Humble Pie

The New York Times has an article detailing the tenuous connection between diet and cancer prevention. There have been many studies conducted that attempt to explre the link between, for example, diets rich in fat and breast cancer, or fiber and the risk of colon cancer. But the evidence is, at best, mixed:

And there lies a quandary for today's medicine. It is turning out to be much more difficult than anyone expected to discover if diet affects cancer risk. Hypotheses abound, but convincing evidence remains elusive.

Not only that, it looks like there's a strong behovioral component, as people assuage their fears by taking some degree of control - even if it's illusionary:

Meanwhile, patients and those worried about cancer are adopting their own idiosyncratic dietary paths. Many know that the evidence is not solid, but they would rather take a chance that their diets will make a difference than wait helplessly for their fates to play out.

Even some of the researchers are changing their diet while knowing that the truth remains ambigous. Gallons of green tea or a head of broccoli a day may amount to little more than a genuflection at the alter of preventative medicine but this doesn't stop them from making the leap of faith.

All of which draws a bright line around the uncertainty of fundamental science. We understand many things about how nutrition impacts the human organism, but the systems are so complex that even the best researchers can't draw unimpeachable conclusions. Yet when it comes to bigger and even more complex scientific matters, such as the structure and purpose of the universe, I regularly hear my friends among the secular athiests explain that they know the truth.