One missing fact can render an interpretation completely wrong. Even in science.

One missing fact can make an interpretation completely wrong. What hope is there for reliable scientific interpretation then, given the incompleteness of science and the missing facts that necessarily entails? Why do people swear by current scientific interpretations? One should be very skeptical of all of the scientific interpretations and critical of the methods used to gather and statistically analyze the scientific data.

Consider the following example: a woman is observed guzzling alcohol at lunch and driving erratically at the end of the workday. She is confused, irritable, and frequently slurs her words. She is also short-tempered with anyone who questions her about her drinking.

The obvious interpretation of these facts is that she is having difficulties with over-consumption of alcohol.

Now for the SINGLE missing fact that changes the entire interpretation.

Her breath smells like acetone.

She is not an alcoholic. In fact, she drinks no more than the average person. In reality, she guzzles all liquids (alcohol, water, whatever) because she is extremely thirsty. She is so thirsty because she is suffering from extremely high blood sugar and ketoacidosis (both of which carry bound water right out of the body). All of the facts above are explained by diabetic ketoacidosis.

ONE missing fact changes the entire interpretation. We really should keep this in mind when we are tempted to overconfidently act on current scientific interpretations, wherein many facts are missing.

For example: most modern nutritional interpretations are wrong because the scientists have chosen to ignore or disparage the old data, observations, and isolated but meaningful anecdotal evidence. The proper procedure is to model all presumptively valid data and observations. A set of data suspected of invalidity needs to be re-tested.

Advertisements

Gyroscopic pharmaceuticals: A problem

1. There are times when the body needs an unbalanced response to a threat. An example is a panic attack in response to a real danger. The adrenaline, blood sugar and blood pressure are suddenly increased to help deal with the emergency. Prior art pharmaceuticals for high blood sugar and for high blood pressure would blunt the response somewhat. And so would a gyroscopic pharmaceutical – it would be trying to level the response even during the few minutes of real danger, where the imbalance is desirable..

2. Consider also the example where a gyroscopic pharmaceutical seemed ideal: the attainment of a proper or optimal initial pH for starting the digestion process. During the pre-digestion in the stomach, as amino acids are released from proteins, the pH rises from the initial optimal level. This facilitates the neutralization that occurs in the duodenum prior to the bulk of the digestive process. Obviously, a gyroscopic pharmaceutical -unless designed to inactivate itself once the desired pH is achieved- would keep the pH of the stomach contents at the optimal initial pH (probably around 2.5- 3.0 for the average person). This would make it more difficult if not impossible to adjust the pH of the duodenum to its optimum level.