Science is not a synonym for fact

Ibuprofen reduces inflammation, fevers, and pain.

Anti-depressants relieve symptoms of depression.

Lithium stabilizes manic symptoms back to baseline.

Statements like these are easy to make. Often, they are made, without a forethought about the implications. Most of the time, statements like these are true.

But the sucky thing about humanity is that we can't say, with absolute certainty, that these things are always true. They're not fact. Enough research and evidence has pretty well convinced us that we can make statements like these with at least a little bit of confidence, but humans are so vast, and so imperfect, that sometimes ibuprofen doesn't do what we've been told it does. Sometimes anti-depressants don't relieve as many of the symptoms of depression as we want, or think it should. Lithium works as well as the dosage and the person's physiology match up.

Moral of the story: science is only as strong as the research that supports it. 

When it comes to the way humans tick, there are always uncontrollable pieces of the puzzle that blur the lines of the picture we hope to paint. The best way we know how to clean up those edges is to do research, and do a lot of it. 

Science's favorite kind of research is an experiment, where everything is controlled and monitored and categorized and accounted for. When we can do a true experiment, we can pinpoint exactly what causes something to happen. It's one of the coolest things to encounter, when it works right.

But see, the thing is, we can't write that in stone. Doing one experiment, finding with pretty clear certainty that X causes Y, is cool. But can it happen again? Can we make X cause Y again? And how unique is that? Can X cause Y only with a certain group of people? Or can we do it with everybody? Will we always find that X causes Y, or will W cause Y in some situations? Maybe W causes X which results in Y, but we just don't know it yet.

Complicated, right? Welcome to research.

It's never-ending, and there are a million and one questions we can ask to expound on the original idea. It's part of what makes science so fun; we can ask questions, find out the answers, and out of that, we ask more questions. Finding evidence of how something works is so cool to me.

However, it also makes me feel a little weird when I see people reposting stuff on Facebook about "New study suggests that coffee is bad for you!" or "Study published by the Official Society of Scientific Goings-on says kale is linked with cancer!" or "Ice-cream may make you smarter if you eat it for breakfast, according to a new study by the Sciencey People Who Like Ice-Cream."

It's only one study. One study can find all kinds of fun, interesting things. But unless multiple studies find the same thing, we can't possibly know whether coffee is good or bad, whether kale is responsible for cancer, or whether ice cream is a mental pick-me-up or just really yummy and it feels rebellious to eat it for breakfast.

Moral #2: Lots of research do stronger conclusions make.
Caveat to Moral #2: Conclusions always come with qualifiers. Because humans.

A really common, research-laden statement in Psychologyland is that Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is good for treating depression and anxiety. There are all kinds of studies that show that after people with symptoms of anxiety and depression go through Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, they have fewer symptoms of anxiety and depression.

However, it is not a fact that CBT fixes anxiety or depression. We have several reasons to believe that it helps, and it's likely that it will help, but we can't guarantee it. Because humans. Sometimes people don't respond well to it. Sometimes a very "unusual" approach is what helps the most.

But when someone comes to our therapy room with symptoms of anxiety or depression, research tells us that we should do CBT. Because lots of studies have all said that it works.

So the next time you see an article on Facespace about a new study that dotes on the health benefits of activated charcoal, check to see if that study is part of a bunch of studies, or if someone is getting too excited too quickly.


----
Disclaimer: I am a graduate student of psychology, and therefore am not a licensed psychologist yet. I am here to offer helpful tidbits about this field I am dedicating my life to, but I should not replace formal education or therapy. If you disagree with something I say, please tell me. Science is a good way to show me I am sharing something inaccurate.
If you need help, please consider speaking to someone. There are many great resources out there, and they genuinely want to help.