Paradox of Science: You have to Believe to Prove it
Every quack is not a scientist, but a lot of established science was once considered quackery. I am reminded of this when we deal with emerging therapies for treating my son’s autism.
Take the hypothesis that mercury (in the form of preservative Thimerosal in vaccines), combined with a certain genetic pre-disposition that makes some kids detoxify poorly, had a major role in autism. In this hypothesis, such impaired detoxification, combined with other opportunistic environmental triggers, caused it. The government establishment has dismissed it, and the mainstream press has accepted that and moved on, all based primarily on statistical evidence. What even the government establishment would not dispute is that mercury could have caused it - it has a ring of plausibility to it. That is an important point: the hypothesis that mercury caused it is not in the same league as the hypothesis that an unfavorable constellation of planets caused it. Yet, when you read the most of the media descriptions, it is dismissed with just such derisive certainty.
To add insult to that injury, doctors who proceed under that hypothesis are considered absolute quacks, and parents who try those treatments are deluded or duped by these doctors. Let me say this: myself and my wife are far from deluded and we are not easily duped. We considered all the literature calmly, we read both sides of this debate. In the end, we came to the conclusion that there is at least a case to be made against mercury. And facing the difficult choice of how to treat our son, we decided the risk of proceeding with the treatment is far less than the risk of waiting till the science is fully established. Time is an important element here - we don’t have the luxury of waiting indefinitely.
In every sense, we are no different than volunteers in a clinical trial for expeirmental medication. We know of the pros and cons, and we have consciously considered everything, but have decided to proceed. Except, of course, the government does not put its official seal of approval on this experiment, but since when is the federal government the authority on all matters scientific? If we cede that role to the federal government, in what way is that different from the middle ages when the Church had the same role?
What does liberty amount to if not the liberty to conciously proceed with such experiments, accepting the consequences of our decisions? Of course, another set of parents, exactly in the same situation, could come to the conclusion they are not persuaded by the evidence. That is as it should be. Yet, if at least a few parents like us don’t try, progress comes to a stop. After all, enrolling in a clinical trial is an act of faith too.
This brings up the broader issue: all science proceeds by hunches and trial and error. It is not a sure thing until firm evidence is at hand. Often, it is not a sure thing even after people declare it to be a sure thing (as the government has declared about mercury’s non-connection to autism) - how often do we hear controversies about established scientific truth? Subsequent discoveries often cast a new light on old accepted truths.
Yet, non-scientists, especially journalists, pretend to more certainty in these matters than there actually is. They don’t understand this process of trial and error at all.
Do I have absolute confidence to say that “Yes, mercury is it?” No, I only have enough confidence to try it, but not enough to go and persuade or evangelize anyone else, other than alerting them to read all the literature and come to their own conclusions. But I will certainly have far more confidence, if the treatments we are proceeding with yield positive results for our son. And I applaud parents who have gone down this path and reported on the outcome, almost all of them positive for their kids. They are brave pioneers.
I can understand an attitude of scepticism - a healthy scepticism is very useful in science as in life itself, but what I don’t understand is the outright contempt.