scienceimage

As a health researcher, I often cite scientific studies to better drive home a point. I could even offer such a reference here, if I felt the need.

But citing references isn't the point of this article.

The empirical research behind those citations is the point of this piece.

THE MODERN-DAY ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT SCIENCE

As you probably know, for centuries, organized religion attempted to both circumvent and squash scientific discovery. From the rise of Theodosius the Great in 379 to the murder of Hypatia in 415, Christianity had all but slammed on the breaks of science, hurling the world into the Dark Ages.

Why?

Well, empirical research threatened large swaths of existing "sky fairy" theory. And The Church would have none of it. So brazen was The Church's attempt to denounce scientific observation that they'd routinely imprison, if not execute, any scientist willing to push his findings into the public domain.

Today, some will say artists are at the helm of the anti-science movement. I beg to differ on this claim. My background is in creative writing, and I can tell you that most so-called "artists" don't disapprove of science at all. Rather, they're somewhat intimidated by it. Science is logic and reason, and artists find more comfort in free-flowing thought and creative pursuit; they prefer to reside amid a realm of soft edges and ambiguous rules. That does not mean they disdain or even disapprove of science. One is red. The other is blue. Nothing more.

From what I've observed, the two societal sects that have seemingly stirred up the bulk of the anti-science crusade in recent years are: people of fringe-fanatical faith and those in the metaphysical realm.

The aforementioned group---which you find worldwide---wish to denounce empirical research in favor of their chosen crusade.

Why?

Who knows. Endorphin Addiction is one possibility. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is another. Even Delusional Disorder fits like a glove.

But who really knows...unless we study it!

You'll also find a lot of metaphysics folk that hate empirical research. If it disproves the notion that those "healing" crystals can actually "bless" your water during the equinox, the hell with empirical research, ya know?

But, with all due respect to god and Mother Universe and Uncle Karma and the whole esoteric clan, it's not faith or any "cosmic flush" that rectifies: poverty (sociology); hunger (agronomy); health epidemics (epidemiology); financial crises (econometrics); environmental discord (ecology); water contamination (hydrology); wildlife loss (zoology); or the likes.

It's science.

WHY EMPIRICAL RESEARCH IS A MUST

The Problem of Induction aside, empirical research, far more often than not, provides solutions. Authentic solutions. In theory and proper practice, empirical research is built upon a rigorous and thorough platform. The Scientific Model. A double-blind methodology. Peer-reviewed findings. Each study built upon an existing study...built upon an existing study...built upon an existing study...until one day, when it's all been critiqued to death by fellow researchers...

It either becomes fallacy...

Or it becomes truth.

This is a long, long way from the off-the-cuff verbiage spewed by some longevity "guru" at the pitch-fest that doubles as an anti-aging conference.

Sure, there are a few scumbags in Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) that will lie, cheat, or steal simply for the sake of financial gain and notoriety.

Sure, there are plenty of multinational corporations "sponsoring" research today, in all market segments, including the health sciences. These corporations pay researchers to conduct studies in such a way that their findings shed favorable light on said corporation, often suppressing any data that runs to the contrary.

But that shouldn't discredit the idea of empirical data itself. It's not the means to such data that should be questioned; it's the motives of participating researchers that should be scrutinized. Truth be told, these latter researchers often report accurate data...albeit partial data, and that which favors their corporate client.

Unfortunately, this type of research behavior does indeed fall outside the ethical boundaries of scientific discovery: every researcher has a moral obligation to publish his/her findings. It's the way science eventually finds truth---by building layer upon layer upon layer of findings, each previous layer as pertinent to the final truth as the subsequent. In other words, you cannot count to three without first counting to one then two.

A TRACK RECORD IS PARAMOUNT

True knowledge takes time to amass. You don't earn a Ph.D. in a month. You don't become an Olympic skier in a week. You don't learn to fly an airplane in an hour. With all due respect to one Tim Ferriss, there's no Master the Universe in 4 Hours eBook floating around.

Well...not yet, at least. :)

Knowledge takes time. It requires research. It needs testing.

It demands real and proven answers.

"But," you say, "science despises the alternative health realm, and I have no interest in traveling down that allopathic road, ever again."

Fair enough. But, frankly, you're wrong.

Yes, the allopathic realm pretty much sucks. To a large degree, it's little more than a corrupt, toxic, cut-it-out, poison-it-to-death, trillion-dollar, symptom-care sham.

However, in regards to Complementary & Alternative Medicine (CAM), empirical research shows that healing arts like acupuncture, chiropractic care, qi gong, tai chi, yoga, meditation, shiatsu, kinesiology, and even reflexology can indeed be viable wellness mechanisms.

So, too, does empirical research support an array of herbs, including those used in TCM, Ayurvedic, European, and Native American healing.

It also supports aromatherapy. And essential oils. And flower essences.

Truth be told, empirical research supports a veritable gold mine of Complementary & Alternative Medicine modalities.

In other words, CAM and EBM are, at times, synonymous.

WHY CAM RESEARCH REMAINS RELATIVELY INVISIBLE

However, this enlightening data often remains relatively invisible.

And, the reasons are two-fold.

Firstly, you have the allopathic industry using its trillion-dollar clout to bully, bait, and batter the Complementary & Alternative Medicine realm. For every one study the CAM world finds in its support, the Allopathic Antagonists sponsor three dozen to dispute it or dwarf it.

To add insult to injury, the Allopathic Angatonists use every opportunity they can summon to belittle anything and everything in the CAM sector. They prefer to label its practitioners "quacks" and "loons" and "witch doctors." They'll go out of their way to tell you chiropractors aren't real physicians, that herbs are dangerous, that acupuncture is voodoo science, and that moving meditation, like yoga and qi gong, has little health benefit.

For whatever reason---or perhaps a trillion reasons---the Allopathic Antagonists can't help but indulge in adolescent acrimony toward their CAM counterpart.

Secondly, there are just too many outlandish claims by alternative and holistic "gurus." Let's take maca, for instance. Yes, empirical research shows that maca is nutrient-dense and can in fact increase stamina in men.

However, there's no such data to support maca as a testosterone influencer. In fact, quite the contrary holds true. Yet, hordes of internet "health gurus" continue to push the notion that maca does indeed increase testosterone in men.

Why?

Well, because some dude responsible for first bringing maca to the United States in the 1990s and subsequently labeling it a "superfood" began shouting this notion.

And it stuck.

Except...

It's a bu#%sh^& claim. At least, as of today.

And the more bu#%sh^& claims from a specific sector, the less reputable that sector becomes. And the more the populace take any subsequent claim from that sector "with a grain of salt."

WHY EMPIRICAL RESEARCH IS SO IMPORTANT TO YOU!

I'm going to list here three ways in which empirical research is not only important to the world at large, but how it helps you.

1.) Consumer protection. Peer-reviewed research protects consumers. It's a system of checks and balances that guarantees a certain level of truth. And that level of truth, on its own, protects you.

It's only when, as previously mentioned, corporate scientists release partial or contrived findings that the process gets corrupted.

In theory, and in less corrupt nations, empirical research protects you from the bogus claims of huckster brands and gluttonous corporations.

2.) Discovery. It's true every hypothesis begins with imagination. How can it not? A researcher must first imagine what is not yet there in order to pursue its existence.

However, just because someone imagines it doesn't mean the concept will ever see the light of day. There must be some type of discovery process. I mean, it's not like you're just going to come up with this notion that concrete cures cancer and the world is going to take you seriously. Forget accepting it as truth; the world won't even listen to that claim...until a process of discovery commences.

3.) Solutions. The chances of we, as people, finding any real solutions without first asking ourselves a question...then forming a hypothesis...then constructing a methodology...then testing our sentiment...

Is remote.

In truth, you, yourself, conduct empirical research each and every day. Through your own "research," you found the best route to work, foods the kids actually like, the organic fertilizer that makes your lawn grow best, the most comfortable pillow, the best workout routines, the most satisfying sexual positions, etc.

Every solution you've found has been based on "empirical research."

Thus, if we seek solutions, empirical research is simply the process of life.

There are no two ways about it. :) - Nelson

PS: If you enjoy this article, please support our service by clicking here.