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

What’s Yours is Ours: Why Canada’s Charter Ignores Property Rights and What That Means for Everything You Own

“The whole meaning of life,” famed comedian George Carlin once observed, “is trying to find a place for all your stuff. That’s what your house is, it’s a place for your stuff with a cover on it.” If so, then Canadians should be very concerned about their stuff. Unlike nearly every other modern nation, Canada lacks constitutional affirmation of the right to own property and as protection against its unjust seizure. With a recent B.C. Supreme Court ruling putting the very notion of home ownership at risk, Peter Shawn Taylor seeks out legal opinions on Canada’s surprisingly lax attitude towards property rights, how it differs from other countries and what that means for everyone’s possessions. If Canadians really want to protect their homes, belongings and personal finances, Taylor concludes, now’s the time to get loud.

The Righteous Response: What Canada Can Learn from America’s Fight Against Antisemitism

Canadians frequently criticize U.S. President Donald Trump’s projection of American power. But in the fight against anti-Semitism, Canada could learn a thing or two from our neighbour to the south. In Part One of this series, Lynne Cohen revealed how Canada’s political and civic leaders have chosen to ignore or even abet the hate crimes and abuse Jews have suffered since October 7, 2023. In this second installment, she shows how the U.S. – from the President on down to local officials and law enforcement – has fought back. Where Canada has been cowering and cowardly, the U.S. has resolved to fight anti-Semitism, protect its Jewish citizens and defend Israel’s right to live freely as a Jewish state.

One Free Miracle: Towards a Theory of Everything

A new year has dawned and, as the light strengthens across the Northern Hemisphere, David Solway reminds us that how we choose to experience our world is at least as important as understanding how it came to be. In the first instalment of this two-part series, the writer illuminated the irreducible paradox at the heart of all theories concerning the universe’s creation, then scrutinized the seemingly unbridgeable gap between quantum physics and the physical world we live in. In Part II he considers an even tougher and, so far, unsolved scientific challenge: gravity. Some of the finest minds in science think it actually is insoluble without some kind of creative intelligence to oversee it. In other words, a miracle. To Solway, the true miracle is the fact of a marvellous world and our freedom to experience and wonder at it.

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.