I recently participated in a televised discussion with an “alternative nutrition expert” from Taiwan who received his “doctorate” from a well know “diploma factory”. As “the doctor” was the star of the show, I spent most of my time there admiring his performance from the stands and only got the opportunity to spar with him towards the end of the show.
Apart from being an accomplished performer, this guy is also well versed in the art of scaremongering. With a perfectly straight face, he would make statements along these lines:
“Milk is for cows, not people, therefore drinking milk is bad for your health……a sweet potato a day keeps cancer away…….the banana skin is where all its nutrition is, so if you are going to eat banana, you may as well eat rotten banana skins……heating food with a microwave oven will reduce its nutritional content by 97%, so don’t do it…….I’ve read 700 thesis proving that eating animal protein will cause cancer……”
It takes only one sentence to promote a fallacy, but to refute one requires much more than that. In any case, the time allocated to me was barely enough to refute one, maybe two, of the fallacies he promoted, so I could only hope that the audience were able to see through all the fallacies. Although it takes specialist knowledge in biological science and medicine to specifically refute his fallacies, the ridiculousness of these statements should not escape anyone with some common sense.
However, these fallacies have managed to capture the imagination of people on both sides of the strait. A guide to healthy living written by “the doctor” has been topping the sales charts for months, and as a result many have switched from a diet of milk and meat to some sort of “detox diet” that could well cause malnutrition. A presentation by “the doctor” would drive local sales of sweet potato and “anti-cancer” vegetables up a few notches. Is this because of his impressive title or accomplished performance skills? Did he somehow connect with the collective psyche of the masses? Or is this about something else altogether?
An emphasis on the maintenance of health and wellbeing and the sheep syndrome are both enduring characteristics of the Chinese people. Once in a while, a magic portion that promises to cure all diseases will whip the country into a frenzy. We’ve already seen crazes such as injection of chicken blood, cultivation of black tea fungus, practice of qigong and the consumption of various so-called health products. But then, crazes in the past were grassroots efforts with no originator as such, and followers of the craze often had to expand significant effort to seek credibility from the scientific establishment and government agencies. What we are seeing now are crazes driven by brands build around personalities and “alternativeness”. Instead of building credibility through scientific research, their proponents often openly discredit the scientific establishment through their “alternativeness” claim.
I suppose times have changed. In this day and age, espousing alternativeness is nothing to be ashamed of. As mainstream society evolves and authorities of the past become irrelevant, contempt for the mainstream and all that embodies authority may yet, indeed, be trendy.
Even science, once seen as the embodiment of truth as well as the most objective and reliable academic discipline, is now considered by modern China to be a laughing stock. Academics, members of the “intellectual elite” and “opinion leaders” are more than willing to label those who seek to approach questions of science with scientific reasoning and rigour as “scientific ideologues” or simply “superstitious”.
Whilst science cannot provide the answer to every question, it is crucial to our understanding of it, especially when it comes to questions pertaining to health and wellbeing. A writer of some renown once asked if the masses who did not understand chemistry and the human body’s response to poisoning would have difficulty grasping with the fact that arsenic is poisonous? The fact that he used such an extreme example illustrates that perhaps he could also do with some lessons on scientific reasoning. Whilst arsenic’s poisonous properties are obvious for all to see, those whose poisonous properties are not as obvious and does not manifest itself as readily as arsenic can only be identified through scientific research. For example, scientific researches have shown that many Chinese herbal medicine long thought to be non-poisonous are actually highly poisonous.
On the other hand, scientific researches have also debunked urban myths on the poisonous properties of certain things. Indeed, those with specific scientific knowledge in this field can easily explain urban myths such as “if the bugs can’t eat food genetically modified to be pest resistant, how can they possibly be edible by humans”.
The thinking of mainstream society is not necessarily founded upon logic and reason and is, by its very nature, dynamic. However, mainstream science is founded upon solid evidence and change can only occur when even stronger evidence to a different direction is presented. In other words, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. As a result, whilst mainstream science may not be correct all the time, it is more likely than not to be correct. Mainstream science is the consensus of outstanding analytical minds based on the comparison of a wide range of evidence, not the unsubstantiated postulation of some persuasive individual.
Therefore, until mainstream science is proven incorrect, it’s best to accept it as the truth. It would be unwise to believe an alternative view simply because mainstream science may have gotten it wrong. Entrusting one’s body to experiment with “alternative medicine” and “alternative nutrition” may well hurt one’s health as well as the hip pocket. If science can’t be relied upon, then what can?
But then, this is the age of fakes. In a country where those with an appreciation for science makes up only a few percent of the population and sensationalism reigns over logic and reason, even the worst fake products and most ridiculous theories will not have difficulty finding a large, receptive audience. Moreover, the eyeball driven media and judiciary are more than happy to offer a helping hand. Those who expose the fallacies and frauds committed in the name of science can expect to be convicted of defamation by a judge stating that “Science is developmental, truth is relative. Therefore, no one has the right to accuse anyone else of scientific fraud. In fact, even the word ‘fraud’ is fraudulent”. While the truth is still trying to put on its shoes, the fallacy juggernaut has already traveled the world. As psuedoscience and anti-science bask in its glory, science can be found in a dark corner, quietly licking its wounds.
Next: Regulator seeks to rein in credit growth
Previous: Olympics push Chinese kids to the max
"Is there no place for science in modern China?" was posted on Tuesday, November 6th, 2007 at 9:43 pm.