One of the challenges of living in the highly polarized climate of contemporary society is that many debates end up simplifying reality and presenting complex topics in a manner that avoids nuance and subtlety. The universe in which we live, however, is complex. It does have subtle distinctions that make huge differences. Nuance can be extremely important in learning. To put it simply, there is plenty in this life that doesn’t boil down to two points of view: the world is not just a case of “either/or.” I recently read a BBC investigative report that pointed out some significant problems with discussing scientific research as if there were only two possible points of view when in reality there are many different angles to most scientific explorations.

Before I get to the BBC article, however, a brief review of scientific method seems appropriate since there are too many conversations in popular culture that misrepresent the nature of science. Scientific method is a broad description of a process of establishing and testing facts through careful experimentation and testing. It begins with a question and with direct observation of the world. From the questions and the observations a hypothesis is formed. A hypothesis is always a tentative assumption or possible answer to a question. It is important to understand the tentative nature of a hypothesis. It is not a solid prediction even though it may sound like one. The hypothesis needs to be tested. That testing is done through experimentation. Experiments rarely establish simple either/or results. More often they produce complex sets of observations and data that need to be carefully analyzed before conclusions can be drawn.

To intelligently discuss scientific method it is important to remember that hypotheses are often wrong. When scientists encounter mistaken assumptions or inconclusive results from experiments they often modify hypotheses or come up with a new hypothesis that better explains their observations. This requires additional testing and experimentation. Before conclusions can be drawn, experiments must be reproducible. A single set of observations is insufficient to support a conclusion. Conclusions and facts are difficult to come by in science and they are continually subject to further questions and experimentation.

In popular culture, however, people often take single bits of data and draw conclusions prematurely. They rigorously defend their conclusions, often with anecdotal evidence. In true science, evidence that disputes a conclusion is not seen as problematic. It is all part of the process. A scientist is as open to observations and data that disprove hypotheses as to those that support a hypothesis. Social media, however, does not welcome contrary evidence.

Modern science often places a huge focus on analyzing data from previous experiments. There are many helpful studies that are basically looking at huge volumes of data from multiple experiments for new information, new hypotheses, and potentially new conclusions that can be drawn. Data analysis has been advanced by the development of more advanced computers capable of processing huge quantities of information.

This brief discussion of scientific method falls short of clarity in part because it is a complex and often messy process. It is important to keep in mind that conclusions and the establishment of facts are relatively rare in science. When they do emerge they are the result of multiple studies and multiple people bringing their analyses to bear. Information from a single study might raise new questions, but rarely produces indisputable facts.

Having said that, facts do exist. Objective truth can emerge through a long and careful process.

Back to the BBC investigation. It discovered that certain podcasts amplify harmful misinformation. Specifically the study looked at a number one ranked podcast, Diary of a CEO. Recent claims from guests were allowed with little or no challenge and created confusion. Broadcasting hypotheses as if they are established conclusions can cause hearers to make harmful choices. The BBC analysis of 15 health-related podcast episodes found an average of 14 harmful health claims that went against extensive scientific evidence. One of the pieces of misinformation discovered by the BBC analysis had to do with the claim that cancer can be treated by following a keto diet, rather than proven treatments. That caught my attention because I have been trying to engage in responsible study since receiving my own cancer diagnosis and I have learned from others living with cancer about several major scientific studies exploring the relationship between a keto diet and living with cancer. There have been multiple studies conducted by the National Institutes of Health in regards to keto diets and prostate cancer.

To be clear, the existence of studies does not produce reliable conclusions. Just because something has been studied does not mean that it should become adopted as effective medical treatment. The National Institutes of Health is one source of information that I trust, but reading the studies can be very difficult and challenging. The information that I have read about keto diets and cancer is very complex and there are significant risks as well as possible benefits. In at least one study links between a Keto Diet and increased risk of tumor metastasis were discovered. Furthermore as helpful as studies of mice with disease and their diets may be, I don’t think I should base my health decisions solely on research conducted on mice. I’m intrigued by the studies, but not yet ready to base my lifestyle on research that is not yet ready for conclusions.

Despite advertising that suggests that a ketogenic diet is a weight-loss wonder, studies show that while it can be a helpful way to start a weight loss program it often does not produce successful weight loss over long periods of time. A ketogenic diet can be observed as a serious medical diet. It has been studied in relationship to numerous health conditions, and has found to be effective in management of certain types of seizure disorders. When strictly observed, including careful counting of calories, the diet forces the body to shift its fuel. Instead of relying on sugar that comes from carbohydrates, the keto diet relies on ketone, a type of fuel that the liver produces from stored fat. Because of the strict limitations on carbohydrates, the diet requires careful management of vitamin intake, which generally comes from fruits and vegetables that are not included in the keto diet. The diet also produces strain on the liver which produces ketone bodies.

I’m willing to continue to explore and read scientific studies. I am also willing to modify my lifestyle including my diet. it would be good for me to lose some weight as well as eat a diet that is compatible with other cancer treatments. But I am not ready to draw an either/or conclusion, despite the claims of podcasters and their guests.

As always is the case with real science, more research is needed.