I would like to know about a technique for showing rigorously and quantitatively the way in which certain kinds of scientific research (in psychology) never get done because of cultural reasons, for example, beliefs about something, attitudes, stigmas, etc.

For example, is it possible that nobody takes alcohol seriously as a medication, because it’s so widely known as a recreational drug, and is already associated with socially undesirable things like addiction, lewd behavior, etc.?

One thing that really interests me is the belief that it’s firmly scientifically shown that in general drinking alcohol is not good for you. I would like to pursue a rigorous scientific argument that there is a flaw in extrapolating that alcohol is categorically bad, just because a study shows that there is some specific effect deemed undesirable. For example, what if alcohol strengthens social bonds, and people who drink regularly have far more positive shared experiences with people, and closer friendships; which in turn can benefit health, happiness, and longevity? Thus, there is an inferential fallacy that science has shown that you should not drink alcohol: because certain angles by which to look at various indirect effects of doing so, are not studied.

  • $\begingroup$ Alcohol is a bad example; people are definitely interested in showing benefits of alcohol and have expended a lot of resources doing so. It definitely is not taken as alcohol is categorically bad. It's in the same category as things like caffeine and chocolate. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Commented Jan 9 at 14:42


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.