How do you argue with people who say that "research isn't the answer to everything"?

Vivara

What's the best response? If someone has an argument about something, and there are countless numbers of studies and endless amounts of research disproving what ever nonsense they're spouting, and I mention it, I'm often greeted with an "ah there he goes on about all that evidence" or "you can't beat life experience" or "ah, sure look it science doesn't have the answer to everything".

How on earth do you deal with these people? I have a feeling it's the way I put across my point sometimes, more so than what I'm actually saying.

For instance, my mother still insists that her vast life experience of being a mother outweighs all the science and concrete evidence that going out in the cold can't actually magically supplant a cold virus in your bloomin' nose (or even make you more susceptible to it).

These are the same kind of people who say "ah, you have the answer for everything". Well yeah, so what? — I'm right!

Well?

Capt'n Midnight

The old addage about arguing with fools comes to mind.

If people aren't going to accept evidence then they are taking things on faith. At which stage you arguing about politics/religion/soccer instead of a interrogative investigation of the truth.

Unless you can figure out what sort of evidence they would accept, and sticking fingers into wounds is very unhygienic, all you are really are doing is trying to convince the undecided members of the debate's audience.

Manach

Then again, your mother sounds like a wise woman. She has taken onboard the experience hueristic that there are a greater prevalance of colds during the winter conditions. That the basic cause of colds is a virus does not take away from the illness transmission vector is increased by the seasonal effects of winter (lowering the resistance to colds or people spending more time indoors and so a greater opportunity to catch a cold).

IRWolfie-

Vivara wrote: »

For instance, my mother still insists that her vast life experience of being a mother outweighs all the science and concrete evidence that going out in the cold can't actually magically supplant a cold virus in your bloomin' nose (or even make you more susceptible to it).

You need to encourage her to think critically, but you can't get in her face. This episode of skeptoid has a good approach in general: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4116

nozzferrahhtoo

I guess I would point out to such people that in fact "Research is not only not the answer to everything... it is not the answer to ANYTHING. Instead it is the source by which we get the data used by which we do form the answers to everything".

Getting the answers to questions is a good thing. Research does not give us the answers. It gives us the evidence and data which we should be using in forming the answers however and that is key. Because sure as hell blind guess work in the absence of evidence and data really is NOT the answer to anything.

Vivara

Vivara wrote: »

"ah, sure look it science doesn't have the answer to everything".

It doesn't.

How on earth do you deal with these people?

You question their position, put your position forward, and then, as long as their opinion isn't hurting anybody, leave them be.

When I'm having a few cups of coffee with family and my father makes me a second cup of coffee, he takes the cup I already have and rinses it under cold water using his hand to rub off the dried on coffee from the previous one. I've asked him why he does this. He says he's cleaning the cup for me. I've explained that cold water might rinse off the old dried on coffee, and might rinse off some bacteria, but without hot water and soap he isn't killing any germs and he's only adding the germs from his hands, and I'd be better of with the coffee stained cup the way it was, just with any cold coffee rinsed out. He claims his hands are clean and the cold water does the job, sure doesn't the cup look clean afterwards. I explain that there are bacteria everywhere. He says I'm being silly and doesn't agree with me. I tell him he can keep doing what he's doing, but to please humour me when it comes to my cup. He agrees. Everyone wins. You don't have to make people agree with you.

djpbarry

true-or-false wrote: »

I've explained that cold water might rinse off the old dried on coffee, and might rinse off some bacteria, but without hot water and soap he isn't killing any germs and he's only adding the germs from his hands, and I'd be better of with the coffee stained cup the way it was, just with any cold coffee rinsed out.

But hot coffee is going to be poured into the cup, killing pretty much anything in there, so ultimately it doesn't really matter.

However, sometimes it does matter. For example, I have a cousin who insists that people take off their shoes before entering her house as she wants to minimise her son's exposure to "germs". Of course he's going to be exposed to said "germs" in the garden, but I comply anyway - as you say yourself, it's a minor inconvenience and it's not doing anyone any harm. However, this same cousin is refusing to have said son vaccinated. Now, that's a very different matter indeed, because she's putting her son's life at risk (and the lives of other kids he comes into contact with).

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

But hot coffee is going to be poured into the cup, killing pretty much anything in there, so ultimately it doesn't really matter.

It's not a huge issue, I still drink it when he's done the hand-rub thing, but he rubs his fingers right around the rim of the cup, after doing the same to all the others and personally it bothers me that he thinks that's [i.e. whatever's on his hands before touching the cups + whatever he's picked up from the rim of all the other cups] more sanitary than my own mouth bacteria. It's extremely unlikely to ever contain anything harmful (although my mother is very prone to cold sores which I'm wary of picking up) but I'm bothered by my father's refusal to understand that the dried coffee is not the only thing on the cup.

Capt'n Midnight

djpbarry wrote: »

However, this same cousin is refusing to have said son vaccinated. Now, that's a very different matter indeed, because she's putting her son's life at risk (and the lives of other kids he comes into contact with).

you could ask her to look up the link between asthma and overly clean houses




Why can't people understand that for some diseases vaccination is the lesser of two evils for the individual, and that even if there were measurable risks in vaccination then for some diseases that risk would only have to be taken by once because our descendants wouldn't have to face that disease.

There are lots of pseudoscience sites that claim that such diseases are dropping of their own accord, even though the 21st century deaths from measles in Ireland undermine the statistics they claim.


Worst terrorism in the world today by death toll are those trying to keep polio alive. It's only kept in check by an unsustainable effort.


If someone wants to have their kid vaccinated that's their right, but they better have third party health insurance and expect to be quarantined at their own expense if there is an outbreak.


Unfortunately there is a subset of people who haven't a clue about risk assessment, and just aren't interested in the common good.



If science knew everything it would stop :pac:

locum-motion

djpbarry wrote: »

But hot coffee is going to be poured into the cup, killing pretty much anything in there, so ultimately it doesn't really matter.

However, sometimes it does matter. For example, I have a cousin who insists that people take off their shoes before entering her house as she wants to minimise her son's exposure to "germs". Of course he's going to be exposed to said "germs" in the garden, but I comply anyway - as you say yourself, it's a minor inconvenience and it's not doing anyone any harm. However, this same cousin is refusing to have said son vaccinated. Now, that's a very different matter indeed, because she's putting her son's life at risk (and the lives of other kids he comes into contact with).

The answer to that one is not to allow the child into your house (nor your child into her house) until it has been vaccinated.

Vivara

true-or-false wrote: »

It doesn't.

Well, obviously. But you, and the people who say that "sure look it, science doesn't have the answer to everything" are missing the point: science knows it doesn't have the answer to everything. Otherwise, it would just stop.

The link that IRWolfie- posted is a great link, and it's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

How about this question: how do you gracefully (I tend to fumble a lot) respond to someone who thinks life experience is a lot better than someone who has done a lot of research on something? Someone who has followed loads of people in a study and got evidence for something? I have heard people explain this really well and get people to agree with them, but I'm not good at it.

Yes, of course I know the option is to just let people be and not argue, but I knew that option was always there, and that's not what I'm looking for.

Capt'n Midnight

locum-motion wrote: »

The answer to that one is not to allow the child into your house (nor your child into her house) until it has been vaccinated.

no point, kids swap germs at school

it's one of the reasons why things like flu and such aren't as prevalent in summer, wonder if anyone's done a study on this and cost/benefit between health spending and smaller classes ?



life experience to take a fullblown reductio ad absurdum example is like falling off a skyscraper, as you wizz by the 17th floor you can say to yourself "so far so good" , it's the experiment of one



Like Douglas Adams said there are two amazing things about humans, that they can learn from the experience of others, and that they don't

yes there are people who've smoked every day and lived to be 104

locum-motion

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

no point, kids swap germs at school...

You know that, and I know that, but the person who won't let the shoes in the house or vaccinate the kids obviously doesn't.
But since they're not listening to reason anyway, maybe they'll listen to irrationality!

Call Me Jimmy

Now I might get into a bit of trouble for this but wisdom is not a load of crap and I'm getting the distinct impression that educated children are treating their parents like idiots. Research obviously is not the answer to everything, but we would not be anywhere medically without it and it can be used to assess risk.

But in the OP's example I would give more weight to a mother's (assuming she's not a nut) opinion on something like common cold. By more weight I mean just that, I wouldn't exclude research that overwhelmingly shows something different but where there is doubt I would take wisdom and experience into the equation.

Maximus Alexander

Vivara wrote: »

For instance, my mother still insists that her vast life experience of being a mother outweighs all the science and concrete evidence that going out in the cold can't actually magically supplant a cold virus in your bloomin' nose (or even make you more susceptible to it).

Your mother is right.

Her life experience doesn't outweigh science or concrete evidence. It does, however, outweigh your knowledge on the matter.

Can a chill cause a cold?

Folklore indicates that chilling such as getting your feet wet in winter and going out with wet hair may cause a common cold but until recently there has been no scientific research to support this idea.

Recent research has demonstrated that chilling may cause the onset of common cold symptoms. A study at the Common Cold Centre in Cardiff UK in 2005 took 90 students and chilled their feet in cold water for 20 minutes and showed that the chilled group had twice as many colds over the next 5 days as a control group of 90 students whose feet were not chilled.

The authors propose that when colds are circulating in the community some persons carry the virus without symptoms and that chilling the feet causes a constriction of blood vessels in the nose and this inhibits the immune response and defences in the nose and allows the virus to replicate and cause cold symptoms. The chilled person believes they have caught a cold but in fact the virus was already present in the nose but not causing symptoms.

Vivara

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Your mother is right.

Her life experience doesn't outweigh science or concrete evidence. It does, however, outweigh your knowledge on the matter.

Actually, I have read this study before. I'm only a first year med student, so I don't have a huge understanding. But I do have an understanding better than most.

This was one study, and it contradicts many previous studies on this. And while ninety isn't a very small sample size, it definitely isn't large enough to reach the conclusion you seem to have reached. There are always studies which result in opposing conclusions to many other studies. It happens all the time in drug trials. What is most important is the overall trend, and this can only be ascertained by something like a meta-analysis or a systematic review of all the data. I would be fairly certain that such a review, however, given the many studies previously done, would reach the conclusion that there is little or no association between being cold and getting a cold. One study doesn't cancel out all the previous ones.

Plus, it relies on the assumption that a subclinical infection can be miraculously converted to a clinical infection because of some kind of external cause like airway cooling. This doesn't wash, because there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case, and those who conducted the study admitted as much.

And finally, if you already have a subclinical infection, you've already caught a cold; you're just not displaying symptoms. It's still true that you can't have a cold virus magically supplanted in your nose, or even make you more susceptible to it in the first place.

Already having an asymptomatic cold and suddenly developing symptoms (even if it were possible for this to be caused by something such as nasal ischaemia) is not the same as "catching a cold", and it's not what I was arguing about in my original post.

Maximus Alexander

Vivara wrote: »

This was one study, and it contradicts many previous studies on this.

I linked one source. It is not the only source that exists, or the only study done to reach these conclusions. I would go so far as to say that the majority of evidence agrees that being exposed to cold temperatures increases your susceptibility.

The data available suggest that exposure to cold, either through exposure to low environmental temperatures or during induced hypothermia, increases the risk of developing upper and lower respiratory tract infections and dying from them; in addition, the longer the duration of exposure the higher the risk of infection. Although not all studies agree, most of the available evidence from laboratory and clinical studies suggests that inhaled cold air, cooling of the body surface and cold stress induced by lowering the core body temperature cause pathophysiological responses such as vasoconstriction in the respiratory tract mucosa and suppression of immune responses, which are responsible for increased susceptibility to infections.

Vivara wrote: »

Already having an asymptomatic cold and suddenly developing symptoms (even if it were possible for this to be caused by something such as nasal ischaemia) is not the same as "catching a cold", and it's not what I was arguing about in my original post.

It is exactly the same as "catching a cold" as far as your mother is concerned. The onset of symptoms is what she is talking about and it would be obtuse to suggest otherwise. Why would she be concerned about you "catching a cold" if it only meant that a harmless, symptomless virus would take residence in your nasal cavity for a short time?

Vivara

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I linked one source. It is not the only source that exists, or the only study done to reach these conclusions. I would go so far as to say that the majority of evidence agrees that being exposed to cold temperatures increases your susceptibility.

I know you're trying to be clever, but that's not a study. That's just a review article. If you were to actually read the article itself, you would discover that the Cardiff study is the only experimental study that had demonstrated this link. If you can link me to any other experimental study which reached this conclusion, I will happily accept that I am wrong. But as far as I know, there aren't any, and that makes you look rather silly for saying that "that the majority of evidence agrees that being exposed to cold temperatures increases your susceptibility".

Yes, they also discuss some statistics taken from clinical databases, but many academics have reached several differing hypotheses about the evidence they discuss:

• Periods of low environmental temperatures lead to an
increase in the incidence of respiratory tract infections

This has been discussed many times in the literature, and I think the explanation that periods of low environmental temperatures encourage people to spend more time indoors in warmer environments (due to heating) where cold viruses can survive is much more believable. They don't seem to say anything that refutes this hypothesis. And while I don't have time to read it in detail, I think the evidence they are discussing refers to things other than URTIs (such as colds), but more LRTIs, laryngitis and croup — not what we are discussing here.

• Periods of low environmental temperatures lead to an
increase in mortality primarily due to cardiovascular diseases,
and to a lesser extent due to respiratory tract infections

Again, this isn't what we're discussing here, either. There actually wasn't a huge statistically significant effect on RTIs in relation to mortality, but there was some correlation it seemed. But still, death from RTIs is not the same as catching one.

• Therapeutic hypothermia leads to an increase in infectious

Might be interesting if the therapeutic hypothermia wasn't 48 hours long.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It is exactly the same as "catching a cold" as far as your mother is concerned. The onset of symptoms is what she is talking about and it would be obtuse to suggest otherwise. Why would she be concerned about you "catching a cold" if it only meant that a harmless, symptomless virus would take residence in your nasal cavity for a short time?

I see where you are coming from. But actually, the arguments I have with my mother have specifically related to the presence of the virus. Plus, given the way I specifically phrased my original post, you're still kind of barking up the wrong tree:

Vivara wrote: »

For instance, my mother still insists that her vast life experience of being a mother outweighs all the science and concrete evidence that going out in the cold can't actually magically supplant a cold virus in your bloomin' nose (or even make you more susceptible to it).

Even if we were to take the single study you posted at face value, it still doesn't contradict what I said.

And finally, even if there were more than one study demonstrating this effect, it still doesn't explain the altogether controversial idea that external factors can cause an asymptomatic infection to turn into one with symptoms. It sounds like the researchers couldn't explain their red herring result, and made up some kind of hocus pocus hypothesis. (That is kind of there job, in fairness though.) The interactions between a virus and the immune response are on a biological and molecular level, not a physical one, and there's plenty of evidence to demonstrate that.

Maximus Alexander

I can absolutely see why people react the way you claim they do to your arguments.

I know you're trying to be clever

Crap like this would put anyone off speaking to you.

Vivara

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I can absolutely see why people react the way you claim they do to your arguments.

Crap like this would put anyone off speaking to you.

Look, it was interesting that you posted that study, and it was well worth mentioning. But when I explained why it wasn't as significant as you thought it was, you did indeed try to be clever and say that "the majority of available evidence" supported this theory, hoping that I wouldn't have the wits to form a response.

Yeah, it was a bit sarcastic and I'm sorry for that, but not out of line when it comes to spoofing.

Vivara

Vivara wrote: »

I do have an understanding better than most.

This is probably why people wont listen to your argument. No one wants to listen to someone try to convince them that they're better than them.

Vivara wrote: »

Well, obviously. But you, and the people who say that "sure look it, science doesn't have the answer to everything" are missing the point: science knows it doesn't have the answer to everything. Otherwise, it would just stop.

I'm not missing the point. You asked how to argue with people who say science doesn't have the answer to everything. I said it doesn't. You've agreed. Maybe you'd like to reiterate your point?

How about this question: how do you gracefully (I tend to fumble a lot) respond to someone who thinks life experience is a lot better than someone who has done a lot of research on something? Someone who has followed loads of people in a study and got evidence for something? I have heard people explain this really well and get people to agree with them, but I'm not good at it.

So you're not looking for a way of explaining the value of research to someone - you're looking for a way of explaining the value of "someone" who has done research to someone who hasn't. Again, it seems obvious why your efforts at communication might not be working.

Vivara

true-or-false wrote: »

This is probably why people wont listen to your argument. No one wants to listen to someone try to convince them that they're better than them.

I don't know whether I've got caught up in some kind of weird spat here, but telling people that I'm a medical student generally actually does the opposite; they are much more likely to understand and accept what I'm saying.

And they also appreciate that I tell them that I don't have a true understanding of whatever topic we're arguing about, and even though I do have very limited experience, I do indeed have a "better understanding than most". (Otherwise the first three-quarters of a year of medical school would be a waste if I didn't understand medical studies and review articles better than the average Joe.)

If you're looking for things to catch me out on, I really don't think this is the one to pick out.

true-or-false wrote: »

I'm not missing the point. You asked how to argue with people who say science doesn't have the answer to everything. I said it doesn't. You've agreed. Maybe you'd like to reiterate your point?

You're completely missing the point in that people who say this aren't simply and literally saying that "science doesn't have the answer to everything" but instead are deliberately trying to devalue "science's" argument and not let it hold any water.

true-or-false wrote: »

So you're not looking for a way of explaining the value of research to someone - you're looking for a way of explaining the value of "someone" who has done research to someone who hasn't. Again, it seems obvious why your efforts at communication might not be working.

Thanks for that insight, there, but I don't really see what you mean. Could you explain it a bit more? Nothing I've said here would lead me to believe that I'm trying to explain the value of "someone" who has done research to someone who hasn't. I don't think that comes into it at all really. What I'm looking to do is just to know how to phrase the argument properly, not try to get philosophical like whatever you're saying. I think the Skeptoid link posted by someone else earlier is very good, and that's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, so it's not like whatever I'm saying is lost on everyone's ears. And reading about the discussion surrounding the Skeptoid link, it seems very many people have similar issues to me with this.

I think it's quite funny that my opening post openly stated that I'm no good at these kinds of arguments, and then successive posters think they're making slam-dunks when it comes to informing me as such. You're a bit late to the party. Anything you're saying about my argument skills, I've already noticed about myself. That's why the thread is here in the first place. Still, that doesn't mean that there are spoofers and people with worse arguing skills in this thread, and it's OK for me to point them out when they happen to be commenting about something in relation to my field of study.

Justin1982

Vivara wrote: »

What's the best response? If someone has an argument about something, and there are countless numbers of studies and endless amounts of research disproving what ever nonsense they're spouting, and I mention it, I'm often greeted with an "ah there he goes on about all that evidence" or "you can't beat life experience" or "ah, sure look it science doesn't have the answer to everything".

How on earth do you deal with these people? I have a feeling it's the way I put across my point sometimes, more so than what I'm actually saying.

For instance, my mother still insists that her vast life experience of being a mother outweighs all the science and concrete evidence that going out in the cold can't actually magically supplant a cold virus in your bloomin' nose (or even make you more susceptible to it).

These are the same kind of people who say "ah, you have the answer for everything". Well yeah, so what? — I'm right!

Well?

My philosophy is "Dont argue with an idiot, just laugh at them"

That way you always win!

Vivara

Justin1982 wrote: »

My philosophy is "Dont argue with an idiot, just laugh at them"

That way you always win!

Yeah :P

I was just hoping there might be some way to do it.

IRWolfie-

Vivara wrote: »

I know you're trying to be clever, but that's not a study. That's just a review article. If you were to actually read the article itself, you would discover that the Cardiff study is the only experimental study that had demonstrated this link.

The problem with people linking to studies rather than peer-reviewed systematic reviews (preferably Cochrane reviews) is that it's a lot easier to cherry pick what suits them (as Alex did).

IRWolfie-

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Her life experience doesn't outweigh science or concrete evidence. It does, however, outweigh your knowledge on the matter.

No, personal experience is subject to so many cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, confounding factors, perceptual illusions etc (http://www.skepdic.com/hiddenpersuaders.html ) that it does not outweigh anything or amount to anything in trying to convince others of anything. You are (effectively) putting forward a non-placebo controlled, non-randomized, non-controlled study of one as having merit. Now, you may try and argue that his mother may be coincidentally right, but that would be a different argument.

Vivara

IRWolfie- wrote: »

The problem with people linking to studies rather than peer-reviewed systematic reviews (preferably Cochrane reviews) is that it's a lot easier to cherry pick what suits them (as Alex did).

Yeah, I'm actually reading Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre at the moment, and his emphasis on systematic reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration and well-done meta-analysises is very strong. I agree that these are definitely the best way of judging a hypothesis.

But in this case, he was suggesting that there was more than the one study he had mentioned, and he linked to a review article claiming it was a study. But as I said, if you were to actually read the (poor) review article, you'd see that the Cardiff study is still the only study conducted that reached this hypothesis. If it was a good review article, it would mention the many other studies which contradicted this, instead of coming to an inaccurate conclusion.