Hi everyone. There has been a recent lack of material as I've been fairly busy. But I'm going to be writing this weekend and busting my ass (which I built without a dozen glute accessory lifts by the way) to get quality material up here to satisfy your science jones. For now, here is a quick diatribe on a thought that has been occuring to me lately:
Evidence and observation are meaningless when in opposition to a position based soley on faith. Read that a few more times so you can marinate in how depressing that is. Nothing you say in a situation like that matters unless you agree with the faith-based position and there is no point in even trying to have dialogue. It's analogous to playing chess with a pigeon. You can play however you want but the bird will knock the pieces over, shit all over the board, and strut around like a champion regardless. It is my opinion - based on evidence and observation (see what I did there?) - that it's better to refrain from dialogue in almost every case unless you know the other party or parties have a willingness to truly examine the topic. Your conversations with the gym bros, the gurus, the soccer moms on the juice diet, and the athletes doing things the way they did them a hundred years ago are likely not going anywhere and you would save time and frustration to simply do your thing and leave others to theirs. Let me explain.
If someone doesn't value logic then what use is employing logic to persuade them? If they don't value evidence then what evidence could possibly be meaningful to them? If they cannot or are not willing to offer a tenable defense of their position or entertain yours then what position could you expect to take which would sway them?
This was one of the first lecture topics I sat through when getting my graduate education in physiology. I had heard various permutations of this quote many times, but my professor felt strongly about it and made us listen for 90 minutes as he laid out the way things are for us. He told us that while we might value logic, evidence, and common sense this sentiment is hardly universal. As a scientist with a background in both lab sciences and field work, it is easy and tempting for me to assume that observation and evidence are the norm and that people typically form beliefs based on reason. But that simply isn't always the case.
Especially in the realm of health and human performance there is still a strong element of faith for some. You can't out-logic faith or provide evidence from the field/lab strong enough to counteract devotion to dogma when someone has already decided what they'll believe no matter what. Data won't matter. Results won't matter. Your experience won't matter. Unless they support the faith. The point is there must be an openness before there can be a dialogue.
Understanding this and that it isn't your life's purpose to convince every single person, is freeing. You can't and don't have to save everyone - particularly if they don't want to be saved. I'll leave you with a quote from Mike Kidd, my early coach and mentor: "What someone else thinks doesn't hurt YOUR total."
