Stories

Why science matters

Mark Milke
March 3, 2013
Stories

Why science matters

Mark Milke
March 3, 2013
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

In 2003 when a cancerous tumour was discovered on the pancreas of Steve Jobs, the brilliant, mercurial co-founder of Apple refused to undergo surgery to have it removed. “I really didn’t want them to open up my body, so I tried to see if a few other things would work,” Job later told his biographer, Walter Isaacson.

For Jobs, those other “things” included his already strict vegan diet, fresh carrot and fruit juices, as well as acupuncture, herbal remedies and some other treatments he discovered on the Internet. He also submitted to a regimen proscribed by a “natural” healing clinic that advised juice fasts, bowel cleansings, hydro-therapy and “the expression of all negative feelings.” Another “treatment” was eating horse feces. With reference to the latter, one friend later told Jobs “he was crazy.”

Nine months later, Jobs eventually agreed to surgery. But by then the cancer had spread. “During the operation, the doctors found three liver metastases,” wrote Isaacson. “Had they operated nine months earlier, they might have caught it before it spread, though they would never know for sure.”

Indeed, one cannot always know with certainty what causes this or that cancer or what allows it to spread. But I note Jobs (who survived another eight years though not without chemotherapy and radiation and additional operations) because his was a life that did not necessarily have to end early.

If, what we do know from scientific investigations and advances over the decades had been availed by Jobs early, perhaps Jobs might still be with us today. What we do know is that surgery, chemotherapy, radiation and other scientifically-tested and proven treatments can help save some people from an early death from cancer.

That doesn’t always work for everyone but a natural question is why someone as brilliant as Steve Jobs – he wasn’t crazy – would forego actual proven help for his illness, this in favour of “treatments” that were untested, or already falsified, or simply 21st century equivalent of 19th century quackery and snake oil.  After all, in his professional career, Jobs would not have abandoned known methods for assembling a circuit board in favour of having employees chant over raw materials with the vain hope that fully formed I-Macs would magically result.

This issue of C2C Journal aims to help answer the question of why too many people oppose, abandon, or are unduly skeptical about science and its benefits. We zero in some controversies that have arisen and are connected to our bodies, e.g., claims about homeopathy or the 100-mile diet to name just two. With the help of authors from across North America and who have developed a deep knowledge of specific issues, be it the scientific method, organic foods, GMOs, so-called “alternative” medicine, or why people are attracted to conspiracy theories, we try to help answer that query.

There are obvious proven benefits to living a healthy life. Fresh fruits are preferable to rotten ones; foods with Vitamin C and D trump soda pop and Doritos as an aid to keep a body healthy; greens are better for you when compared with three beers and two fatty steaks every night. But it is one thing to note the obvious, the added benefits of healthy choices for a body; it is quite another to assert that they can replace scientifically-proven medical treatments to treat diseases already present.

In this issue of C2C Journal, we take the side of science and the scientific method over ad hominem attacks, foggy reasoning, magical thinking, and outright chicanery. Science and a proper understanding of it matters for many reasons but in the context of personal health, it matters even more.
~

Mark Milke Chairman of C2C Journal and issue editor

Love C2C Journal? Here's how you can help us grow.

More for you

Manufactured Judgements: How Canada’s Courts Promote Indigenous Radicalism

What’s the worst possible thing that can happen to a homeowner? It’s probably not a flooded basement, an infestation of rodents or things falling apart due to shoddy workmanship. It’s that the very concept of their ownership rights could be pulled out from under them. Such was the shocking outcome of a B.C. Supreme Court ruling over the summer which handed aboriginal title to a swath of B.C.’s Lower Mainland that has been privately owned and occupied by others in good faith for more than 150 years. On Canada’s National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, Peter Best takes a close look at the judge’s actions in the case of Cowichan Tribes v. Canada and reveals the many ways in which the court abandoned the precepts of impartiality and fact-based legal reasoning in order to come to the aid of the native claimants.

Jason Kenney and the End of All Things (Or Maybe Just a Democratic Vote)

Time was a former political leader’s expected role was to enjoy retirement in obscurity, reappearing at the occasional state funeral or apolitical charity event smiling inscrutably and saying nothing. While former U.S. President Bill Clinton broke this mould and fellow Democrat Barack Obama won’t stop delivering lectures, conservatives generally stick to tradition. Former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney, however, just can’t help himself – literally. Collin May probes the curious, maddening and somewhat sad case of a once-respected leader who, having dug his own political grave, now seems to think the way out is to keep shovelling.

On the Murder of Charlie Kirk: The Left and the Loss of the Tragic Sensibility

The brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk was shocking not only for its violence but for the chilling aftermath – the celebrations on the left, the gloating and the calls for more political violence. In searching for an explanation, Patrick Keeney argues that our culture has lost what Western thinkers long recognized as the “tragic vision” of human life – the idea that suffering is inevitable and even central to the human condition. Without that understanding of innate limits, politics no longer is about compromise or making the best of things but becomes pursuit of a utopia where the righteous are justified in demonizing and destroying their opponents. What is now desperately needed, Keeney argues, is a cultural renewal that accepts the tragedy of life and cultivates courage, charity and, above all, humility.

More from this author

Not So Beautiful Minds: Conspiracy Theories from JFK to Oliver Stone and Donald Trump

Shocking events that plunge a country into chaos or destroy a beloved leader are hard for anyone to process. The evil done is so towering it bends the human psyche to accept that the evildoer is utterly banal, a loner walking in ordinary shoes. The cause simply must befit the outcome; thus can a conspiracy theory be hatched. At other times, the cold hope of political or financial gain or simple mischief might be the source. There certainly is no shortage of conspiracy theories. Mark Milke revisits one of history’s most famous political assassinations and the conspiracy theories it spawned to illuminate the ongoing danger this toxic tendency poses to us all.

Picture of Thomas Hobbes frontispiece of Leviathan. A renowned pieceof political work on liberty

Future of Conservatism Series, Part VII: Memo to Politicians: We’re Not Your Pet Projects

Canadian conservatives have most of the summer to ruminate on what they want their federal party to become – as embodied by their soon-to-be elected leader, anyway. Acceptability, likability and winnability will be key criteria. Above all, however, should be crafting and advancing a compelling policy alternative to today’s managerial liberalism, which has been inflated by the pandemic almost beyond recognition. Mark Milke offers a forceful rebuttal against the Conservative “alternative” comprising little more than a massaged form of top-down management.

Leaders_debate_2019_canada_diversity_bias_free_speech_liberal_conservative

So Much for Diversity: The Monochromatic Moderators of Monday’s Debate

Canada is a big, diverse country by virtually any measure, from our no-longer-so-sparse population to our epic geography to the ethnic makeup of our people. Diverse in every way, it seems, except in our elites’ aggressively progressive official-think. Consistent with this is the otherwise bizarre decision to have Monday’s federal leaders’ debate hosted by five decidedly similar female journalists. Mark Milke briefly profiles the five and, more important, advances a positive alternative: five distinguished women diverse in background, hometown and, above all, thought.