Studies Show… You’re Probably Just Conforming
The Science of Being Wrong Together
Ah, the peer-reviewed study. Academia’s glittering crown jewel—the supposed "gold standard" of knowledge. Nothing says I know what I'm talking about like waving a paper that’s been "peer-reviewed" in the faces of people who dare to disagree. But let’s take a sassy stroll through the history of this so-called "evidence-based" science and peel back the layers of its shiny façade, shall we?
Where Did It All Begin?
Our story starts in the halls of dusty universities somewhere in the 17th century, where supposedly smart (and let's be honest, mostly European and freemason) men decided they needed a new way to debate ideas. These dudes wanted a way to argue with each other formally, so they created journals and peer review.
Fast forward to the 20th century—around the time computers, microwaves, and apparently some very fragile egos were born—and the idea of "evidence-based science" emerged. In 1991, Gordon Guyatt coined the term "evidence-based medicine," and suddenly, we were all obsessed with backing up every opinion with "evidence" from a study that someone deemed important. Never mind that these studies often contradicted each other, or that their methods were sometimes laughably flimsy. Evidence was in, and opinion was out.
But here’s the kicker: who exactly gets to decide what’s "evidence" and what’s not? Spoiler alert: it’s not you, me, or your common sense. It’s those very peers—other scientists who are supposed to critically evaluate the work. But we’ll get to why that doesn’t work out so well in a minute.
The Asch Conformity Experiment: Are We Just Playing Along?
Remember Solomon Asch? No, not your quirky neighbor or that one professor who thinks everyone should read Kant. Asch was a psychologist famous for his conformity experiment back in the 1950s, where he asked people to match the length of lines. Simple enough, right? Except, Asch sneakily planted people in the experiment to give wrong answers on purpose, and the results were wild. Many participants, despite their eyes telling them otherwise, went along with the group’s wrong answers because no one likes to be the odd one out.
Now take that scene and swap the lines for peer-reviewed studies, the group for the academic and medical community, and the participants for—well, basically, all of us. We’re living in an ongoing Asch experiment where people agree with "the science" because they don’t want to stick out as the weird one.
You’ve got entire careers, reputations, and billions of dollars riding on this system, and heaven forbid you dare question the almighty peer-reviewed study! Because that’s social and professional suicide, honey.
Ever been in a room where everyone’s nodding along with some published research, but deep down, you know it feels off? You could say something, but the fear of looking like a quack is real.
And when it comes to academia and science, sticking your neck out is risky. Why? Because everyone’s trying to belong. Just like in Asch’s experiment, the fear of rejection by the group is often stronger than your common sense. You are either team vaccine or team ivermectin. Stop thinking. Don’t ask questions. Trust the people with white coats and degrees because they know the stuff and things.
Insert big fluffy words and scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles here…
"The Evidence-Based Gold Standard" – A House of Cards?
We’ve been trained to see peer-reviewed studies as the holy grail of knowledge. Like the literal bible of "truth," except written by researchers with their own biases, funders with their own agendas, and an editorial board that determines what’s worthy of publication (and what’s not). And the cherry on top? Peer reviewers can be… well, let’s say less than perfect. Peer review often isn’t the gold-standard filter it’s cracked up to be. Studies have been rejected and accepted based on everything from a reviewer’s personal beliefs to their petty grudges.
So, what we’re left with is a fragile house of cards. Most of us put our faith in studies because "the science is settled," only to have those same studies overturned years later. Cholesterol is bad! Wait, no, it’s fine. Eggs will kill you! Actually, they’re nature’s superfood. Remember that time half the world was obsessed with the food pyramid? Yeah, me too.
Herd Mentality Masquerading as Scientific Rigor
It’s not that evidence-based science isn’t useful; it’s that we’ve confused groupthink for intellectual rigor. When scientists—or any group, really—play it safe by aligning with the status quo, you lose that messy, rebellious spark that leads to true innovation. Instead, we get research that’s agreed upon because it has to be—because it’s too risky to do otherwise. It’s all just a very polite, scholarly version of going along with the crowd.
The result? People start treating these studies like immutable fact. "Oh, it’s peer-reviewed? Must be true." Never mind that study after study is getting retracted. Never mind that you can find evidence to support pretty much any claim you want if you cherry-pick enough. Never mind that some studies exist in direct conflict with each other, and we’re just pretending like that’s totally fine.
When "Evidence-Based" Becomes "Everyone-Agrees-Based"
Peer-reviewed science was supposed to be the shining beacon of human knowledge, but when groupthink seeps into its core, it becomes less about uncovering truth and more about protecting reputations, fitting in, and not making waves. It’s like the academic version of high school—everyone wants to sit at the cool kids' table, and no one’s questioning why all the food is tasting a little funny (viruses have never been isolated or shown to cause illness because they have never been isolated or shown to exist).
So the next time someone starts waving around a peer-reviewed study as if it’s the gold standard of truth, remind them: it’s all just opinions people have agreed on. And just like in the Asch experiment, the second someone’s brave enough to say, "Wait, that doesn’t look right," the whole house of cards could come crashing down.
The question is—are you brave enough to be that someone?
Great article!
I was always the "odd (wo)man out." LOL! And I knew People who proved things that did not get "peer review" because it would upset the profit applecart...
So... I look for real evidence, not what Some say is true. Good piece!