful.

The distinction is the industrial/medical consensus versus the scientific consensus. And I acknowledge it is difficult to separate the two. Right now there is a heavily financed and organized support for the former. There is no organized support let alone finances for the later.

Thanks for the info. I have a doctor friend who is an indie thinker, and he is open to new ideas, even if they aren't peer-reviewed, and consensus science.

We don't. The problem is, people glom onto what is "thought to be known" like it's a holy grail. When facts come out otherwise they refuse to evaluate anything new. Then of course they can always say "but everyone knows it" to defend their stance.

If people were taught that things are true only on a scale of let's say "Unlikely to be true< ----> Likely to be true" that always leaves the door open for more information. Unfortunately we don't teach young people to think that way. We brainwash them into believing everything they're learning is true.

There was a study I heard about where people where told some new information in two different ways. They did some sort of brain imaging during the study. In one test they told people the information, something they didn't know. Their brains lit up all over the place. In another study they told people that "experts say" and the brain didn't light up half so much. So when we think that an expert is telling us something we say, "Well, it's coming from an expert we don't need to think very deeply on this new info".

Wow. For a moment there I could have sworn we were talking about climate science and AGW. The wheels seem to be coming off that particular bus, maybe we can hope the same thing starts happening to the "sat-fat is evil" bus.

Lots of good points, very interesting thread.

My personal pet peeve is people who refuse to grant non-doctors any credibility

I have a co-worker here who happens to be diabetic. Since he seemed open to the idea, I introduced him to Jenny's Diabetes update blog. When I asked him what he thought several weeks later he said that it was interesting but that he didn't believe everything she said, because she isn't a doctor.

I had to grind my teeth in frustration. Doctors are not imbued with divine knowledge. Even specialists in their field often have it completely wrong, simply because the system is broken. I'd trust an educated layman like Jenny over a specialist that has been brainwashed by the holy "consensus". The point is to determine credibility by looking at the evidence and decide for yourself to the best of your abilities, whether or not they have an MD after their name.

Not to mention that they don't get much nutrition training and what they do get comes from consensus nutritionists (RD = Registered Dogmacists). You should tell your friend about Dr. Bernstein's books - he's a doctor who has seen the light and used it to control his own diabetes (Richard K Bernstein M.D. - The Diabetes Solution & The Diabetes Diet).

I've discussed this at length with a doctor friend of mine. He freely admits he knows little to nothing about nutrition, and he also freely admits that influence and money affect many things in medicine.

Because "Conventional Wisdom" via the media tells us that doctors are the only ones who have knowledge about the body, and that pharmaceuticals can actually cure many diseases (as opposed to masking/managing symptoms, in many cases-not all) people have been taught to mistrust or ridicule information if it comes from sources other than conventional MD's. The problem is, there are doctors, scientists and academic people (or even science journalists like Gary Taubes) who do not agree with "conventional wisdom," but they are not given many opportunities to voice their opinions or findings. So "consensus" is really a very tightly controlled, subjective thing.

Some of the best information I have received over the years has come from people without a long list of credentials at the end of their name.

Another thing that a lot people don't realize. A doctor must operate within certain parameters determined by his training, his peers, his practice/hospital and the restrictions he operates under (malpractice concerns, insurance etc). He is very much a product of his environment. A doctor can't deviate too much from standard practices, aka the "consensus" unless he be deemed a maverick. At least early in his career. So that pretty much means he can't think too much outside the box. A researcher is similarly constrained. He depends on grants to continue his research and must be careful to keep his credibility when publishing his results. (Which explains why so many papers are completely at odds with their actual results)

So people who are unaffiliated with the medical profession are free to express opinions contrary to dogma. They represent the "freedom of the press" of the medical industry. As such, their viewpoint can be quite valuable (once you eliminate the weirdos and the snake-oil salesman). Dismissing an intelligent, educated and knowledgeable person because he is not a doctor makes as much sense as dismissing an independent journalist because he is not affiliated with a big news organization.

Hey stop dissing snake-oil. It is probably one of the best omega3 fat sources in the world, especially if it is water-snakes...

Yeah, so much for conventional wisdom (snake-oil peddlers are swindlers) being always right, eh?

I need to remind myself of this every time I go to Lyle McDonald's Mean Forum.

Patrick