The possibility of curing cancer is something spectacular. This justifies the controversy that has been going on since 2015 around a substance, phosphoethanolamine, popularly known as the Cancer Pill, which is supposed to be an efficient anti-cancer agent. At the time the use of this substance was proposed as a medicine, the government and some sectors of society demanded that patients have the right to use the pill.
It turns out that there was no proof that it had any effect against any form of cancer; and it was also unknown whether it could have any harmful effects on patients. Faced with this, as it should be, the attitude of the specialized medical scientific community was to initially doubt its effectiveness and demand clinical tests before giving its approval. The experts never said that the pill didn't work, but they were certain that there was no evidence to promote the use of the compound.
This is an emblematic case where scientific skepticism was put into practice. This is the last video in the first part of our series. Here you will come into contact with a crucial piece of critical thinking: Scientific Skepticism.
This is the type of content that makes you grow, that makes you develop, develop your critical, rational and logical thinking. To continue following, activate your bell and subscribe to the channel. In addition to improving yourself, you also contribute to this content being disseminated on YouTube.
WHAT IS SKEPTICISM Scientific skepticism is a way of looking at knowledge that gives preference to beliefs and conclusions that are reliable and valid over those that are comforting or convenient. Being skeptical is not believing or denying claims until enough evidence has accumulated to do so. It is adopting a behavior that allows us to know what to believe and what to doubt.
Skeptics rigorously and openly apply the methods of science and reason to all empirical claims, especially their own. A skeptic is one who demands reasonable evidence and logical justification before granting tentative assent to truth claims. A skeptic has no problem changing his opinion, he will always modify his beliefs if presented with more definitive evidence.
By maintaining a stance of doubt in relation to the Cancer Pill, the Brazilian Medical Association acted in a scientific manner since there was no evidence that the compound could in fact be effective. For the same reason, she also did not take a stance against it. After all, if on the one hand there was no evidence that the compound worked, there was also no evidence that it was flawed.
This stance remains valid from an individual perspective. If you position yourself with such a firmly established mindset that you refuse to examine contrary information, you are no better than one. simple-minded person who accepts anything, without asking if it makes sense or if it has any basis.
If all scientists thought this way, the world would not have evolved. The worldview would not be heliocentric. We would believe in the spontaneous generation of life.
And no one would know the remarkable consequences of quantum theory, for example. REJECTING A CLAIM Skeptics begin by doubting, but then carefully seek to separate what they can and what they know from what is fantasy, biased thinking, prejudice and tradition. Contrary to what one might think, skeptics do not claim that unusual claims should automatically be rejected.
And this was the conduct of the Brazilian Medical Association. She demanded that clinical tests be carried out before giving approval for a possible distribution of the drug. And that was done.
Two years later, after controlled tests at the São Paulo Cancer Institute, doctors announced that the Cancer Pill does not work as a medicine. In fact, due to the lack of clinical benefits in these tests, the institute decided to suspend tests with synthetic phosphoethanolamine, prioritizing more promising treatment strategies. TWO PRACTICAL AND STRONG CRITERIA Carl Sagan, based on the thinking of David Hume, simply and forcefully summarized the skeptical stance towards all the allegations that come to us: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
" Writer Christopher Hitchens also established a simple rule for rejecting certain allegations. According to him: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be rejected without evidence. " If there is no way to find evidence, there is no point in arguing.
Evidence is the bargaining chip you accept in exchange for your trust. Another important aspect to keep in mind is that, according to skeptical conduct, it does not matter whether or not we like our conclusions that arise from a line of reasoning, but rather, whether these conclusions follow from a premise and whether they are true. This is clear in the case of the Cancer Pill.
We all want a cancer cure that doesn't involve crippling, painful and expensive treatments. We all wanted the Cancer Institute tests to be positive, to validate this possible cure. But unfortunately they are not, and whether we like it or not, we must accept that the compound in this pill is not effective.
WHAT SKEPTICISM IS NOT Skepticism, as a point of view, is the opposite of dogmatism. But I can mention other antonyms for skepticism: Credulity, naivety, ignorance, simplicity, innocence, foolishness. As I just mentioned, being skeptical does not mean that you should always maintain a default position of disbelief toward a given claim.
Skepticism is the opposite of this. It refers to the application of a degree of scrutiny, analysis, and criticism that is proportionate to the likelihood of the allegation being legitimate. If a claim has broad support from experts in a given field of study, it is generally appropriate to accept it.
It is on this basis that we accept the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution, and deny the effectiveness of the Cancer Pill, for example. The term “skeptic” has already been hijacked by deniers. They want to be seen as genuine skeptics, but in reality they are just pursuing a denialist agenda for ideological reasons.
And the difference here is clear: While a skeptic doubts until evidence is presented, a denier rejects the facts even if a huge volume of confirmatory evidence is presented. BEYOND OUR DOMAINS Being skeptical doesn't mean you should only believe what you can personally confirm. That would be extremely limiting.
We are only able to evaluate our own field of activity, which is very narrow. A cardiologist, for example, is much better able to assess the impact of physical exercise on health than an economist. An economist has much more authority to talk about the stock market than a lawyer.
And in the same way, an oncologist is more prepared to certify the effectiveness of a drug against cancer than a chemist. As will be discussed in part 2 of this series, when faced with issues outside our domain, the right thing to do is to seek support from experts. But not just in one or two, but rather the consensus of the area as a whole.
BELIEVING IS EASY, BEING SKEPTIC IS DIFFICULT When deniers, scammers and swindlers try to seduce you with irrational proposals, it is skepticism that will serve as a shield to repel these ideas. It is the filter through which you separate reality from lies and misperceptions. It's skepticism that will keep your eyes open and your brain switched on.
It is skepticism that will require you to ask the necessary questions. He is what will keep you humble enough to recognize that all of us humans are easy to fool. Believing is easy.
Being skeptical is difficult. There are traps everywhere. Just look at how hard it is to abandon an idea, even when you know that idea is wrong.
You identify with her. If this idea is wrong, it means that some part of you is wrong too. And this is a difficult issue to deal with.
Skepticism is not a magic potion that will immunize you against all the pitfalls in the world around you, but it will certainly help you avoid most of them. Applied consistently, it can help you lead a safer, happier and more productive life. The elements of becoming a skeptic I present throughout this series.
This video ends here and ends this first part. Next time I will try to present to you an understanding of how science works. Subscribe to the channel and have Verve Científica.
Hugs and see you next time.
