The article ”Bad Science” from Michael Pollan’s (2009) book In Defense Of Food proposes “…the American Paradox: the more we worry about nutrition, the less healthy we seem to become” (Pollan, inside leaf.). The way scientist study using three main methods exemplifies and creates so many problems with finding definitive results. When perhaps the diet diets we choose should take from time proven results and not unyielding scientific theories.
To begin with scientists examine nutritionism, with the use of the process of reductionist science amongst its flaws. First, this approach is used because it is the basic scientific fundamentals, to independently study variables disregarding all interactions. Second, although flawed, it allows the scientist to look at the general input/output, working like an algebraic equation.
Likewise, there are three main methods used to study how health of a person is affected by their diet. The three methods are Case-control study, the Cohort study, and the Intervention study.
First Case-control is a study by gathering information from an individual that has already contracted the disease of topic. This allows the scientist to gain information on what may have caused the individual to become ill. The problem with this is that all of the information that is collected comes from the person of interest. That means all of the information is subjective. In addition to a subjective set of information, all of the present information that is being given does not match what was practiced previously to having contracted the disease and a more integral part of causing the research topic.
Second, the Cohort is a study that creates a few small groups of individuals into specific controlled groups. This process is a step above the previous being that the information is collected prospectively, instead of, retrospectively. This method is still faulted in that every control...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document