People want you to be honest… but only as long as your honesty benefits them.
The same applies to science: people want you to be a scientist, but only as long as you don't question their science. Because when you do, you're not considered a scientist anymore; you're either a hater, a liar, or just a fraud making things up.
I can't say if this is true in all branches of science, but this type of scenario seems to be particularly present in the health industry. And when I say "health industry," I mean the whole industry, not just the fields that pertain to movement health.
That said, I'm still scratching my head about how we could address this. It really is a major problem that is holding us back as a civilization. In fact, it's probably not the kind of problem that will be fixed all at once—it’ll be a series of small changes that will compound over time and transform the system we're operating in.
The way I see this is that there are two areas in which some smaller changes will take place, which will then lead to bigger changes through time:
- The System - That is, how we conduct science in and of itself.
- The way people behave in the system.
The former revolves around influencing the environment, while the latter is about modulating the actors in the environment.
Changing how the scientific system operates will likely involve new technologies such as blockchain and IP tokenization. However, I'm not an expert in that field, so I'd suggest you read on the topic of decentralized science (DeSci) if you want to learn more.
When it comes to how people behave in a system, however, I do have a few things to say, and even some suggestions on how to behave for those who wish to positively impact or influence the problem at hand.
*****
The first thing you can do to help the situation is to avoid falling into ideologies.
I define ideologies as principles or systems that have been created by someone and are supposedly the answer to everything.
Unlike first principles, which are fundamental truths, since ideologies are only a representation of someone’s or a group of individuals' opinions or interpretation of life. Therefore, they often contain some truths mixed with some fallacies.
It's a tedious task, but you can decipher what is true and what isn't if you get good at asking two questions:
1. Why?
This will help you dig deeper into the subject and potentially find some first principles.
What is tedious about this is that you first have to identify the different variables that are at play in the subject, then ask why a few times for each and every variable. If you do this well enough, you will eventually arrive at first principles, which will very often revolve around some degree of physics.
Here’s an example of a framework you can use:
Q1: Why do people lie?
A1: Because they perceive it as beneficial in a given situation.
Q2: Why do they perceive it as beneficial?
A2: Because it helps them avoid harm, gain advantage, or influence outcomes.
Q3: Why does avoiding harm, gaining advantage, or influencing outcomes matter?
A3: Because survival and success depend on navigating social and environmental challenges efficiently.
Q4: Why does survival and success depend on navigating social and environmental challenges?
A4: Because organisms must adapt to their surroundings to continue existing and reproducing.
Q5: Why must organisms adapt to their surroundings to continue existing and reproducing?
A5: Because natural selection favors traits and behaviors that enhance survival and reproduction.
Q6: Why does natural selection favor traits and behaviors that enhance survival and reproduction?
A6: Because life operates within a competitive system of limited resources and entropy.
Q7: Why does life operate within a competitive system of limited resources and entropy?
A7: Because all systems, including biological ones, follow the laws of thermodynamics, where energy must be obtained and efficiently used to counteract entropy and sustain order.
At this point, we’ve reached physics, and if you wanted to push further, you’d have to learn about thermodynamics.
Let’s move on to the second question:
2. In which context would this statement not be true or applicable?
The thing with information and facts is that oftentimes, it's not about whether they are true or not; it's about how true they are. Therefore, this question will help you position the information you're being subjected to on what I call the “truth spectrum,” and thus, knowing the limit of how true a fact is.
A good example of this would be with the statement, "Improving our biomechanics will improve our self-confidence and nonverbal communication."
This may be true in cases where one's self-esteem is affected by very aesthetically poor posture, but it might have nothing to do with contexts where the lack of self-confidence stems from poor skills in a new workplace. If this were the case, then working towards acquiring the right skillset will likely have a much bigger impact on an individual's self-confidence than if they were to work on their posture.
This scenario is a perfect example of how a statement can be true and false simultaneously, and what dictates its validity is the context in which the statement was presented.
If one were to accept the statement "Better biomechanics improves self-confidence" without defining the context in which it is true or not, they would essentially be subscribing to an ideology.
The second thing you can do to contribute to society becoming more scientific is to investigate both sides of a story that doesn't fit your narrative or worldview.
More specifically, you want to investigate the story you're being subjected to so thoroughly that you know what is true and what isn’t, and why that is.
This ties into my previous point: truths often exist on a spectrum rather than being binary.
Therefore, you want to deconstruct stories so well that there is no room for opinions or interpretations, and if someone in the story is wrong, you want to understand why they are. (Even more if this person is you.)
For example, I don't recommend people do passive stretching, and I can explain why down to the molecular level if I wanted. That said, if a stretching advocate were to contradict me, I'm not sure they would match my depth of understanding to deconstruct my point of view. They wouldn't, because if they did, they probably wouldn't be stretching to begin with.
However, if someone were to present me with an entirely new fact that I’ve never heard of, I’d investigate a lot deeper before even having an opinion on the subject.
The third thing you can do is to work on your resilience of character. That is to say, you want to be okay with adopting an opinion and the behaviors that follow, even if it isn't convenient.
What I came to realize through time is that people subscribing to ideologies often do so for convenience. Their social circle believes the same thing they believe in so adopting a contrarian opinion would lower their popularity, their salaries would be affected if they were to change point of view… or they just don’t want to bother with the trouble of validating if they are right.
The problem with convenience is that while it may benefit the individual on the short term, it ultimately harms society on the longer term. And if people were smart enough, they’d realize that hurting society ends up hurting themselves as well on the longer term on many aspects.
Everyone dreams about a “better future,” but building a better future is inconvenient at first.
So, toughen up, ditch convenience and embrace truth instead.
****
So this was my two cents on the subject.
What I wrote there isn’t anything new, as I’m definitely not the only one who speaks about this. In fact, I will admit that as I wrote this, I couldn't help but think that I shouldn't be wasting time writing this since everyone already knows this stuff—it’s the kind of thing we teach to children.
But looking at how people behave tells me a different story. So, even if this isn’t entirely new info, I hope this may provide some guidance or at least spark some reflections that will germinate later down the road.
Also, keep in mind that there is so much more that could be said about all this, but if someone can grasp and apply just a fraction of what I've said, things will be better.
Peace
—Sam
PS: Nearly every text I publish online is first written by hand before being converted into digital format using a Handwriting Text Recognition (HTR) software called Pen2Txt.
The pens I use are from a company called Karas Kustoms. Thanks to their craftsmanship, their pens allow me to streamline the process of generating ideas and putting them into words—something I can only do as well with pen and paper.
If you haven’t already, I’d invite you to check out their IG page and maybe even drop a few likes or a follow to show support for both my work and theirs!