this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024

160 points (94.9% liked)

Ask Science

8681 readers

6 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.

Community Rules

Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.

Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.

Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.

Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.

Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.

Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.

Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.

Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.

Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.

Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.

Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.

Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.

Rule 7: Report violations.

Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.

Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.

Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.

Rule 9: Source required for answers.

Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.

By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

160

Has there ever been anything originally dismissed as pseudoscience that was later proven to be legit? (lemm.ee)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

125 comments fedilink hide all child comments

There is a tendency for real doctors with backing from Academia or whoever's in charge of deciding how you science to just plain getting it wrong and not realizing it for a long time.

Homeopathy is a good example of this, as it appeared to get great results when it was created during the Bubonic Plague and had such staying power to the point that in the 1800's it was considered a legitimate and mainstream field of medical practice.

Now today we know Homeopathy is nonsense... Remembers New Age Healing is still a thing Okay, those of us with sense know homeopathy is garbage. With the only reason it was getting such wonderful results was because the state of medicine for a long period of time in human history was so god awful that not getting any treatment at all was actually the smarter idea. Since Homeopathy is basically just "No medicine at all", that's exactly what was happening with its success.

Incidentally this is also why the Christian Science movement (Which was neither Christian nor Science) had so many people behind it, people were genuinely living longer from it because it required people to stop smoking at a time when no one knew smoking killed you.

Anyhow. With that in mind, I want to know if there's a case where the exact opposite happened.

Where Scientists got together on a subject, said "Wow, only an idiot would believe this. This clearly does not work, can not work, and is totally impossible."

Only for someone to turn around, throw down research proving that there was no pseudo in this proposed pseudoscience with their finest "Ya know I had to do it 'em" face.

The closest I can think of is how people believed that Germ Theory, the idea that tiny invisible creatures were making us all sick, were the ramblings of a mad man. But that was more a refusal to look at evidence, not having evidence that said "No" that was replaced by better evidence that said "Disregard that, the answer is actually Yes"

Can anyone who sciences for a living instead of merely reading science articles as a hobby and understanding basically only a quarter of them at best tell me if something like that has happened?

Thank you, have a nice day.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

No one has mentioned The Tomato Effect yet: https://imgur.com/a/suOzNGP

A quote from the article to get a little taste:

[C]olchicum was one of the most clearly efficacious medicines ever discovered [for the treatment of gout]. How could it be discarded after centuries of successful use? As Copeman has said, "this is a strange page in medical history." He also suggests an explanation. The abandonment of colchicum coincided with the Renaissance. "Then came the Renaissance and the dominance of scholars who, with all this written and practical evidence before them chose to see none of it - their learning seemed like a bandage round their eyes."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

I question most of these examples. The scientific method wasn't invented yet during the bubonic plague, and how would potential converts even know how long Christian scientists would eventually live? I could argue more, but you basically asked for someone to repeat what you said back to you, so I'll just put my objection out there and leave.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

There are a lot of things that "Western" medicine took from other cultures and then turn around and brand them pseudoscience barbarians for the remainder that didn't work. Like a lot of modern concepts of psychology from India. Medicines from indigenous Americans . Etc.

Also worth noting that the remaining knowledge base was deemed "pseudoscience" by the scientific community of yesteryear and a lot has changed. I'm not promoting unproven potentially dangerous alternative medicines. But I am saying it's worth re reviewing them from time to time. The Mayans had a very modern understanding of astronomy, for example.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I remember when James Randi "debunked" meditation.

Yeah that's aged well...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

That India link is silly, especially with your angle. They're trying to say "believe our woo", not "you stole our woo". Every culture everywhere has come up with tons of bullshit, and the real work is proving what's true and what isn't. "Interpretations of the famous vedas" is of zero use to science, sorry.

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

While it hasn't been proven scientifically yet, I believe that it will be in the future: the idea that in order for humans to be healthy, we should be eating mostly fatty meat instead of grains, vegetables, and fruit.

If you're interested in learning more, you can check out the talks from:

Dr. Ken Berry
Dr. Anthony Chaffee
Dr. Shawn Baker
Dr. Paul Mason
Dr. Tony Hampton
Dr. Eric Westman
Dr. Chris Palmer
Dr. Georgia Ede

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

You're basically describing a ketogenic diet. I started keto two months ago and it has seriously changed my life. I've lost tons of weight, my hair is noticably thicker, my mind is clear, I have tons of energy, I'm packing on strength and muscle mass, and my blood tests are not only normal but great for the first time in almost a decade. I have a chronic, incurable, largely untreatable illness that also seems to be gradually going into remission. I might be functional again someday,

I worked as a scientist for years so I'm one of the most skeptical bastards around but your assertion may have some merit. Granted, I get most of my calories from nuts and seeds, supplemented with meat, but I suspect what you're saying is a different means to the same end.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Thanks for providing a list of quacks to look out for.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago

Wearing masks to not catch diseases when treating patients.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

"Fringe" ideas are discovered to be fact a lot of the time. Nearly everything that is known to the true in the modern world started out as "some quack theory".

The difference is in how those that think of the "quack theory" go about investigating their theory and respond to the results of that investigation. And whether someone responds honestly or not to that has a lot more to do with them as a person than it does what field of study they come from.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There was a study this year suggesting Frenchmen feel pain

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I don't buy it. Have you ever seen Macron scream? I didn't think so.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

I'll take it back pretty far and mention the Copernican Revolution.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago

This does seem to happen in medicine and nutrition, things that start on the fringe sometimes move to the mainstream. I thought my lunatic ex was out of his mind when he said fasting could heal disease, but it turns out it can, just not in the universal magical way he thought.

load more comments