The Nobel Go(e)ring Of Science

clipped from drsanity.blogspot.com This is what happens when science is "advanced" by polls, as opposed to...you know, science: But when the theories were tested in clinical trials, the evidence kept turning up negative. As Mr. Taubes notes, the most rigorous meta-analysis of the clinical trials of low-fat diets, published in 2001 by the Cochrane Collaboration, concluded that they had no significant effect on mortality. Does anyone see any parallels to current events--e.g., the supposed "scientific concensus" on global warming? Rand Simberg at Transterestrial Musings notes: Of course, it doesn't mean that all theories have this problem. But it does mean that we are entitled to a little skepticism when we are told that there is a scientific consensus. Particularly when we are bullied into believing it, and treated like heretics in our skepticism, and there are some other potential agendas at play. In general, it is probably always wise to be skeptical of science when it is promoted by politics--or polls.