Studies have yet to rule out any single possibility

How do we know things are true? There are many lenses through which we can examine such a question.Many of us begin considering philosophical problems like this in earnest at the beginning of university. I studied history, specifically medieval history, and fondly remember learning about how questions like 'how do we know the sun will rise tomorrow?' were examined by the great thinkers of the time. Questions of basic reality (if such a thing can be said to exist) can shed a lot of light on how different cultures and societies view the world around them. What can we assume? And what, in turn, should we be careful not to assume? There is something delightfully medieval in the clumsy reasoning of the anti-science movement. Read the thinkers of the time, and what today seems childlike, was then the height of logic. There's a lot of reverse engineering resulting in the wrong conclusions. One need only look at the limited surviving medical codexes to see a thousand examples. This morning, I was met with a glorious, modern example of failed rhetoric (I won't let the word logic get anywhere near it), when the internet exploded with folks decrying a change to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. A fun game we like to play in this brave new world. The change puts three bullet points front and centre on a page answering frequently asked questions about vaccines and autism. They are as follows: “The claim "vaccines do not cause autism" is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism. “Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities. “HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations on plausible biologic mechanisms and potential causal links.” While I won’t waste a second of this beautiful morning relitigating any of the above (if you’re reading this, you certainly don’t need me to anyway), I have thought up a few interesting things the scientific literature has hitherto unsuccessfully demonstrated. Given that, apparently, anything anyone might think up is potentially completely true, unless we’ve checked to confirm it is not. That makes sense. That’s a great way to approach reality. I see no cause for alarm. As such: Studies have not ruled out that my husband ate more than his fair share of cake from the fridgeThere is insufficient data to refute the idea that I shouldn’t have to go to work todayStudies have not ruled out that my sister is late to everything and I am always on timeStudies have failed to disprove that I’ve read every book in the world (truly, no one has checked)There is a growing scientific body of research to suggest that we do know which cafes in close proximity to my apartment have the best croissants, but we could really use some extra grant money to continue this important researchThere are virtually no papers on whether or not John A. Macdonald was actually four cats in a trench coatThere is actually a wealth of research that suggests birds exist, but I remain unconvincedAs a student of history, I've read at least some of the authors of empiricism: Aristotle, William of Ockham, Avicenna. And in engaging with that history of thought, I have seen how the ground shifts, assumptions fly out the window, and reality gets shaken up like a snow globe as we reach new levels of human insight and ability. So by no means am I arguing that we just let the prevailing wisdom ride. But we do need, as a society, to remember to evaluate which questions are worth asking. And sorry if this feels like too radical an idea, but existing empirical evidence might be a good tool for making those distinctions.

Studies have yet to rule out any single possibility

Register for free access or login.

Related Topics