When people make decisions in the absence of science, they end up filling that void with misleading examples. This is part of our human nature to do so, but knowing this should make people more knowledgeable about their decisions. Anecdotal examples can lead to false hope, but people can avoid this by making decisions in the presence of science.
Parents, desperate to find a cure for autistic children, fail to look for the science in treatments which lead them to false promises. In “Desperate for an Autism cure,” Jim Laidler, an anesthesiologist, has an autistic son and finds a promising treatment on the web. Despite knowing this treatment did not undergo many clinical trials, he succumbs to false hope, saying, "hope won out over skepticism"…show more content… John Horgan's article, “Why I Won't Get a PSA Test for Prostate Cancer,” gives a great example of this situation, as men tend to take the PSA test when suggested by their doctor. John's doctor suggested he take the PSA test, but he decides not to since he knew that PSA testing has more cons than pros as it can lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, most people do not look into the scientific research done and decide based on the authority figure, in this case, a doctor. For example, Samadi, a urologist and medical correspondent for FOX News, urged women to pressure men into getting PSA tests. Consequently, women obeyed and now “30 million American men are tested every year at a cost of at least $3 billion”(14). Men and women follow authority without evaluating the science behind the PSA testing which leads to overdiagnosis in men who…show more content… In the Ted Talk, Mr. Goldacre states how people give in to authority “because it's so easy to contrive” (Goldacre), but people should always confirm that scientists conduct proper clinical trials before believing their authority. Scientists can sometimes falsify the science behind their claims by not providing all the information, but if people recognize bad trials they can avoid falling for these falsifications. Goldacre gives an example of a fish oil trial where scientist gave children fish oil pills every day. A year later scientist compared exam performances against a predicted performance if they had not taken the pill. This study, however, does not have a control group since the scientists “compared [children's] exam performance against what they predicted their exam performance would've been” and not a control group (Goldacre). Therefore, the pills may not be the reason for these results due to a faulty study. Being knowledgeable about the scientific method and faulty trials can aid people in making smarter decisions about their health and avoid misleading
