Over the tinnitus retraining therapy
last few decades I’ve been exploring the age-old debate between belief and evidence, and why the two camps never seem to reach common ground. For a rationalist like myself, the choice is a non-starter. In areas where it’s appropriate (i.e. science, history, medicine, and other empirical subjects) evidence has to trump belief. One should never start from a conclusion (i.e. “UFOs are visitors from another planet”) and cherry-pick or invent data to fit that conclusion.
Note the distinction. I’ve no heartache if someone just wants to believe in ghosts, God (pick any), or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (long may his noodly appendage wave). That’s a matter of personal choice, and you’re welcome to it. But I and others who share this attitude tend to get testy when supporters of a given topic start citing invalid or suspect evidence to support their beliefs.
For example, the substance Thimerosal has become permanently embedded in the public consciousness because of its alleged link with autism. Celebrities, who generally shouldn’t be trusted with anything more important than a burned-out match, have jumped on the bandwagon. Concerned parents claim their child became autistic as a direct result of vaccination, and many outlandish claims have been made regarding the “evidence” surrounding Thimerosal, which was largely removed from vaccines years ago as a result of the uproar.
The problem with all this is that the alleged autism link was based on a single study involving only twelve (yes that’s right) individuals. And the researcher who published it used a flawed methodology. Since then, numerous additional studies have been run using much larger patient cohorts, often well over a thousand, and none have shown a link with autism. Yet the hysteria persists, with many vaccines-cause-autism supporters either ignoring the new data or claiming it’s tainted by so-called “big Pharma” tampering (a form of special pleading).
The debate between evolution and creation is another example of the same phenomenon. Scientists cite the mountains of data that support evolution as the mechanism by which modern humans appeared on Earth, while creationists continue to support divine intervention. The problem is not the latter’s belief, as stated earlier. It’s that the case they present requires a preconceived conclusion (”God did it”) and shoe-horns the available evidence into conformance with this conclusion.
Science doesn’t work that way: it starts with a hypothesis, compares it with data derived from experimental or other resources, then arrives at a conclusion based on that evidence. The conclusion is always subject to revision if new evidence becomes available. Scientists don’t believe in evolution, the heliocentric view of the solar system, or quantum theory: they accept (or don’t accept) the evidence supporting it, and understand that it’s all provisional. But that’s generally not how the rest of the world understands or perceives evidence.
Interestingly, the business world is a good place to turn for an understanding of the rationale surrounding belief-based reasoning. Business cases, which are commonly used when determining which strategies and projects will be adopted, follow a methodology very similar to those used by non-scientists.
In a business case, the conclusion generally is presented first. The author then describes and outlines evidence that directly supports the conclusion, as well as any supporting documentation that was used to arrive at it. The document is designed to persuade, not necessarily to educate, the reader. While a business case can (and should) present evidence both pro and con, the document is based on the assumption that this evidence has already been weighed. The intent is to persuade an audience that the conclusion as the appropriate course of action for the business.
An instructor at the Harvard Business School told me this concept is often extremely difficult to teach to scientists and engineers who are used to approaching the problem from the opposite (evidence-based) direction. This also explains why scientists and religious folk, or engineers and business people, are often at loggerheads. They speak totally different languages and, generally, have different goals. One side wants all data to be taken into account before a conclusion is reached and is often completely disinterested in the politics of the situation. The other has already decided on a course of action, and isn’t interested in additional argument unless it represents a threat to that decision.
Understood in this way, it’s no wonder the two sides argue as they do.