Why Certainty in Science is Such An Illusion
Throughout the history of science, what we once held as irrefutable truth has often been overturned by new evidence and evolving perspectives.
From the geocentric model of the universe to the medicinal benefits of bleeding patients, examples abound where scientific consensus crumbled under the weight of scrutiny and empirical inquiry.
This phenomenon underscores a fundamental truth: certainty in science is frequently an illusion.
Take, for example, the historical belief in the geocentric model of the universe, championed by Ptolemy in ancient Greece and upheld for centuries until Copernicus and Galileo introduced the heliocentric model.
What was once accepted as indisputable truth—the Earth at the center of the universe—was gradually replaced by a more accurate understanding based on empirical observation and mathematical calculation.
Similarly, the medical practice of bleeding patients to balance bodily humours, consisting of four bodily fluids—blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm persisted for centuries despite little empirical evidence of its effectiveness.
It took rigorous scientific inquiry and systematic studies to debunk this practice, highlighting the dangers of adhering blindly to established dogma without empirical validation.
In the field of dietary science, the link between dietary fats, cholesterol intake, and cardiovascular disease once seemed incontrovertible. For decades, public health campaigns and medical advice emphasized reducing saturated fats and cholesterol to prevent heart disease, I remember them well.
This consensus was based on observational studies and epidemiological data suggesting a direct correlation between high-fat diets and increased risk of cardiovascular events.
Recent research, however, challenges this entrenched belief. Studies published in reputable journals such as the National Institutes of Health’s publications challenge the longstanding consensus on dietary fats and cholesterol.
The study reviews current evidence and concludes that the previous belief linking high intake of saturated fats and cholesterol to cardiovascular disease is oversimplified. The study suggests that dietary guidelines advocating for low-fat diets may need reconsideration.
This data contradicts the once-accepted notion that all fats and cholesterol are uniformly harmful to cardiovascular health, highlighting a shift towards a more nuanced understanding based on recent scientific findings.
In the meta-analysis conducted by Siri-Tarino et al., the association between dietary saturated fat and cardiovascular disease (CVD) was rigorously evaluated by analyzing data from 21 prospective epidemiologic studies.
The study aimed to determine whether intake of saturated fat correlates with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, or overall CVD.
The researchers used a random-effects model to derive composite relative risk estimates, accounting for variability both within and between the included studies.
The analysis, encompassing data from 347,747 participants over a follow-up period of 5 to 23 years, found no significant evidence linking saturated fat intake with higher risks of CHD, stroke, or CVD.
The pooled relative risk estimates were 1.07 for CHD, 0.81 for stroke, and 1.00 for overall CVD, indicating no significant associations.
Despite the historical belief that reducing saturated fat intake improves cardiovascular health, this meta-analysis suggests that such dietary changes may not substantially impact CVD risk.
There is evidence that the sugar industry funded research to downplay the role of sugar in heart disease and instead promote fats, especially saturated fats, as the primary dietary culprit.
In the 1950s and 1960s, early evidence suggested a link between sugar consumption and coronary heart disease (CHD).
To counteract this, the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF), which later became the Sugar Association, sponsored its first CHD research project in 1965, commissioning a literature review published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).
This review, conducted by prominent Harvard researchers, focused on fat and cholesterol as the primary dietary culprits for CHD, minimizing the role of sugar.
The historical analysis provided by Kearns, Schmidt, and Glantz demonstrates the significant influence of the sugar industry on scientific research and public health policy.
By funding and directing research to downplay the health risks of sugar, the SRF successfully shifted the blame to dietary fats, impacting dietary guidelines and public health messaging for decades.
This case underscores the need for transparency in research funding and the critical evaluation of industry-sponsored studies to ensure unbiased and comprehensive public health policies.
You might be curious as to why I’m discussing diet changes, but I’ve recently undergone a significant shift in my eating habits.
I have replaced much of the processed foods and carbohydrates with fats and proteins, adopting what could be called a “carnivore-light” diet. This change prompted me to re-evaluate long-held nutritional beliefs that have been ingrained in me throughout my life.
Reflecting on this personal transformation led me to consider the broader concept of paradigm shifts and how deeply entrenched ideas can influence our choices and perceptions.
This paradigm shift in understanding dietary fats and cholesterol starkly contradicts the once-dominant dietary guidelines which I was raised with. It serves as a poignant reminder of how scientific consensus can evolve based on new evidence and rigorous scrutiny.
Under the mentorship of my advisor at UCLA, I learned firsthand the transformative impact of new evidence on long-established paradigms.
Pioneering work in geochemistry, utilizing secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), challenged the conventional view of a hot early Earth. Studies, particularly on ancient zircons from Western Australia, revealed isotopic evidence suggesting periods of cooler conditions conducive to liquid water—a crucial factor for the emergence of life.
This paradigm shift from a hot and uninhabitable to a cool and possibly habitable early Earth model not only reshaped geological theories but also influenced broader scientific disciplines, including planetary science and astrobiology.
See more here Substack
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Wisenox
| #
I haven’t read the article yet, but in a really good mood and it’s related.
A few weeks ago, Principia published an article about Planck’s Constant. I drifted during the article because I thought I saw something.
That spurred me to undertake an interest in number theory, and this morning I figured out why everything spirals and how it relates to Phi and Pi. I also think I can see Riemann’s zeros, but haven’t looked into it yet.
Phi is the greatest trick the queen ever played.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Fibonacci? Sacred geometry?
Reply
Wisenox
| #
Both, but not in the way I thought.
Riemann’s 1/2 is a tether and it may not be exact; could vary by 0.04.
Riemann’s ‘zeros’ are the value required to maintain the relationship between pi and phi.
Phi is a tether to pi, so when pi attempts to make a circle, the tether pulls it off course. This is continual in a looping fashion, but must increase by 1 at each loop, which keeps the numbers irrational.
Irrational numbers may be nature’s way of telling us something is pinned.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wisenox,
There are two forces in the universe: the force of energy (gravity and magnetism) and the force of matter (electric) The force of energy is the stronger force and is able to dislodge electrons from protons, turning neutrons into hydrogen atoms. The golden constant (phi) is the ratio of the force of energy to the force of matter, which is why it is evident throughout the universe, from atoms to solar system.
Herb
Reply
Wisenox
| #
There are 3 things at play in the model, so if phi is bound to energy/matter, then pi has a connection to one. I assume it’s energy/magnetism.
Maybe Phi must occur for propagation.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Wisenox,
Since force decrease as a function of distance (radius) while the strength of the forces decrease as a function of the square of distance (area) perhaps pi represents where the two forces reach equilibrium creating round structures in the universe.
Herb
Wisenox
| #
Radius and area. I didn’t think of those yet. Fit rather nicely.
Wisenox
| #
I found a connection, fibonacci matches the Pi line and Tesla’s 3,6,9 matches Phi. This is in the dataset for Pi:
0 (0)
1.57 (1)
3.14 (2)
4.71 (3)
7.85 (5)
12.56 (8)
The numbers in parentheses are sides a + b, Pi creates side c forming a 103.4 x 38.3 x 38.3 triangle.
Wisenox
| #
Not sure it’s entirely surprising that pi follows fibonacci, but if pi and phi are entwined in some cases, fibonacci may appear. If a triangle is pinned at 38.3 for one angle, pi and phi are joined.
For example: phi’s side_a is shared with pi, who has the same value for both a and b.
Phi has an in put at side_a at length 2, and pi will have both sides a + b at length 2.
The funny thing is that phi’s side_b length values for every input reduce to 3, 6, 9 and fall just before pi. Just before a circle, phi shows up.
Also interesting, 4/7 = 0.571428 repeating.
First 3 factors of pi are 1.57, 3.14, and 6.28.
Wisenox
| #
I figured out Riemann Zeros:
Take a triangle with 38.3 angle.
Riemann zeros follow the center line.
Draw a line the length of the zero value where it touches both sides of the triangle.
This line represents sides a and b of the triangle. i.e side a = zero #, side b = zero #.
Now, calculate the side c.
Your result should equal the zero value times the Pi root 1.57. This keeps the line in correspondence with a 103.4 x 38.3 x 38.3 triangle.
The system loops, therefore Riemann zeros are infinite. We can see this in the negative zeros, which are all even numbers. The numbers all reduce to 0-9 looping, and the patterns follow.
The 0.5 may in fact be related to the difference between pi and phi roots: 1.03 and 1.57..
I love patterns. Chased the 741 all the way to this.
Reply
Wisenox
| #
“It has zeros at the negative even integers; that is, ζ(s) = 0 when s is one of −2, −4, −6, ….”
Even numbers happen to be where factors of Pi appear in the Pi-Phi model. 2, 2 = 3.14, 4, 4 = 6.28, 6, 6 = 9.42. Those values appear on the Pi side, not the critical line, which is down the center of the 38.3 angle.
Reply
Tom
| #
Science will never be science until political agendas and special interests are removed from the equation.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matthew,
An answer to your title’s question is too few people, like you, have evidently NOT read the address, titled “The Value of Science”, given by Richard Feynman to the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy Sciences. (https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1575/1/Science.pdf)
For you I need to only quote one brief paragraph. “I would like to turn to a third value that science has. It is a little less direct, but not much. The scientist has a lot oof experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he. has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And the he is pretty darn sure what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty–some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.”
Have a good day
Reply
David
| #
Pure, White and Deadly, by John Yudkin, is worth reading.
Reply