I’m going way out on a limb with this post and maybe opening myself up to a bunch of “you are completely nuts” emails, but I think what I have to say really needs to be said. Â So here goes anyway…
Over the years, I have gotten increasingly comfortable with anecdotal evidence as opposed to scientific studies when it comes to health-related topics.
Have any of you noticed that you are starting to feel the same way?
If I notice a pattern where a few of my trusted friends tell me that they have discovered that doing this or eating that is helping their families’ health, I tend to be more receptive to this message than when a big media story trumpets some big new “health breakthrough”.
Health Breakthrough? Â Â Yawn.
It seems that much of the so-called “research” on health these days is really covert marketing by drug companies, Big Food, and others.
Using “science” to manipulate the buying habits of consumers? Â Absolutely!
Anecdotal evidence, on the other hand, is based primarily on personal observation and case studies. Â If this observation comes from a trusted source, then it has much validity in my experience.
Think about the dietary philosophies of ancestral cultures. They did not have the scientific method to lean on.
Anecdotal evidence was all they had to navigate through their choices about what to eat and what not to eat on a daily and seasonal basis.
Health anecdotes were passed down from generation to generation. Â Â Those who did not follow these anecdotes either died or failed to reproduce.
Nature is harsh when her rules are not obeyed.
This is not to say that I do not value the scientific method. Â Â On the contrary, I find truly objective, scientific studies to be a great achievement of our modern culture. Â Done right, these types of studies have the power to identify critical information that is of real value to humankind.
Unfortunately, it seems that the scientific approach to health and wellness is coming under increasing abuse nowadays which partly explains the resurgence and popularity of anecdotal evidence.
Moms seem especially open to anecdotal evidence from those they trust. Â Â Moms networking together and providing support and information to help each other grow healthy children is a very powerful force in the world.
Never underestimate the power of the hand that rocks the cradle.
Wise Traditions is a bit of a watchdog in that regard.
The letters in Wise Traditions are also very interesting, providing one anecdotal story after another about how a traditional diet has helped a person or family come back from the brink of ill health.
Balancing the anecdotes, many of the Wise Traditions articles are extremely detailed and heavily rooted in science – science done right, that is, with objectivity and impartiality.
Anecdotes or the scientific method? Â Which do you value more and why?
I think that relying on one or the other (anecdotal versus “studies”) is foolish. Of course, scientific studies can be wildly biased. Of course, anecdotal evidence can be missing important factors that affect the outcome. But personally – I too find myself looking much more seriously at anecdotal information (where there is less reason to believe that someone has a vested monetary interest) and looking much more askance at scientific studies (that are funded by Big Food, Big Pharma, or Big Chemical – and the results favour the group funding…) ALL research – regardless of who conducts it – will have bias. We need to discern carefully and make choices for ourselves. Over the years, I no longer just take “on faith” what any health professional says. I decide for myself.
I love you. That is all. 🙂
Hi Sarah.
More and more I trust my body or/and anecdotes.
Scientific studies do have their merits, espeically when it comes to nutritional supplements for example. I am currently doing a practicum for my course and in order to provide most recent recommendations to my health volunteers, the school expects me to do thourough research about nutritional supplements that I might recommend to them.
However lots of studies have funding bias. For instance for my Nutrition Research course I was critiquing a study about orange juice and its ability to help hypercholesterolic individuals. The study was funded by Tropicana Products, Inc. So in a way Tropicana benefits from this study, if the results are positive (and accroding to the study, their were). But the results might have been affected by basic human nature to give something in return, in this case, coming up with positive results (since the study was sponsored by citrus juice company, even the most ethical reserachers could have been influenced by their sponsor, thus having fundig bias).
I always hate when a few health magazines talk about latest research on supplements/foods but NEVER seem to list sources of where they got the info from – since after taking the above mentioned course I rather read the research myself and come up with my own conclusions.
Sara, that was beautifully said – even poetic! Thanks for taking a moment to comment!
Just found this great blog! Now I know I'm not the only "crazy" one. 🙂
The scientific method is based upon positivism, which does not recognize the subjective nature of the questions being asked or the interpretations being concluded. Science is based upon an epistomological system of axioms that are simply embraced as self evident. In other words, Science is not an exact science. It's useful, but has been given way too much credit.
What is appealing about anecdotes is that it places everything in the context of Story. Story is dynamic, it has motion, it flows. The story of our health must be placed within the story of our lives, of those we interact with, and with the whole universe. An anecdote wields no authoritative sceptor, but leaves the listener free to gather it inside like a precious gem, or toss aside as rubbish, as it is compared to and weighed against the whole life experience and gathered knowledge of her existence. It comes in the form of a mother's gentle advice as opposed to a dictator's threat.
I've spent ten years in research labs and I could not agree with you more-I trust anecdotes!
While I appreciate an elegantly designed and executed experiment, science is more emotionally driven than most people think. I admire a scientist who is motivated by their work; but so many times the direction of research (ie. drug development) has more to do with personal preference, ease or profit. And I'm not talking about dishonest drug companies, It's just that science is not so scientific because people are involved.
We all know individuals respond in different ways to different diets, drugs and even exercise. It's genetically proven, if that helps those of you on the scientific method side of it. Listen to your body, it knows what it's doing.
And, to top it off, I trust 300 years of human use over an often too controlled study with 300 participants that lasted 6 months.
Personally, I tend to make my decisions based on anecdotal evidence because I think it's the best information I have access to.
However, I think that doggedly trusting anecdotes over the scientific method or claiming that anecdotes offer better information than the scientific method is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The scientific method is superior to anecdotal evidence *when properly applied*. And *when honestly interpreted*. When abused, the scientific method is no better than, and often worse than anecdotal evidence.
We have more than five senses through which we can perceive our world however "science" generally does not recognize them! Consequently there is a lot more to what we are and what we have to work with in our search for truth, etc. than science knows! Yet there is a New Medicine dawning that is wholly focused on the truth of who and what we are and especially what we think, what we believe and what we know in our gut! For many of us it is what's in our "gut" that is our true authority! Following our gut may be a radical thing for those of us who have been raised to follow outer authority. I think we are at a time when more of us are realizing where our true authority is and learning how to follow that. The more I hear others share from their own authority the more encouraged I am that we will recover our power/s and everything else that we gave to outer authorities! Thank You One and All for voicing the "anecdotal" and all the other "evidence" indicative of either your own senses or your own discovery process!
Trusting anecdotal evidence is what helped traditional societies find perfect diets.
Trusting scientific evidence has lead us to the SAD diet with all its problems.
Nuff said.
Debbie, what you said about the mother-in-law and the lettuce is a good point, but I think the answer is doing your own "scientific experiments". Exclude thing and monitor changes. Change one thing at a time.
Sometimes bad reactions to foods are immediate and obvious. Sometimes there is a delay. Sometimes a substance builds up and it takes years to get rid of it.
If you don't eat what the mother in law serves for a few months and continue to have the symptoms, you can at least conclude that she isn't the only source. If you then try not eating prepackaged lettuce and the problem disappears for good, you have your answer.
It takes time, but one can track down (to some extent) what is making us sick.
Tina
I think one of the most important parts of this post is that the "scientific" studies are truly scientific. How many of these highly touted studies are paid for by the very people who stand to profit immensely from a specific result? I worked as a pharmacy technician for 5 years. Drug reps HATED me, because as they attempted to tout the results of the studies that support use of their drug I always asked who paid for the study. If their company paid for it, they didn't get to talk to my pharmacist. Sorry, but my pharmacist had more important things to do than listen to biased spin. I still follow the money trail when looking at anything claiming to be supported by science.
That said, in my massage and my husband's physical therapy practices we use evidence based approaches. Most of this would be considered anecdotal, as it's based on trial and error with one heck of a detailed treatment record, but after nearly a decade it would be one hell of a coincidence that hundreds of patients experienced the same anecdotes.