How can one tell the difference between fairytale/snake oil science and good human science? This question is as relevant today as when Nikolaas (Niko) Tinbergen first proposed the need for critical questions determining the plausibility of biologic behavior. We are living in a world rampant with pseudoscientific explanations and interventions regarding the human organism that is be spread at an unprecedented level by way of the internet. Unfortunately, much of this pseudoscience also makes its way through peer-reviewed processes to be published in both low and highly referred journals. It doesn’t matter whether we blame it on the many cognitive biases that are associated with these explanations or the pressure on these authors that one should publish positive or perish, there doesn’t seem to be any consistent system is in place to stop this from happening. Therefore, the ability to read and determine the value of an article falls upon the reader.
Fundamentally, for something to be scientifically plausible there needs to be a basic scientific understanding of how we define said biologic behaviors. For human sciences, the most empirically sound evidence is based in evolutionary science. For a biologic behavior to have any form of plausibility, it cannot conflict with the empirical evidence of evolutionary science.
To identify a conflict with evolutionary science, Niko proposed 4 basic questions regarding the evolutionary plausibility of a biologic behavior. These questions are simple and should be kept handy whenever we read a study. When you identify the proposed biologic behavior for a theory, intervention, etc. that is presented in the article, you simply need to ask the following questions about the plausibility regarding the biologic behavior:
The inability of a proposed biologic behavior to provide answers for all four of these basic evolutionary questions means the underlying theories are not scientifically valid and have not passed basic scientific standards that qualify them for use of any kind. Let’s see how well you can do with the following proposed biologic behaviors:
Provide your thoughts on the above proposed biologic behaviors using Niko’s 4 questions in the comments below or via any of the shared social media posts:
President, Founder
Rehabilitation has undergone a major transformation in the last few decades, and it can be challenging to see the bigger picture and provide evidence-based care. Often, research doesn’t match the specific needs of the patient, leading to pressure to rely on popular techniques in one’s profession instead. Despite the fact…
SPINAL DEGENERATION SOUNDS SCARY BUT IT’S JUST A TECHNICAL WORD FOR NORMAL AGING! The spine begins to undergo completely normal, age-related changes at around age 13, and by our 40’s, our spine has already gone through a LOT of changes that we may not even be aware of. Normal age-related…
In Part I of this series, I discussed the limitations that exist with our current beliefs and theories we hold when it comes to dealing with pain. For most of us, this involves having theories rooted in a mechanistic worldview believing that our bodies are like a machine and can be fixed…
The Institute of Contextual Health (IOCH) is a 501(c)(3) science and technology research and development organization. IOCH envisions a world where personalized, scientific care transcends traditional healthcare boundaries, driven by innovation, equity, and compassion. We aim to transform health and well-being, setting new benchmarks in personalized care and ensuring accessible, world-class services for all.
Unlock your path to better health by becoming a client at IOCH, where personalized care meets your unique health needs.
Stay updated with all the latest news, events, and updates about IOCH by signing up for our newsletter!
