Most every parent I work with is concerned about making the best possible decisions they can for their children’s health. Many have had unpleasant experiences blindly following their health practitioner’s advice. Some begin to question the efficacy and safety of the mainstream methodologies that they are expected to follow.
Then comes the hard part.
Who has time to spend countless hours googleing, reading and following links to get to the “truth”? It would be much easier to rely on health officials to decipher good from bad and tell us what to do. And that’s exactly what the majority of parents will do.
But some parent’s are concerned enough about the obvious problems with the mainstream approach to health that they will put in the extra time to find the best solutions for their children. They want to see the scientific evidence that supports the claims of any particular approach. It seems simple enough. Research, see what the science says about a particular issue and then decide what’s best for their child.
What happens when you have scientific conclusions regarding children’s health that conflict with each other? Most of the time people choose to go with the science that supports what they already believe.
But, here’s what scientists don’t tell you about your child’s health.
There are two basic types of science or reasoning that can help a parent navigate health decisions for their children.
The first, called inductive reasoning is based upon summing up all the available information and drawing conclusions. This is what most people talk about when they say, “Science proves” this or that.
The second type called deductive reasoning is based on making logical conclusions derived from a major premise or known truth. For example, the law of gravity might be considered a known truth.
Both types of reasoning are valid and, at the same time flawed.
Since deductive reasoning is based on deriving logical conclusions from a major premise, there is one potential problem; the major premise must be correct. If your major premise is bogus, all other conclusions derived would also be false.
It makes perfect sense to gather information via scientific studies for the purpose of inductive reasoning. But what if the information is incomplete? It’s simple; incorrect conclusions can be drawn. There are countless examples of science “proving” something only to turn around and disprove it at a later time. Science has told us eggs are bad for us only to turn around and later conclude that, in fact eggs are good for us. Just look at the list of medications removed from the market that were previously deemed safe by the scientists.
Scientists won’t tell you that blindly following inductive science without the balance of deductive reasoning is not really science at all. The logic of deductive reasoning dictates that our inductive conclusions must be questioned and weighed against our core truths.
