(Slightly) Abstract

Yes it is, but would you hold that against me? If, as the philosopher Wittgenstein (1953)5 suggests, the whole of philosophy (and I will include the scientific method) could be written as a series of jokes, could this paper be better written by Billy Connolly? The probability of this occurring is p<0.05 (actually a good deal less than 1 in 20), so instead please settle for a bit of philosophy of science, showing that the scientific method is only about as useful as the presuppositional bases of the people who use it. The results arrived at, following a not unholy line of reasoning, show a set of questions used to examine the quality of scientific research according to generally accepted principles (these may change as fashion dictates). The paper ends on a note of desperation and delight, and having examined just some of the difficulties and limitations of the method of scientific research, encourages you to just ‘put up with it’ and have some fun.

‘The words of truth are always paradoxical’          Lao-Tse

Introduction

Good or not-so-good science? How would you know? In a world well practiced in the art of deception and self-deception, what criteria will you use to make your judgement? Many times you might hear the claim that what is being recommended is ‘scientifically proven’, the assumption being that this somehow validates what is being advocated. The question to ask is whether the proof arises from good science or not? In the field of nutrition and diets, there are many claims made for the wonder of new supplements, new miracle substances, new and better ways of behaving, but how may you judge the reliability and truth of such claims? Even the most reputable of science and the most august of professional bodies sometimes make huge blunders in their appraisal of what constitutes healthy behaviour and healthy nutrition; it is only with the benefit of hindsight and further investigation that the new truth is revealed.

Click here for full paper .pdf format