You call that science? WTF?
Ever heard of the Hoxsey treatment for cancer? You know, the one the FDA is supposedly suppressing so cancer research can make big bucks? The one with the wonderful testimonials about how it cures cancer? The one pushed by the Natural News website, which bills itself as "The world's top news source on natural health"? Natural News, by the way, has no shortage of cancer cures, as Hoxsey is just one of seven they have found!
Hoxsey herbal therapy is illegal in the United States. The Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center states "No scientific evidence supports" using the Hoxsey method to treat our cure cancer, and "The American Cancer Society strongly urges cancer patients not to use the Hoxsey treatment."
Of course, those who advocate the treatment say this is all part of the conspiracy to suppress a real cure in order to keep making pharmaceutical companies rich. Of course, the FDA is part of this conspiracy. And Sloan Kettering. And every other hospital that treats cancer in the United States. And the doctors and nurses, And. . . .
Well, you get it. As with any crazy conspiracy theory, there is no scientific basis for it, and those pushing it see the fact that everyone in medical science agrees there is no scientific basis for the claims is part of the conspiracy, confirming the conspiracy is true and that the Hoxsey method works!
This kind of belief in pseudoscience affects all areas of life, especially in the United States. As in no other developed country, science bashing here has become a common practice. Americans are conspiracy minded. Many think everything the government or science tell them is a lie. From those who believe the moon landings were faked, to those who think the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, to those who still assert that vaccinations cause autism, to those who deny climate change - there is a willingness to believe any claim based on the flimsiest evidence, or no evidence. The mere fact that someone suggests that something didn't happen the way the "official" version says it did is enough for some people to give credence to the claim, based on their paranoia of anything involving the government or science.
From the perspective of a layman who respects medical science, science, scientists and the scientific method, the greatest problem that science faces in the future is the fact that much of the general public does not understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. In institutional and government politics, this can affect the funding and pursuit of valuable areas of scientific research, and in the long run deny the general public access to the potential benefits of that research.
The lengthy, arduous process that scientists undertake to produce verifiable results or determine degrees of probability involves observation, experimentation, measurement, analysis, revision, and critical peer review. Moreover, research and review often crosses multiple fields and involves developing a consensus among those fields, as is the case with genetics, evolutionary biology, and paleontology and our understanding of evolution. A scientific consensus in any field, or across fields, is not formed haphazardly.
Since the 17th century, use of the scientific method has consistently increased our understanding of the universe and improved the quality of living for the average human being at a far greater pace than any time in human history. Disease, famine, and childhood mortality, are at an all time low. Interestingly, so are deaths due to war and violence. More people are experiencing a higher standard of living than ever before
While some might argue that it was science that gave us nuclear weapons, it was also scientists who were the first to warn about the destructiveness of nuclear weapons and to appeal to governments to control them. Science gave us modern manufacturing and the pollution it brought, but it was scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who lobbied government, resulting in regulations to protect the environment. In the US, these steps included establishing the EPA, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other environmental controls.
Now, in medicine, chemistry, biology, genetics, climatology, geology, and practically every other scientific field, independent, non peer-reviewed pseudo-science is gaining popularity and influencing the general public - and more importantly - influencing politicians, business people, and educators. In some religious circles, politics, and popular culture, members of the scientific community have been portrayed as perpetuators of lies, deceiving the general public. Particularly in the United States, a distinctly anti-science attitude has gained momentum in the last three or four decades.
That isn't good. Potentially, it harms us and our families in every field and aspect of life: health, medicine, education, employment, the economy, the government - everything has the potential to be negatively affected. That is why it is important to challenged expose pseudo-science.When someone you know has swallowed some clearly unscientific junk that is potentially harmful or even just a waste of time and money, take time to inform them of the difference between peer reviewed science and pseudo-science. Make sure they know that anecdotal stories do not supplant independent studies that are peer reviewed.
So, if your friend believes consuming dried iguana poop will cure their arthritis, say something! If they mention a worldwide conspiracy to conceal the benefits of iguana poop, slap them hard to bring them back to reality and then restate the facts. One day, they may thank you for it.